Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Jetstarter to get the chop

Reply
Thread Tools

Jetstarter to get the chop

 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2004
Seeby Woodhouse - Orcon Internet wrote:

> Hi everybody - there is no need to panic about the withdrawl of
> JetStart as DSL wholesale is nearly here.
>
> Orcon has a special deal for customers that move to us before the
> launch of our new UBS (Unbundled Bitstream Service) Product
>
> After Orcon was the first to sign a wholesale agreement with Telecom a
> few months ago, details of our first wholesale DSL plan have now been
> released.
>
> The Orcon FastADSL Residential Flatrate deal is:
> * 256K download, 128K upload
> * No data caps or limits (ie, it's flatrate, and it won't slow down
> after 10GB)
> * Static IP address
> * No Telecom JetStream fees, service provided solely by Orcon
> * No setup fees
> * $49.95 per month (for existing Orcon JetStream/JetStart customers
> only)
>
> It will be avaliable sometime in September, a firm date will come
> soon.
> No more Telecom fees (apart from your phoneline), so all you pay is
> $49.95 all up including GST.


Can you please push to be able to wholesale without the phoneline, its a totally
unnessacary service to actually provide the DSL service.

Also, will I be inflicted with a trans proxy? One of the things I have enjoyed
with moving to surf is that I no longer get stale webpages that I did on xtras
jetstart. This makes web delevoplent a pain in the ass, especially if the server
ignores expires directives like the xtra one does.

I dont want to step backwards in that area.

Whats your attitude to P2P usage?

> To get your DSL at this price you need to be an Orcon
> Jetstream/Jetstart customer BEFORE the plan is released (sometime in
> September). If you sign up now you'll also go into the draw to win one
> of 5 Silver Playstation 2 prize packs.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
The Other Guy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2004
Gavin Stephens wrote:
> I've found that if you're uploading at full throttle ie: sending an email,
> while trying to download a file, it can serverly effect download speeds to
> the same if not less than the upstream rate. I guess this is due to latency
> and round trip time for error correction for the download file? Anyone share
> some light on this?


All incoming TCP packets need to be acknowledged. The outgoing e-mail is
using most of the outgoing bandwidth, so the ACK packets are not making
it out as quickly as they otherwise would have. I am presently
implementing a change to my network prioritize ACK packets using pf and
ALTQ (pf is available for OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD).

If too may packets arrive, they are usually dropped, or queued. The new
queuing introduced by Telecom a few months ago seriously impacted the
performance of the 128k ADSL offering. Previously concurrent downloads
worked nicely, now downoading a file will make Web surfing and gaming
almost impossible.

The Other Guy
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2004
Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> * 256K download, 128K upload
>>> No more Telecom fees (apart from your phoneline), so all you pay is
>>> $49.95 all up including GST.

>
>>> http://www.orcon.net.nz/products/jet...ers/bitstream/

>
>> Thanks Seeby, I'll study the budget over the next few days. That
>> looks good.

>
> study the budget? it's less than 128k jetstart, so should be a no
> brainer... unless your on dialup currently.


Bingo! And an extra $30 a month is quite a bit to us.

> interesting actually, I notice that Telecom said that the 128k plan
> was pointless as faster options are/will be there... so why havent
> they dropped dialup yet?


LOL, good point.
--
~misfit~


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.727 / Virus Database: 482 - Release Date: 26/07/2004


 
Reply With Quote
 
Harry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2004
Gavin Stephens wrote:

> I find it funny they will drop 128, yet stick with 128 upstream on thier
> 256 plans. They still call this broadband? According to the ITU 384kbps is
> the minimum before you can steal the idea of calling it broadband. Anyway
> reason for this post.....
>
> I've found that if you're uploading at full throttle ie: sending an
> email,
> while trying to download a file, it can serverly effect download speeds to
> the same if not less than the upstream rate. I guess this is due to
> latency and round trip time for error correction for the download file?
> Anyone share some light on this?


Not error correction per se but every packet has to be acknowledged.
But several packets can be acknowledged by a single ack/nak, but it still
involves traffic in both directions. So heavy upload will affect download.

And, with most hosts implementing some form of the nagle algorithm, if an
acknowlege is slow arriving then the host will slow down the rate at
which it sends packets.

>
> If it's 256 down, it should be regardless of upload speed, to me that's a
> miss-informed approach to theri services, but a great bull*&t advertising
> strategy. They should say UP TO 256kbps. Surely Telecom are not praticing
> simplex data networking? They should have the same capacity both ways at
> their end, so why lower upload speeds?


Telcom is in the business of making a profit. So there is no question
that they *should* do this or that. If you don't like it then take your
custom elsewhere.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Harry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2004
The Other Guy wrote:

> Gavin Stephens wrote:
>> I've found that if you're uploading at full throttle ie: sending an
>> email,
>> while trying to download a file, it can serverly effect download speeds
>> to the same if not less than the upstream rate. I guess this is due to
>> latency and round trip time for error correction for the download file?
>> Anyone share some light on this?

>
> All incoming TCP packets need to be acknowledged. The outgoing e-mail is
> using most of the outgoing bandwidth, so the ACK packets are not making
> it out as quickly as they otherwise would have. I am presently
> implementing a change to my network prioritize ACK packets using pf and
> ALTQ (pf is available for OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD).


While that might get the ACKs out earlier (but only if you have a lot
of other outgoing packets) it might also create other problems. The server
which is sending you packets might assume, because of quick return of ACK
packets, that you have a higher effective bandwidth than you really have.
So it will flood you with packets at a higher rate and eventually something
else will break.

>
> If too may packets arrive, they are usually dropped, or queued. The new
> queuing introduced by Telecom a few months ago seriously impacted the
> performance of the 128k ADSL offering. Previously concurrent downloads
> worked nicely, now downoading a file will make Web surfing and gaming
> almost impossible.


Well you cannot stay on 128k so you might as well move to 256k where
everything works reasonably ok - except it isn't broadband yet.

I wonder when NZ is going to get affordable broadband?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Harry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2004
Gavin Stephens wrote:

> Certainly does. However, with good competition it will drive prices of
> others down.


Just like with electricity pricing I suppose?

> Doesn't everybody in the country go through the Southern Cross anyway?
> Something Telecom are a large stake holder in. I would be interested to
> know what the national or international bandwidth to user ratio is
> regardless of connection speed out of Orcon as apposed to Telecom.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Gavin Stephens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2004
>
> Just like with electricity pricing I suppose?
>


hah, yeah I saw on the TV the other night one guy supplying tiny power back
to the grid from his solar home on Holmes, so much for them needing to get
their hands on electricty in a hurry. Poor guy switched that many meters
before they power company were happy with him selling powe back to them.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gavin Stephens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2004
> Telcom is in the business of making a profit. So there is no question
> that they *should* do this or that. If you don't like it then take your
> custom elsewhere.
>


That statement would be very close to an oxymoron. The part I don't
like in the advertised 256kbps deal, is the fact they forget to mention,
you need 256kbps now just to be garanteed 128kbps download.

I noticed today reading in a few papers that Telecom charge a
'churn fee'. That other ISP's have to cover the cost of Telecom
disconnecting ADSL services from Telecom customers jumping ship,
OMG! Let's just charge the toilet roll company more on their phone
line to cover our personal hygene needs at the Xtra call centre.

Gavin.




 
Reply With Quote
 
The Other Guy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2004
Harry wrote:
> While that might get the ACKs out earlier (but only if you have a lot
> of other outgoing packets) it might also create other problems. The server
> which is sending you packets might assume, because of quick return of ACK
> packets, that you have a higher effective bandwidth than you really have.
> So it will flood you with packets at a higher rate and eventually something
> else will break.


Many routers manage congestion by dropping packets that cannot be
handled, so a remote host should not make the assumption that the rate
is faster based on the rate of ACKs it gets, but the number of sent
packets acknowledged, and alter the throughput accordingly. IP is
designed to work on a variety of networks, from high speed, low latency,
to low speed, high latency. The rate at which packets are acknowledged
does not relate directly to the bandwidth of the network.

Prioritizing ACK packets is actually only a small part of the
queuing/prioritizing I plan to implement. Other congestion control
methods will also be used, specifically I plan to use Explicit
Congestion Notification to inform hosts supporting that extension when
the network is congested.

The important thing from my point of view is I can reduce the impact of
upstream queuing (Telecom), and share my bandwidth fairly between
connections.

The Other Guy
 
Reply With Quote
 
Harry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2004
The Other Guy wrote:

> Harry wrote:
>> While that might get the ACKs out earlier (but only if you have a lot
>> of other outgoing packets) it might also create other problems. The
>> server which is sending you packets might assume, because of quick return
>> of ACK packets, that you have a higher effective bandwidth than you
>> really have. So it will flood you with packets at a higher rate and
>> eventually something else will break.

>
> Many routers manage congestion by dropping packets that cannot be
> handled, so a remote host should not make the assumption that the rate
> is faster based on the rate of ACKs it gets, but the number of sent
> packets acknowledged, and alter the throughput accordingly. IP is
> designed to work on a variety of networks, from high speed, low latency,
> to low speed, high latency. The rate at which packets are acknowledged
> does not relate directly to the bandwidth of the network.
>
> Prioritizing ACK packets is actually only a small part of the
> queuing/prioritizing I plan to implement. Other congestion control
> methods will also be used, specifically I plan to use Explicit
> Congestion Notification to inform hosts supporting that extension when
> the network is congested.
>
> The important thing from my point of view is I can reduce the impact of
> upstream queuing (Telecom), and share my bandwidth fairly between
> connections.


You might find it more trouble than it is worth.
But it depends on how many connections you have and how much you
are trying to squeeze out of them. Just add an extra gateway and direct
specific machines via different gateways. Usually easier than attempting
to predict what sort of traffic some machine might need at some time etc.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
chop and chop! Johnathan Smith Ruby 2 01-08-2008 04:54 PM
"chomp,chop" usage i.e. chop immediately after chomp martin Perl Misc 3 04-15-2006 08:09 PM
print chop; VS chop; print; yusufm Perl Misc 2 03-09-2006 12:29 AM
Jetstarter now paid 4 in advance ? Chris NZ Computing 5 01-15-2004 10:44 PM
Best way to share Jetstarter? back again NZ Computing 18 08-09-2003 02:16 AM



Advertisments