Are Orcon liars? Possible Commerce Commission complaint?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Fred Dagg, Dec 3, 2005.

  1. Fred Dagg

    Fred Dagg Guest

    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?
    Fred Dagg, Dec 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    The Other Guy, Dec 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Fred Dagg

    James T Guest

    "Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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 / 8).

    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
    James T, Dec 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Fred Dagg

    brazen Guest

    "Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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
    brazen, Dec 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Fred Dagg

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 09:21:48 +1300, "brazen"
    <> exclaimed:

    >
    >"Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> 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.
    Fred Dagg, Dec 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Fred Dagg

    brazen Guest

    "Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 09:21:48 +1300, "brazen"
    > <> exclaimed:
    >
    >>
    >>"Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>
    >>> 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
    brazen, Dec 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Fred Dagg

    Enkidu Guest

    James T wrote:
    > "Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> 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 / 8).
    >
    > 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
    Enkidu, Dec 3, 2005
    #7
  8. Fred Dagg

    MarkH Guest

    Fred Dagg <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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
    MarkH, Dec 3, 2005
    #8
  9. Fred Dagg

    MarkH Guest

    Fred Dagg <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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
    MarkH, Dec 3, 2005
    #9
  10. Fred Dagg

    MarkH Guest

    The Other Guy <> wrote in news::

    > 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
    MarkH, Dec 3, 2005
    #10
  11. Fred Dagg

    David Guest

    Enkidu wrote:
    > James T wrote:
    >
    >> "Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> 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 / 8).
    >>
    >> 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 think windows update uses BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer
    Service), which will intentionally keep the transfer rate low to avoid
    slowing down other internet activities.

    >>
    >> 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!!



    try Ctrl+refresh, your browser is caching it. Also try
    http://www.speedtest.co.nz which uses a number of servers.
    As for the nzdsl speedtest being faster, it is actually hosted on orcon:

    Tracing route to nzdsl.co.nz [219.88.240.130]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 * * * Request timed out.
    2 56 ms 57 ms 54 ms 222-152-0-1.jetstream.xtra.co.nz
    [222.152.0.1]
    3 54 ms 54 ms 54 ms 210.55.205.59
    4 54 ms 54 ms 54 ms 202.50.245.190
    5 56 ms 53 ms 57 ms v282.aksw7.global-gateway.net.nz
    [202.50.245.193
    ]
    6 55 ms 54 ms 55 ms g0-1-0-4.akcr8.global-gateway.net.nz
    [210.55.202
    ..49]
    7 56 ms 58 ms 57 ms orcon-dom2.akcr8.global-gateway.net.nz
    [202.50.2
    45.242]
    8 62 ms 57 ms 58 ms 60.234.9.3
    9 57 ms 59 ms 58 ms ip-219-88-240-130.orcon.net.nz
    [219.88.240.130]


    Trace complete.

    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff
    David, Dec 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Fred Dagg

    David Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > 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 think you will find that nzdsl.co.nz is hosted quite close to (if not
    by) orcon. Try http://www.speedtest.co.nz/ which will give you results
    from a variety of NZ and overseas servers.

    >
    > 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?
    David, Dec 4, 2005
    #12
  13. Fred Dagg

    MarkH Guest

    David <> wrote in news:0qqkf.5456$:

    > Fred Dagg wrote:
    > I think you will find that nzdsl.co.nz is hosted quite close to (if not
    > by) orcon. Try http://www.speedtest.co.nz/ which will give you results
    > from a variety of NZ and overseas servers.


    For me I got:
    Speed Location Hosted By
    1498.2 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet
    900.8 k New Zealand - Auckland Ihug
    1742.7 k New Zealand - Auckland Orcon Internet
    1017.5 k United States 1&1 Internet Inc
    902.5 k United States Nibble Information Systems
    Summary
    Average (New Zealand): 1380.6 kbps
    Average (Australia): kbps
    Average (International): 960.0 kbps

    But it still only shows the speed in the tests, not necessarily the speed
    for downloading an update from MS or porn from the US or a Linux distro
    from Aussie or whatever.

    --
    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
    MarkH, Dec 4, 2005
    #13
  14. Fred Dagg

    Redbaiter Guest

    brazen says


    > Maybe when you have a bunch of
    > people and they are still ignoring you, go to Consumer.
    >

    Yeah you would wouldn't you commie.. look, if you're not happy
    with the service or the price and you have no faith in the
    supplier, then just take your damn business elsewhere.. you
    think Orcon or anyone enjoys doing business with someone who
    doubts they're doing their best to provide you with a service in
    a damn competitive market regulated to death by other misguided
    commies like you??

    ....and I for one don't need you voting to rob me of income I've
    got better uses for than to prop up a bunch of useless
    incompetent non producing commies like Consumer Affairs. Close
    them down now. They're not needed, and if you're incapable of
    living without them, then you support them with your own damn
    money, instead of demanding that other voters with families and
    mortgages spend THEIR money paying the wages of and buying flash
    desks for a bunch of self serving propaganda speiling dumbarses
    to look after commercial embeciles like you.
    Redbaiter, Dec 4, 2005
    #14
  15. MarkH wrote:
    > The Other Guy <> wrote in news::
    >
    >
    >>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"?


    I'm saying that offering 'Internet' access, then reducing the priority
    on protocols other than the common ones to such an extent that they
    become unusable, is a deliberate misrepresentation of the product.

    If I get a potential 256kbs^-1 of INTERNET access delivered to my home,
    then I want to use that allocation how *I* chose. I'm not saying I
    should always get 256kbs^-1, but why is it if I chose to run an SSH
    server (on port 22), that I should have data speeds than the next
    customer on the same plan, who choses to run an SMTP server (on port 25)?

    The Other Guy
    The Other Guy, Dec 4, 2005
    #15
  16. The Other Guy wrote:
    "... why is it if I chose to run an SSH server (on port 22), that I
    should have [lower] data speeds than the next customer on the same plan,
    who choses to run an SMTP server (on port 25)?"
    The Other Guy, Dec 4, 2005
    #16
  17. "> 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
    >


    www.ihug.co.nz www.jetstreamgames.co.nz and www.nzdsl.co.nz all use the same
    way of figuring out your "speed" (check the source code.. its a large
    javascript comment which is finds the start/end times and works out the
    speed from that)

    kiwiwebhost.co.nz is overseas and I couldn't fine the URL for the webdrive
    one. but seems quite slow in your figures

    Due to the distance we are away from the States (the 120-140ms to the
    states) this also reduces the speed you'll get for a single download so
    using multi-part download programs will usually speed the total download up
    but testing say a download from download.com I can get ~1.4Mb (real world
    download test) and from a NZ based site ~1.95Mb/s. Using multidownload
    progams I can use the 2M DSL up quite easily.

    If we for example a 100M link to the states, I think I would find is quite
    hard to use up 100% of it with a single download.

    This says that "speedtest" pages are ok. but not the perfect way to test the
    speed of your connection.

    One thing to be aware, this is only test web traffic.
    I don't know about other ISP's but Orcon give interactive protocols (such as
    gaming,web traffic, ssh, streaming etc ) higher priority than
    non-interactive (P2P). There is only a certain amount of Bandwidth you can
    give your customers in Total and it has to be shared. Some people want 2M
    UBS P2P 24 hours a day.. internationally wise. this is alow more expensive
    that a normal person would like to pay.

    Yes we all know that music/movies etc are pirated via this manner (P2P) and
    people who are complaining are admitting thats what they are doing so until
    people stop doing this to make the internet experience usable for the 95% of
    people who don't do P2P who use 5% of the traffic (These are Made up
    figures) something has to be done.

    I've noticed people are complaining about orcon here, but what is is really
    like with other ISP's?

    Thanks
    Craig
    Talking for myself
    Craig Whitmore, Dec 4, 2005
    #17
  18. >
    > I think you will find that nzdsl.co.nz is hosted quite close to (if not
    > by) orcon. Try http://www.speedtest.co.nz/ which will give you results
    > from a variety of NZ and overseas servers.


    www.nzdsl.co.nz is owned by me. and yes hosted at Orcon. The speedtest page
    is used quite extensively and at the moment the speedtest page is used
    ~40,000 times a month via various people.No one (so far) has complained that
    the results it gives have been inaccurate for he years it has been running.

    www.speedtest.co.nz is hosted at Orcon as well, but tests via downloading
    off other machines.

    thanks
    Craig
    Craig Whitmore, Dec 4, 2005
    #18
  19. Fred Dagg

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > 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 downloaded around 60MB or updates for Nero 6 two days ago and (using DU
    Meter) the download stayed between 245 - 255 kB/sec until I had the files. I
    was impressed. Using P2P I'm lucky if I get 20kB/s.

    I understand that P2P only gets bandwidth that isn't being used by other
    protocols. However, going by Orcon's own figures, P2P takes up more than
    half of their bandwidth. If they are having to throttle it so badly now,
    even at 4am, then surely they need more than just one more ATM?

    Methinks their advertising campiagn has been *too* successful.

    > 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.


    It was scheduled for 7am Wednesday morning. When I rang the helldesk on
    Thursday and asked why my connection was no better I was told that, due to
    "hardware problems" it had been postponed until Monday, tomorrow.

    > 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?


    Depends on the wording. I'd like to see it.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Dec 4, 2005
    #19
  20. Fred Dagg

    MarkH Guest

    The Other Guy <> wrote in
    news:43923f09$:

    > I'm saying that offering 'Internet' access, then reducing the priority
    > on protocols other than the common ones to such an extent that they
    > become unusable, is a deliberate misrepresentation of the product.


    If they represent it as all internet access given the same priority as all
    other internet access then yes, it would be a deliberate misrepresentation.

    > If I get a potential 256kbs^-1 of INTERNET access delivered to my
    > home, then I want to use that allocation how *I* chose. I'm not saying
    > I should always get 256kbs^-1, but why is it if I chose to run an SSH
    > server (on port 22), that I should have data speeds than the next
    > customer on the same plan, who choses to run an SMTP server (on port
    > 25)?


    I can think of no reason at all why SSH servers should be getting lower
    priority than SMTP servers. I was not aware that Orcon did this. Have you
    asked Orcon directly why port 22 is given a lower priority than port 25?


    --
    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
    MarkH, Dec 4, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Patrick Dunford

    Linux Spammers / Liars

    Patrick Dunford, Nov 2, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    52
    Views:
    1,400
    Chris Wilkinson
    Nov 9, 2004
  2. EMB
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    481
    Bruce Knox
    Dec 21, 2005
  3. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    516
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish
    Dec 27, 2005
  4. David Mohring
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    299
    David Mohring
    Aug 3, 2006
  5. Mickey Mouse
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    421
    Gordon
    Jul 22, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page