Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Telecom BigTime "traffic shaping"

Reply
Thread Tools

Telecom BigTime "traffic shaping"

 
 
John Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2009
Hi all

I posted here about my troubles with the teenagers blowing the data
cap. Well, I gave in and have switched plans to Telecom's BigTime,
$10 more a month with no cap but with "traffic shaping" for "p2p"
applications.

Now I'm finding package downloads and updates from
nz.archive.ubuntu.com slow, 10 to 15 kB/s. Is this the result of the
"traffic shaping",
or are others getting this speed from there?

Regards, John
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Carnations
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2009
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:36:47 -0800, John Little wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I posted here about my troubles with the teenagers blowing the data cap.
> Well, I gave in and have switched plans to Telecom's BigTime, $10 more
> a month with no cap but with "traffic shaping" for "p2p" applications.
>
> Now I'm finding package downloads and updates from nz.archive.ubuntu.com
> slow, 10 to 15 kB/s. Is this the result of the "traffic shaping",
> or are others getting this speed from there?
>
> Regards, John


I read in the paper today that Telecom is shaping its "BigTime" plan at any time for any sort of traffic.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2009
On Dec 9, 9:27*am, "geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> John Little wrote:
> > Now I'm finding package downloads and updates from
> > nz.archive.ubuntu.com slow, 10 to 15 kB/s. *Is this the result of the
> > "traffic shaping",
> > or are others getting this speed from there?

>
> It's usual to talk b/s , not B/s in relation to serial data communications.
> But that seems pretty slow, even for Go Large era. *More likely the server.


It isn't the server. I can max out my works 25Mb/s Citylink connection
with that server (it is Citylinks FTP server) - ie we can get a
sustained 3.1 MB/s download from there.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2009
On Dec 9, 11:43*am, "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It isn't the server. I can max out my works 25Mb/s Citylink connection
> with that server (it is Citylinks FTP server) - ie we can get a
> sustained 3.1 MB/s download from there.


Thanks for that. After four hours (loading 200 MB) the router
overheated with about 10 MB to go. On reconnecting, the remainder
came down at 300-400 kB/s. It seems that the "shape" was set for the
"connection", perhaps based on load at that time, which persisted for
four hours.

IMO, it stinks that:
- Telecom "shapes" software updates.
- Telecom "shapes" local traffic. IIUC Telecom won't peer with
Citylink so the traffic is effectively not local, but that's no
excuse, they should, that stinks as well.

Regards, John
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2009
On Dec 9, 9:27*am, "geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It's usual to talk b/s , not B/s in relation to serial data communications.


I disagree. (I reported kB/s because that's what Synaptic told me.)
I think that as one moves up the layers, it is more natural and much
more useful to use B/s, rather than b/s, which is more low level.
Even in the early days with dial-up Netscape would report B/s; indeed,
it would be difficult for a high level tool to know what bit overheads
apply lower down and so translate bytes to bits.

How would you translate 10 kB/s to b/s? One can't just multiply by 8.

Regards, John

 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2009
Somewhere on teh intarwebs John Little wrote:
> On Dec 9, 11:43 am, "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> It isn't the server. I can max out my works 25Mb/s Citylink
>> connection with that server (it is Citylinks FTP server) - ie we can
>> get a sustained 3.1 MB/s download from there.

>
> Thanks for that. After four hours (loading 200 MB) the router
> overheated with about 10 MB to go. On reconnecting, the remainder
> came down at 300-400 kB/s. It seems that the "shape" was set for the
> "connection", perhaps based on load at that time, which persisted for
> four hours.


Nah, it's shaped my IP, which, as you have a dynamic IP, changed when you
disconnected and reconnected.

Perhaps there's a a lesson there...
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

> IMO, it stinks that:
> - Telecom "shapes" software updates.
> - Telecom "shapes" local traffic. IIUC Telecom won't peer with
> Citylink so the traffic is effectively not local, but that's no
> excuse, they should, that stinks as well.
>
> Regards, John




 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2009
On 2009-12-08, Carnations <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:36:47 -0800, John Little wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I posted here about my troubles with the teenagers blowing the data cap.
>> Well, I gave in and have switched plans to Telecom's BigTime, $10 more
>> a month with no cap but with "traffic shaping" for "p2p" applications.
>>
>> Now I'm finding package downloads and updates from nz.archive.ubuntu.com
>> slow, 10 to 15 kB/s. Is this the result of the "traffic shaping",
>> or are others getting this speed from there?
>>
>> Regards, John

>
> I read in the paper today that Telecom is shaping its "BigTime" plan at any time for any sort of traffic.
>
>

Penny to a pound it is not shaping the TiVo traffic
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2009
John Little wrote:
> On Dec 9, 11:43 am, "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> It isn't the server. I can max out my works 25Mb/s Citylink connection
>> with that server (it is Citylinks FTP server) - ie we can get a
>> sustained 3.1 MB/s download from there.

>
> Thanks for that. After four hours (loading 200 MB) the router
> overheated with about 10 MB to go. On reconnecting, the remainder
> came down at 300-400 kB/s. It seems that the "shape" was set for the
> "connection", perhaps based on load at that time, which persisted for
> four hours.
>

I don't believe that they could do it that way. TCP/IP doesn't contain
any session info (it's 'stateless') so the router that is doing the
shaping would have to maintain the state info somehow, and IMO that's
unlikely to be the case.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2009
On Dec 9, 4:28*pm, John Little <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:27*am, "geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > It's usual to talk b/s , not B/s in relation to serial data communications.

>
> I disagree. *(I reported kB/s because that's what Synaptic told me.)
> I think that as one moves up the layers, it is more natural and much
> more useful to use B/s, rather than b/s, which is more low level.
> Even in the early days with dial-up Netscape would report B/s; indeed,
> it would be difficult for a high level tool to know what bit overheads
> apply lower down and so translate bytes to bits.


Yeah, IMO connections should be measured in b/s but downloads are best
measured with B/s.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2009
On Dec 9, 7:48*pm, Enkidu <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I don't believe that they could do it that way. TCP/IP doesn't contain
> any session info (it's 'stateless')


Yeah, that's why I put quotes on the word "connection", because
clearly it's not TCP connections. I'm imagining it's something
related to the ADSL connection.

>so the router that is doing the
> shaping would have to maintain the state info somehow, and IMO that's
> unlikely to be the case.


Other internet traffic at the same time, by myself and other members
of the family, seemed to be affected by the download, which was using
only a small fraction of the ADSL line, which speed tested at 8 Mb/s
after ADSL2 went in.

Regards, John
 
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
Re: HELP!! I screwed up bigtime!! philo Digital Photography 3 10-24-2012 12:18 AM
Re: HELP!! I screwed up bigtime!! nospam Digital Photography 0 10-22-2012 08:39 PM
TheBox Xtra BigTime Lukagain Cos ThistleBounce NZ Computing 9 12-09-2009 04:02 AM
Time Warner Telecom Calls on FCC to Support Competitive Telecom Market by Imposing Conditions to AT&T-BellSouth Merger Knowing About VOIP 0 10-13-2006 07:44 AM
FujiFilm digital camera aftersales services sucks BIGTIME DVDs Digital Photography 0 04-22-2004 11:40 AM



Advertisments