Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Good news on the way for broadband users.

Reply
Thread Tools

Good news on the way for broadband users.

 
 
Brendon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2005
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10349994

Cheaper - lets hope!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce Knox
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2005
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:55:51 GMT, "Brendon" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10349994
>
>Cheaper - lets hope!
>

A bit more info here.
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...257098002A1628
Cant wait to see what gets offered. I am hoping for high speed but
still low limit to give a good experiance at a low price.
Bruce http://www.baggins.co.nz
http://physio.otago.ac.nz
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2005
Bruce Knox wrote:
>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10349994
>>
>>Cheaper - lets hope!
>>

>
> A bit more info here.
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...257098002A1628
> Cant wait to see what gets offered. I am hoping for high speed but
> still low limit to give a good experiance at a low price.


How fast down can you go, when you still only have 128 up?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2005
Bruce Knox wrote:

> A bit more info here.
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/...257098002A1628
> Cant wait to see what gets offered. I am hoping for high speed but
> still low limit to give a good experiance at a low price.
> Bruce http://www.baggins.co.nz
> http://physio.otago.ac.nz



Im hoping for a decent speed and no cap for around $90 per month.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pacific Dragon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2005
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:16:41 +1300, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
> How fast down can you go, when you still only have 128 up?


In my experience, it's about 4Mbit Maximum. At that point, the upstream
just gets saturated with ACK (Acknowledge) packets.

When I last downloaded from the Jetstream Games server, I was downloading
at a rate of 4.1Mbit, and was uploading at the rate of about 16-17kBytes
per second (128kbit/s).

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2005
Pacific Dragon wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:16:41 +1300, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
>>How fast down can you go, when you still only have 128 up?

>
>
> In my experience, it's about 4Mbit Maximum. At that point, the upstream
> just gets saturated with ACK (Acknowledge) packets.
>
> When I last downloaded from the Jetstream Games server, I was downloading
> at a rate of 4.1Mbit, and was uploading at the rate of about 16-17kBytes
> per second (128kbit/s).


Acks should get a lot of compression in PPP however, but in reality, WHO THE
**** LET THEM GET AWAY WITH 128K!!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pacific Dragon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2005
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:55:51 GMT, Brendon wrote:

> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10349994
>
> Cheaper - lets hope!


I'll believe it when we get it. Two things concern me...

No mention is made of the upstream speed, 128kbit is IMHO pathetic for
anything over 1Mbit. I'm not sure what Telecom are trying to stop by
imposing a 128kbit upload. Currently takes too blimin long to send family
photos to rellies.
Additionally if more than two people are using the connection
simultaneously, forget about trying to do anything latency sensitive such
as streaming as the ACK packets can't get out.

Further more, The caps have to increase, most of our usage consists of just
generalized surfing and it's easy to chew around 50MB per person every
evening by surfing alone. Particulary searching for information and
researching. Forget about streaming for more than a few minutes as your
usage is chewed up in no time. The problem is further compounded by the
fact Telecom have just killed the Jetstream Games realm and can't get large
files like linux ISO's anymore.

Program updates have just really bloated out in the recent years.
Realistically, we should have at least 30-40GB caps for the heavy users,
while the 10-20GB caps as the benchmark for medium users such as with my
situation.
I'm really tired of playing bandwidth Nazi in the household.

Sorry I can see this game of trying to hang on to the tails of the OCED
broadband rankings going on for years while we beg comcom to keep nudging
Telecom. I reckon more needs to be done I'm afraid.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Reuben Farrelly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2005
On 13/10/2005 8:08 p.m., Pacific Dragon wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:55:51 GMT, Brendon wrote:
>
>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10349994
>>
>> Cheaper - lets hope!

>
> I'll believe it when we get it. Two things concern me...
>
> No mention is made of the upstream speed, 128kbit is IMHO pathetic for
> anything over 1Mbit. I'm not sure what Telecom are trying to stop by
> imposing a 128kbit upload. Currently takes too blimin long to send family
> photos to rellies.


Slowing down the uplink speed also trashes P2P stuff, which is globally
considered to be >50% of all internet traffic. By severely crippling P2P
traffic, Telecom are essentially reducing the traffic load on their entire
network. As you found, it has detrimental effects on ordinary email traffic too.

It also makes it less practical to run a server or in fact any service where
uploading is critical, such as a high volume web or mail server. Telecom
clearly would rather you bought a Frame Relay or PON connection at much
greater cost, for that..........

> Additionally if more than two people are using the connection
> simultaneously, forget about trying to do anything latency sensitive such
> as streaming as the ACK packets can't get out.


Traffic queueing can fix that problem - something like 'weighted fair'
queueing will give priority to outbound small streams of traffic and hold back
bigger more bulky traffic, thus more or less solving your problem (although if
you have to employ traffic prioritisation you probably need more bandwidth
anyway). But you'll probably need a router for that, and I would not expect a
basic $50 noname one to do anything remotely clever

I would dearly love to see the uplink speed also unrestricted, or at least
raised, even if I had to pay extra for it.

Reuben
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2005
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:08:16 +1300, Pacific Dragon wrote:

> Further more, The caps have to increase,


YES!! I will take 256 and a 40GB cap any day, over 2MB/s and 10GB cap.

> [snip] and can't get large
> files like linux ISO's anymore.


Bittorrent blows the cap faster than a prositute in action.

The idea of going faster with the same cap is just maketing masterbation.
Trouble is it make too many people feel that they are getting something.

> Sorry I can see this game of trying to hang on to the tails of the OCED
> broadband rankings going on for years while we beg comcom to keep nudging
> Telecom. I reckon more needs to be done I'm afraid.


Or until Telecom feels the competition in its wallet.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mercury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2005
thats a joke. tried getting one installed recently?

"Reuben Farrelly" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 13/10/2005 8:08 p.m., Pacific Dragon wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:55:51 GMT, Brendon wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10349994
>>>
>>> Cheaper - lets hope!

>>
>> I'll believe it when we get it. Two things concern me...
>>
>> No mention is made of the upstream speed, 128kbit is IMHO pathetic for
>> anything over 1Mbit. I'm not sure what Telecom are trying to stop by
>> imposing a 128kbit upload. Currently takes too blimin long to send
>> family
>> photos to rellies.

>
> Slowing down the uplink speed also trashes P2P stuff, which is globally
> considered to be >50% of all internet traffic. By severely crippling P2P
> traffic, Telecom are essentially reducing the traffic load on their entire
> network. As you found, it has detrimental effects on ordinary email
> traffic too.
>
> It also makes it less practical to run a server or in fact any service
> where uploading is critical, such as a high volume web or mail server.
> Telecom clearly would rather you bought a Frame Relay or PON connection at
> much greater cost, for that..........
>
>> Additionally if more than two people are using the connection
>> simultaneously, forget about trying to do anything latency sensitive such
>> as streaming as the ACK packets can't get out.

>
> Traffic queueing can fix that problem - something like 'weighted fair'
> queueing will give priority to outbound small streams of traffic and hold
> back bigger more bulky traffic, thus more or less solving your problem
> (although if you have to employ traffic prioritisation you probably need
> more bandwidth anyway). But you'll probably need a router for that, and I
> would not expect a basic $50 noname one to do anything remotely clever
>
> I would dearly love to see the uplink speed also unrestricted, or at least
> raised, even if I had to pay extra for it.
>
> Reuben



 
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
OT: Job interview, Good news, Bad news LnkWizard MCSE 110 09-22-2004 03:33 PM
Beakman DVD good news, bad news Richard G Amirault DVD Video 0 09-10-2004 11:23 PM
The good news, bad news from MGM/UA Matthew L. Martin DVD Video 6 09-08-2004 06:30 AM
Good news, bad news! Kenny Computer Support 1 07-02-2004 09:35 PM



Advertisments