Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Are Orcon liars? Possible Commerce Commission complaint?

Reply
Thread Tools

Are Orcon liars? Possible Commerce Commission complaint?

 
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2005

Ok, I've had about enough of this so-called 2Mbps Orcon Bitstream
connection.

The concept seems good - $10 for 10GB, so the more you download, the
more you pay. I was happy with that on the understanding that I would
get 2Mbps or close to it at least some of the time.

Not so.

I have not once got anywhere near 2Mbps. In fact, it is highly unusual
to even see 1Mbps. The lag is also terrible.

We use our connection for P2P, general downloading, as well as
internet and email (of course). It seems to be the way with all of
these. Even if we ensure nothing else is accessing the internet,
browsing is basically the same, or worse, than a 256kbps connection.

Another interesting fact is the connection performance tests. The most
common one in New Zealand is NZDSL (http://nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest),
which always shows a speed of between 1.5Mbps and 1.9Mbps. We never
actually get this speed, and all other speed tests we use, including
places like www.bandwidthplace.com as well as our own tests, show a
speed of around 400-500kbps at best.

So, (1) Are Orcon misleading people over the performance that can be
expected from "2Mbps Bitstream", and (2) Are they deliberately
manipulating (or not deliberately - ie a transparent proxy) the
results from the speed test most NZers use, to make it look like they
are delivering the promised performance?

I appreciate that they have a "no guarantees" clause in their
contract, but I do not believe that this would hold up if it was found
that they consistently do not meet the performance they imply. We had
been holding out as they promised things would get better with the
addition of another ATM last week, but things appear to have steadily
got worse.

If this does not improve soon, we will be drafting a very public
complaint to the Commerce Commission, as we believe that they are not
delivering on their promises, and that this constitutes false
advertising. Would anyone else here be interested in co-signing a
formal complaint?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
The Other Guy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2005
Fred Dagg wrote:
> If this does not improve soon, we will be drafting a very public
> complaint to the Commerce Commission, as we believe that they are not
> delivering on their promises, and that this constitutes false
> advertising. Would anyone else here be interested in co-signing a
> formal complaint?


I'm sure we could get hundreds of people to co-sign a complaint stating
that all ISPs are misleading us by claiming to provide _Internet_
services, when all they are really doing is supplying us with HTTP and
e-mail.

The ADSL speed test page may be given priority, but Orcon won't be
deliberately doing more than that. The script to display the results
runs locally on your box as proven by hitting 'Refresh' (The page is
cached, and will give a very high false value).

I suspect the problem is more likely to be due to a lack of
international capacity. The server used by www.bandwidthplace.com for
the speed test is not in NZ.

The Other Guy
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James T
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2005

"Fred Dagg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Ok, I've had about enough of this so-called 2Mbps Orcon Bitstream
> connection.
>
> The concept seems good - $10 for 10GB, so the more you download, the
> more you pay. I was happy with that on the understanding that I would
> get 2Mbps or close to it at least some of the time.
>
> Not so.
>
> I have not once got anywhere near 2Mbps. In fact, it is highly unusual
> to even see 1Mbps. The lag is also terrible.
>
> We use our connection for P2P, general downloading, as well as
> internet and email (of course). It seems to be the way with all of
> these. Even if we ensure nothing else is accessing the internet,
> browsing is basically the same, or worse, than a 256kbps connection.
>
> Another interesting fact is the connection performance tests. The most
> common one in New Zealand is NZDSL (http://nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest),
> which always shows a speed of between 1.5Mbps and 1.9Mbps. We never
> actually get this speed, and all other speed tests we use, including
> places like www.bandwidthplace.com as well as our own tests, show a
> speed of around 400-500kbps at best.


I am a new cable user with TelstraClear, and cable high speed internet is
also rated at 2Mbps (downstream and upstream). As I understand it, 8
megabits = 1 megabyte. Therefore, the Telstra high speed internet rate of 2
megabits per second (mbps) downstream is equivalent to 0.25 megabytes per
second (2 / .

Therefore, you would expect 1 megabyte of data to download in 4 seconds.
Correct me if I am wrong with this.

I visited the New Zealand ndsl speed test site referred to above and a file
of 1000 kilobytes downloaded in 3.797 seconds, with an estimated line speed
of 2149.1 kilobits / second.

Immediately after this, I visited the above Bandwidth Place site, and I was
told that a 1Mb file (1024 kb) downloaded in 13.9 seconds, with a
communications rate of 602.3 kilobits per second.

So I am not sure why there should be such a big difference between the
results of these two tests, except that the faster result was from a NZ
based web site.

So my initial impression is that I would prefer to download a decent chunk
of data and see how long this actually takes to download. For example, with
a Microsoft Windows update, I downloaded 25MB at a rate of 1 megabyte of
data every 7 seconds.

I also did a download of an Apple iTunes program (33 megabytes) and this
came in at a rate of just under 5 seconds per megabyte.

So if I was going to the Commerce Commission, I would download lots of large
files from different sources on several separate days, and see what you are
actually getting in download speed. If I consistently get 1 megabyte of data
downloading in less than 7 seconds, I would be fairly happy with this.

James


 
Reply With Quote
 
brazen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2005

"Fred Dagg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Another interesting fact is the connection performance tests. The most
> common one in New Zealand is NZDSL (http://nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest),
> which always shows a speed of between 1.5Mbps and 1.9Mbps. We never
> actually get this speed, and all other speed tests we use, including
> places like www.bandwidthplace.com as well as our own tests, show a
> speed of around 400-500kbps at best.


Here's another:

http://www.ihug.co.nz/help/

Gay


 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2005
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 09:21:48 +1300, "brazen"
<(E-Mail Removed)> exclaimed:

>
>"Fred Dagg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>>
>> Another interesting fact is the connection performance tests. The most
>> common one in New Zealand is NZDSL (http://nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest),
>> which always shows a speed of between 1.5Mbps and 1.9Mbps. We never
>> actually get this speed, and all other speed tests we use, including
>> places like www.bandwidthplace.com as well as our own tests, show a
>> speed of around 400-500kbps at best.

>
>Here's another:
>
>http://www.ihug.co.nz/help/
>
>Gay
>

Hi, Gay. Thanks for that.

It's good to have another NZ-based one to go by. It comes up at
1.2Mbps, which is comparable to a couple of other "home made" NZ-based
tests at the moment (this fluctuates at different times of the day,
but I haven't seen it better than about 1.2Mbps).

Interestingly, at exactly the same time, the NZDSL test shows
1.665Mbps, which is obviously incorrect (it is substantially different
from everything else).

Here's a few tests I've just re-done. The results are very consistent
with the more thorough tests I performed last night:

Overseas:

www.bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/ 445kbps
http://reviews.cnet.com/7004-7254_7-0.html 543kbps
www.dslreports.com/stest (Seattle) 559kbps
http://www.dungogtlc.org/speedtest_2.shtml (Aus) 632kbps


NZ-based:

http://www.ihug.co.nz/help/ 1.2Mbps
http://www.jetstreamgames.co.nz/speed/ 1.627Mbps
http://nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest 1.667Mbps
http://kiwiwebhost.co.nz/speedtest.htm 525.6kbps
Real test 1 (file on www.webdrive.co.nz) 400kbps


Even the fastest access (which I believe is being artificailly
prioritised) is only 80% of the stated speed. I'd actually be quite
happy with that if that was the realtime speed we were actually
getting, or if it was consistent. Unfortunately neither appear to be
the case.

With an average (and consistent) overseas speed of 545kbps (27% of the
promised speed), and an average NZ speed (even going by the dubious
NZDSL and Telecom speedtests, which appear to be substantially
different from everything else) of 1Mbps, half the promised speed, I
believe this is grounds for false advertising.

We will be automating a bunch of tests to perform several times a day
for a week or two, and will be using this as a basis of our complaint.
 
Reply With Quote
 
brazen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2005

"Fred Dagg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 09:21:48 +1300, "brazen"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> exclaimed:
>
>>
>>"Fred Dagg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>>
>>> Another interesting fact is the connection performance tests. The most
>>> common one in New Zealand is NZDSL (http://nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest),
>>> which always shows a speed of between 1.5Mbps and 1.9Mbps. We never
>>> actually get this speed, and all other speed tests we use, including
>>> places like www.bandwidthplace.com as well as our own tests, show a
>>> speed of around 400-500kbps at best.

>>
>>Here's another:
>>
>>http://www.ihug.co.nz/help/
>>
>>Gay
>>

> Hi, Gay. Thanks for that.
>
> It's good to have another NZ-based one to go by. It comes up at
> 1.2Mbps, which is comparable to a couple of other "home made" NZ-based
> tests at the moment (this fluctuates at different times of the day,
> but I haven't seen it better than about 1.2Mbps).


I had a similar "debate" with my isp - I've got wireless. Their rates were
considerably slower than they were meant to be (about the same as yours),
and because I am in a rural area with no other options they can charge the
earth for it ($139+gst per month for 1GB!). So I was a little f*cked off
that not only was it expensive it was very slow.

They blamed it on not having enough bandwidth allowance upstream (ie with
Telecom). I know sweet fa about these things (and am quite happy with that)
but I suspect that is not the case with you?? or maybe it is.

Anyway my persistent arguing about them offering a service that they *could*
not deliver got them to reduce the bill until they solved the problem
worked. But it is a small local ISP that probably didnt want a narky client
like me stymying their business to my local clients.

I think with a large organisation like Orcon a class action type approach
might work but you'll need to have lots of people. Better still, try and
find out what the actual problem is. Is it because they cant provide the
speed or is it because they are choosing not to. Least then you have more
ammunition. Anyone know anyone in Orcon? Maybe when you have a bunch of
people and they are still ignoring you, go to Consumer.

>
> Interestingly, at exactly the same time, the NZDSL test shows
> 1.665Mbps, which is obviously incorrect (it is substantially different
> from everything else).
>
> Here's a few tests I've just re-done. The results are very consistent
> with the more thorough tests I performed last night:
>
> Overseas:
>
> www.bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/ 445kbps
> http://reviews.cnet.com/7004-7254_7-0.html 543kbps
> www.dslreports.com/stest (Seattle) 559kbps
> http://www.dungogtlc.org/speedtest_2.shtml (Aus) 632kbps
>
>
> NZ-based:
>
> http://www.ihug.co.nz/help/ 1.2Mbps
> http://www.jetstreamgames.co.nz/speed/ 1.627Mbps
> http://nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest 1.667Mbps
> http://kiwiwebhost.co.nz/speedtest.htm 525.6kbps
> Real test 1 (file on www.webdrive.co.nz) 400kbps
>
>
> Even the fastest access (which I believe is being artificailly
> prioritised) is only 80% of the stated speed. I'd actually be quite
> happy with that if that was the realtime speed we were actually
> getting, or if it was consistent. Unfortunately neither appear to be
> the case.
>
> With an average (and consistent) overseas speed of 545kbps (27% of the
> promised speed), and an average NZ speed (even going by the dubious
> NZDSL and Telecom speedtests, which appear to be substantially
> different from everything else) of 1Mbps, half the promised speed, I
> believe this is grounds for false advertising.
>
> We will be automating a bunch of tests to perform several times a day
> for a week or two, and will be using this as a basis of our complaint.


Another one I tried is Dan Elwells Broadband speed test. Cant remember where
I downloaded it from, but here's one link. Its goes through lots of
different types of tests, local and abroad and gives you a report (and a
more comprehensive report if you use the pay version, not the freeware,
apparently). If you are on a cap it uses a fair amount of it.

http://www.snapfiles.com/get/bbspeedtest.html

Gay


 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2005
James T wrote:
> "Fred Dagg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> Ok, I've had about enough of this so-called 2Mbps Orcon Bitstream
>> connection.
>>
>> The concept seems good - $10 for 10GB, so the more you download,
>> the more you pay. I was happy with that on the understanding that I
>> would get 2Mbps or close to it at least some of the time.
>>
>> Not so.
>>
>> I have not once got anywhere near 2Mbps. In fact, it is highly
>> unusual to even see 1Mbps. The lag is also terrible.
>>
>> We use our connection for P2P, general downloading, as well as
>> internet and email (of course). It seems to be the way with all of
>> these. Even if we ensure nothing else is accessing the internet,
>> browsing is basically the same, or worse, than a 256kbps
>> connection.
>>
>> Another interesting fact is the connection performance tests. The
>> most common one in New Zealand is NZDSL
>> (http://nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest), which always shows a speed of
>> between 1.5Mbps and 1.9Mbps. We never actually get this speed, and
>> all other speed tests we use, including places like
>> www.bandwidthplace.com as well as our own tests, show a speed of
>> around 400-500kbps at best.

>
>
> I am a new cable user with TelstraClear, and cable high speed
> internet is also rated at 2Mbps (downstream and upstream). As I
> understand it, 8 megabits = 1 megabyte. Therefore, the Telstra high
> speed internet rate of 2 megabits per second (mbps) downstream is
> equivalent to 0.25 megabytes per second (2 / .
>
> Therefore, you would expect 1 megabyte of data to download in 4
> seconds. Correct me if I am wrong with this.
>
> I visited the New Zealand ndsl speed test site referred to above and
> a file of 1000 kilobytes downloaded in 3.797 seconds, with an
> estimated line speed of 2149.1 kilobits / second.
>
> Immediately after this, I visited the above Bandwidth Place site, and
> I was told that a 1Mb file (1024 kb) downloaded in 13.9 seconds, with
> a communications rate of 602.3 kilobits per second.
>
> So I am not sure why there should be such a big difference between
> the results of these two tests, except that the faster result was
> from a NZ based web site.
>
> So my initial impression is that I would prefer to download a decent
> chunk of data and see how long this actually takes to download. For
> example, with a Microsoft Windows update, I downloaded 25MB at a rate
> of 1 megabyte of data every 7 seconds.
>
> I also did a download of an Apple iTunes program (33 megabytes) and
> this came in at a rate of just under 5 seconds per megabyte.
>
> So if I was going to the Commerce Commission, I would download lots
> of large files from different sources on several separate days, and
> see what you are actually getting in download speed. If I
> consistently get 1 megabyte of data downloading in less than 7
> seconds, I would be fairly happy with this.
>

It all depends. Bandwidth is equivalent to the width of the road.
Download speed is equivalent to how many cars you can get past a
particular point in a fixed period of time. A wide road lets you get
more cars past the fixed point in a particular period of time. Therefore
the wider the road usually the larger the amount of traffic in a
particular time.

However if there are any single lane roads between you and the source of
the cars then your download rate is restricted by that narrowest bit of
the road.

On ADSL the 'narrowest bit of road' is often the connection to the
exchange. When I had 2MB Jetstream I saw four times the speed of someone
with the same setup down the road. ADSL speed drops *rapidly* with
distance from the exchange but that isn't the whole story, since the
other person I mentioned was closer than me to the exchange.

What does your modem say? Mine says 302mbps (it's actually a 256kbps

My second test to http://nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest gave me a speed of
97142.9 kbps or 11904.8 kBps!!

Cheers,

Cliff
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2005
Fred Dagg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Ok, I've had about enough of this so-called 2Mbps Orcon Bitstream
> connection.
>
> The concept seems good - $10 for 10GB, so the more you download, the
> more you pay. I was happy with that on the understanding that I would
> get 2Mbps or close to it at least some of the time.
>
> Not so.
>
> I have not once got anywhere near 2Mbps. In fact, it is highly unusual
> to even see 1Mbps. The lag is also terrible.


I have had near 2Mbps many times with my Orcon account, I regularly get
over 1Mbps.

> We use our connection for P2P, general downloading, as well as
> internet and email (of course). It seems to be the way with all of
> these. Even if we ensure nothing else is accessing the internet,
> browsing is basically the same, or worse, than a 256kbps connection.


I find that browsing is as good or better if nothing else is happening.
But if I am downloading a file and browse at the same time the 2Mb
connection gives me drastically faster browsing than the 256k ever did.

> Another interesting fact is the connection performance tests. The most
> common one in New Zealand is NZDSL (http://nzdsl.co.nz/speedtest),
> which always shows a speed of between 1.5Mbps and 1.9Mbps. We never
> actually get this speed, and all other speed tests we use, including
> places like www.bandwidthplace.com as well as our own tests, show a
> speed of around 400-500kbps at best.


Just tried NZ site (11:55am, Sunday) and on the 1000k file got:
"Your line speed is approximately 1706.8 Kbps or 209.2 K bytes/sec"
This is not cached as it was my first try at this site.
On the 500k file I got:
"Your line speed is approximately 1788.7 Kbps or 219.2 K bytes/sec"

On www.bandwidthplace.com I got:
Communications 897.2 kilobits per second
Storage 109.5 kilobytes per second
1MB file download 9.4 seconds
Subjective rating Good

But what does that mean? Does Orcon guarantee anywhere that all
overseas sites will give us a throughput of better than a certain speed?
897.2k is still better than the 256k max of the plan that is only $10
cheaper.

> So, (1) Are Orcon misleading people over the performance that can be
> expected from "2Mbps Bitstream", and (2) Are they deliberately
> manipulating (or not deliberately - ie a transparent proxy) the
> results from the speed test most NZers use, to make it look like they
> are delivering the promised performance?


Isn't it possible that the NZ test site connects to Orcon through less
routers and does not have to go from US to NZ through the Southern Cross
Cable?

> I appreciate that they have a "no guarantees" clause in their
> contract, but I do not believe that this would hold up if it was found
> that they consistently do not meet the performance they imply. We had
> been holding out as they promised things would get better with the
> addition of another ATM last week, but things appear to have steadily
> got worse.


Surely the fact that you can achieve over 1.5Mbps from a NZ site
indicates that the speed of the connection is indeed up to 2Mbps.

> If this does not improve soon, we will be drafting a very public
> complaint to the Commerce Commission, as we believe that they are not
> delivering on their promises, and that this constitutes false
> advertising. Would anyone else here be interested in co-signing a
> formal complaint?


I consistently get good speeds, not necessarily 2Mbps every time but
usually well over 1Mbps from USA. From Aussie FTP sites I usually get
over 1.5Mbps, which is where I get most Linux distros & updates from.

Just because some sites never seem to give you anywhere near 2Mbps that
does not mean that Orcon are being dishonest. The fact that other sites
frequently exceed 1.5Mbps would indicate that Orcon are providing
exactly what they claim to.

The only problem that I am aware of is the pathetic performance with the
file sharing like bit torrent (nowhere near 2Mbps even at the quietest
times). But my flatmate still manages to generate over 40GB of traffic
in one month, which is as much or more than he got with the 256k plan.

Wouldn't it be easier to change to an ISP that is more file sharing
friendly than to make a public complaint that is unlikely to get you
anywhere?

BTW:
I don't play online games so I have no idea of the current performance
in that respect. Just because I am happy with Orcon does not mean that
you will be, especially since I don't use any file sharing programs and
don't play games online.

If online gaming has more lag with Orcon than Xtra on NZ servers than I
think that someone needs to see if they can prove that Telecom is
providing worse latency to other ISPs than they do to Xtra. If this is
the case then Telecom is guilty of anti-competitive behaviour.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2005
Fred Dagg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Here's a few tests I've just re-done. The results are very consistent
> with the more thorough tests I performed last night:
>
> Overseas:
>
> www.bandwidthplace.com/speedtest/ 445kbps
> http://reviews.cnet.com/7004-7254_7-0.html 543kbps
> www.dslreports.com/stest (Seattle) 559kbps
> http://www.dungogtlc.org/speedtest_2.shtml (Aus) 632kbps


Does Orcon promise good results in speed tests?

My test:
I downloaded a 32.9MB file from a US site (www.easynews.com) and it took
3 minutes and 35 seconds, average speed was 156.2kB/s (1249.6kb/s).

Test 2:
I downloaded 2 files at once from Easynews - the average speed of both
combined was about 230kB/s (1840kb/s).

It seems to me that in real use the speeds achievable for downloading
files from the US are pretty good; and certainly not as low as the speed
tests you tried would indicate.

> Even the fastest access (which I believe is being artificailly
> prioritised) is only 80% of the stated speed. I'd actually be quite
> happy with that if that was the realtime speed we were actually
> getting, or if it was consistent. Unfortunately neither appear to be
> the case.


Are you sure that the problem is with Orcon and not the site from which
you are downloading?

> With an average (and consistent) overseas speed of 545kbps (27% of the
> promised speed), and an average NZ speed (even going by the dubious
> NZDSL and Telecom speedtests, which appear to be substantially
> different from everything else) of 1Mbps, half the promised speed, I
> believe this is grounds for false advertising.


I don't think so. So you ignore the results that seem to show that
Orcon's speed is reasonable, because you have doubts? I'm glad you are
trying to be fair and unbiased!

> We will be automating a bunch of tests to perform several times a day
> for a week or two, and will be using this as a basis of our complaint.


This would only prove that the speed tests produce a low result, not
that the connection speed is substantially less than what Orcon
advertise. In other words it would not be sufficient as the basis of
your complaint.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2005
The Other Guy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I'm sure we could get hundreds of people to co-sign a complaint stating
> that all ISPs are misleading us by claiming to provide _Internet_
> services, when all they are really doing is supplying us with HTTP and
> e-mail.


Really? My ISP provides me with internet services (i.e a connection) that
I use to gain access to NNTP, HTTP, POP, SMTP, FTP, NTP, RDC, VNC, VPN, MGX
and probably a lot more that I can't think of right now. They also offer
NNTP services directly as well as HTTP, POP and SMTP.

If an ISP claims to offer Internet Services and actually does offer HTTP
and E-Mail then doesn't that make their claim 100% valid? Or are you
saying that HTTP and E-Mail are not actually "Internet Services"?

--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade
 
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
Telecom failing at 'managing', says Commerce Commission David Mohring NZ Computing 0 08-03-2006 03:38 AM
Is the CC (Commerce Commission) finally getting some bite? nil_einne1@email.com NZ Computing 13 12-27-2005 06:51 AM
Merry Xmas from the Commerce Commission - NOT EMB NZ Computing 16 12-21-2005 05:29 AM
Orcon UBS 2MBit or stick with Telecom/Orcon 2MBit ADSL? Jamie Kahn Genet NZ Computing 3 04-29-2005 10:10 PM
changing from Orcon UBS to Orcon Jetstream Brendan NZ Computing 2 02-25-2005 08:39 AM



Advertisments