"broadband" - a couple of interesting articles

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by -=rjh=-, Dec 28, 2005.

  1. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    -=rjh=-, Dec 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > Arstechnica refer to Om Malik's article and add an interesting
    > perspective here:
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051226-5846.html
    >
    > Om Malik's article:
    >
    > http://gigaom.com/2005/12/20/need-for-speed/
    >
    > where he questions the point of going from 15Mbps to 30Mbps (we should
    > be so lucky).
    >
    > And another article which quite relevant:
    >
    > http://gigaom.com/2005/08/29/p2p-the-only-killer-broadband-application/


    Interesting reading, thanks. Makes me wish I'd stuck with my 256k unlimited
    from Orcon. I'm getting 20kB/s at best at 3am on bittorrent of late anyway,
    and paying a lot more for it now on 2M/pay-for-data than I was before.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Dec 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. -=rjh=-

    Guest

    >From Om Malik's article:

    > Can your eyes tell the difference between a web-page loading in one second or 0.27 seconds. I guess not.


    Ummm, I would say yes! Especially if you are jumping from link to link,
    a 3 fold increase in loading time would be noticeable I would've
    thought.

    > If you can download a music file in 1.08 seconds, does that really mean you will be buying music all the
    > time. No you perhaps will be buying better quality, and perhaps marginally more music.


    It means you can listen to the music sooner.

    > There is the other option, but its just easier to pay! Sure at 30 Mbps you can download DVD quality
    > The Bourne Identity in 11 minutes, but its still going to take you 2 hours to watch it.


    Maybe I'm missing the point of his argument, but to me I would rather
    spend 11 minutes downloading a DVD which takes 2 hours to watch, than
    waiting 30 minutes for the same DVD.
    , Dec 28, 2005
    #3
  4. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    wrote:
    >> From Om Malik's article:

    >
    >> Can your eyes tell the difference between a web-page loading in one
    >> second or 0.27 seconds. I guess not.

    >
    > Ummm, I would say yes! Especially if you are jumping from link to
    > link, a 3 fold increase in loading time would be noticeable I would've
    > thought.
    >
    >> If you can download a music file in 1.08 seconds, does that really
    >> mean you will be buying music all the time. No you perhaps will be
    >> buying better quality, and perhaps marginally more music.

    >
    > It means you can listen to the music sooner.
    >
    >> There is the other option, but its just easier to pay! Sure at 30
    >> Mbps you can download DVD quality
    >> The Bourne Identity in 11 minutes, but its still going to take you 2
    >> hours to watch it.

    >
    > Maybe I'm missing the point of his argument, but to me I would rather
    > spend 11 minutes downloading a DVD which takes 2 hours to watch, than
    > waiting 30 minutes for the same DVD.


    I think the point is that you plan a little. You know, download one while
    you're watching the other, don't just act on impulse, organise yourself. You
    can download four more DVDs while you watch the one that way.

    You don't have to sit there and watch your downloads you know. Something I
    learned early having Orcon as an ISP. ;-)
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Dec 28, 2005
    #4
  5. -=rjh=-

    Guest

    > You don't have to sit there and watch your downloads you know. Something I
    > learned early having Orcon as an ISP


    No, but I'd still rather have a DVD downloaded in 10 mins than in 30
    (though 30 would still be awesome compared to what we'd have to wait
    now!).

    The same argument about faster broadband could be used for LAN speeds -
    do we really need 100mbps? Couldn't be just live with a 2mbps network?
    Probably, I mean you wouldn't have to sit there and watch files
    transferring, but I'm sure the speed difference would be noticeable.
    , Dec 28, 2005
    #5
  6. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > -=rjh=- wrote:
    >
    >>Arstechnica refer to Om Malik's article and add an interesting
    >>perspective here:
    >>
    >>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051226-5846.html
    >>
    >>Om Malik's article:
    >>
    >>http://gigaom.com/2005/12/20/need-for-speed/
    >>
    >>where he questions the point of going from 15Mbps to 30Mbps (we should
    >>be so lucky).
    >>
    >>And another article which quite relevant:
    >>
    >>http://gigaom.com/2005/08/29/p2p-the-only-killer-broadband-application/

    >
    >
    > Interesting reading, thanks. Makes me wish I'd stuck with my 256k unlimited
    > from Orcon. I'm getting 20kB/s at best at 3am on bittorrent of late anyway,
    > and paying a lot more for it now on 2M/pay-for-data than I was before.


    From what I've been hearing, there seems little point in moving to a
    faster plan, and I'm certainly hoping I won't be forced to. What I have
    now is good enough.

    You probably won't want to look at http://tinypic.com/j9va00.png because
    you'll only get pissed off, but that is how that particular torrent
    looked most of the day yesterday - although it was very slow when it
    started - the screenshot was taken about 5 minutes ago. Interesting how
    the download speed is so much higher than the swarm average.
    -=rjh=-, Dec 28, 2005
    #6
  7. -=rjh=-

    Mutley Guest

    wrote:

    >> You don't have to sit there and watch your downloads you know. Something I
    >> learned early having Orcon as an ISP

    >
    >No, but I'd still rather have a DVD downloaded in 10 mins than in 30
    >(though 30 would still be awesome compared to what we'd have to wait
    >now!).
    >
    >The same argument about faster broadband could be used for LAN speeds -
    >do we really need 100mbps? Couldn't be just live with a 2mbps network?
    >Probably, I mean you wouldn't have to sit there and watch files
    >transferring, but I'm sure the speed difference would be noticeable.


    Last nite I watched a 5 minute download of a news clip from CDC
    (Canada) on broadband in South Korea. One point was made that at one
    uni only 20% of students have TVs in their rooms the rest watch TV via
    their BB service and it's a service that is growing fast.

    Under the present set up here in NZ we may see this at the turn of
    this century
    Mutley, Dec 28, 2005
    #7
  8. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    wrote:
    >>From Om Malik's article:

    >
    >
    >>Can your eyes tell the difference between a web-page loading in one second or 0.27 seconds. I guess not.

    >
    >
    > Ummm, I would say yes! Especially if you are jumping from link to link,
    > a 3 fold increase in loading time would be noticeable I would've
    > thought.


    Even when browsing on the home network, I doubt that pages are loading
    as fast as 0.27 seconds; there's just so many other factors involved,
    rather than network speed. And out on the public network, more time is
    spent just waiting for adservers to respond, the webserver to assemble
    the page, etc. Your browser only makes a small number of connections so
    there is quite a delay pulling down all the various parts of the web
    page, then assembling them.

    PCWorld did a comparison, last year I think, and concluded that for web
    browsing, the improvements in real speed weren't noticeable above about
    512Mbps.

    >
    >
    >>If you can download a music file in 1.08 seconds, does that really mean you will be buying music all the
    >>time. No you perhaps will be buying better quality, and perhaps marginally more music.

    >
    >
    > It means you can listen to the music sooner.


    But I already have more music than I can listen to, so I don't even care
    if it takes all night to download more. Hell, some of the stuff I get
    arrives once a week, so a few hours difference is nothing.

    >
    >
    >>There is the other option, but its just easier to pay! Sure at 30 Mbps you can download DVD quality
    >>The Bourne Identity in 11 minutes, but its still going to take you 2 hours to watch it.

    >
    >
    > Maybe I'm missing the point of his argument, but to me I would rather
    > spend 11 minutes downloading a DVD which takes 2 hours to watch, than
    > waiting 30 minutes for the same DVD.
    >


    I'd rather pay less, and watch the previous download while the current
    one is downloading. Doesn't really take much planning.

    For me, speed is relatively unimportant, but having the connection
    affordable and always on is very important.

    Maybe we should get affordable basic broadband into every NZ home that
    wants it, with good upload speeds - say, 256/256/no cap before we even
    look at faster options. It seems that our current infrastructure can't
    even deal with 2Mbps at present. Maybe the illusion of faster plans
    could be used to subsidise the basic plans.
    -=rjh=-, Dec 29, 2005
    #8
  9. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> -=rjh=- wrote:
    >>
    >>> Arstechnica refer to Om Malik's article and add an interesting
    >>> perspective here:
    >>>
    >>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051226-5846.html
    >>>
    >>> Om Malik's article:
    >>>
    >>> http://gigaom.com/2005/12/20/need-for-speed/
    >>>
    >>> where he questions the point of going from 15Mbps to 30Mbps (we
    >>> should be so lucky).
    >>>
    >>> And another article which quite relevant:
    >>>
    >>> http://gigaom.com/2005/08/29/p2p-the-only-killer-broadband-application/

    >>
    >>
    >> Interesting reading, thanks. Makes me wish I'd stuck with my 256k
    >> unlimited from Orcon. I'm getting 20kB/s at best at 3am on
    >> bittorrent of late anyway, and paying a lot more for it now on
    >> 2M/pay-for-data than I was before.

    >
    > From what I've been hearing, there seems little point in moving to a
    > faster plan, and I'm certainly hoping I won't be forced to. What I
    > have now is good enough.
    >
    > You probably won't want to look at http://tinypic.com/j9va00.png
    > because you'll only get pissed off, but that is how that particular
    > torrent looked most of the day yesterday - although it was very slow
    > when it started - the screenshot was taken about 5 minutes ago.
    > Interesting how the download speed is so much higher than the swarm
    > average.


    Holy Mother of God that's annoying! I've been trying to download a couple of
    files with Orcon 2M Autosense plan for the last few days and am averaging
    100MB a night!! I happened to be playing with a PC last night that hadn't
    been fired up for a while and needed to download some updates (AV etc.).
    They came down at between 220kB/s and 250kB/s while Azureus was (doggedly)
    getting the other 10kB/s or so. You'd think that, with them claiming that a
    large number of their customers are P2P users, they'd look after them a bit
    better. You can't tell me that they need 99% of their bandwidth for HTTP at
    3am. Or, if they do then they should damn well stop selling new
    subscriptions until they get it sorted.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Dec 29, 2005
    #9
  10. -=rjh=-

    Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:

    > They came down at between 220kB/s and 250kB/s while Azureus was (doggedly)
    > getting the other 10kB/s or so. You'd think that, with them claiming that a
    > large number of their customers are P2P users, they'd look after them a bit


    Are you sure it's Orcon that's causing the slow speeds? It's just that
    I'm on the 256k plan and I get huge variations in speed with various
    torrents, ranging from 1k/sec to 30k/sec. I've always just put it down
    to the other PC's that I'm downloading from or something to do with the
    P2P connection rather than Orcon....
    , Dec 30, 2005
    #10
  11. -=rjh=-

    Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:

    > Even when browsing on the home network, I doubt that pages are loading
    > as fast as 0.27 seconds; there's just so many other factors involved,
    > rather than network speed. And out on the public network, more time is
    > spent just waiting for adservers to respond, the webserver to assemble


    True, so it wasn't a good example to use in his article then.....!

    > For me, speed is relatively unimportant, but having the connection
    > affordable and always on is very important.


    Fair enough, and I suppose that's why a lot of people are still on
    dial-up. But I didn't think the article was really talking about cost -
    just whether people wanted higher speeds or not. And while I agree that
    there will be some point where higher speeds are unnecessary, I don't
    think 30mbps is above that point. I reckon once broadband speeds match
    LAN speeds then that'll do :)
    , Dec 30, 2005
    #11
  12. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >> They came down at between 220kB/s and 250kB/s while Azureus was
    >> (doggedly) getting the other 10kB/s or so. You'd think that, with
    >> them claiming that a large number of their customers are P2P users,
    >> they'd look after them a bit

    >
    > Are you sure it's Orcon that's causing the slow speeds? It's just that
    > I'm on the 256k plan and I get huge variations in speed with various
    > torrents, ranging from 1k/sec to 30k/sec. I've always just put it down
    > to the other PC's that I'm downloading from or something to do with
    > the P2P connection rather than Orcon....


    No, I'm sure it's Orcon. Two reasons; I've spent enough time watching the
    damn files download to be able to recognise the times when there is ample
    data available but I just can't get it. (80 seeds, 400 peers, 2.5kB/s
    download?) Also I have a Krazy friend just down the road who has a 2M plan
    with Xtra and he gets the same files *very* much faster on his connection.
    As in, one hour for him, one week for me. No shit, that's the truth. He gets
    files about (24 x 7) 168 times faster than me. Both plans are nominally 2M.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Dec 30, 2005
    #12
  13. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>
    >>> They came down at between 220kB/s and 250kB/s while Azureus was
    >>> (doggedly) getting the other 10kB/s or so. You'd think that, with
    >>> them claiming that a large number of their customers are P2P users,
    >>> they'd look after them a bit

    >>
    >> Are you sure it's Orcon that's causing the slow speeds? It's just
    >> that I'm on the 256k plan and I get huge variations in speed with
    >> various torrents, ranging from 1k/sec to 30k/sec. I've always just
    >> put it down to the other PC's that I'm downloading from or something
    >> to do with the P2P connection rather than Orcon....

    >
    > No, I'm sure it's Orcon. Two reasons; I've spent enough time watching
    > the damn files download to be able to recognise the times when there
    > is ample data available but I just can't get it. (80 seeds, 400
    > peers, 2.5kB/s download?) Also I have a Krazy friend just down the
    > road who has a 2M plan with Xtra and he gets the same files *very*
    > much faster on his connection. As in, one hour for him, one week for
    > me. No shit, that's the truth. He gets files about (24 x 7) 168 times
    > faster than me. Both plans are nominally 2M.


    Just left Azureus running for four hours while I had a wee sleep (10:54pm -
    3:45am) and, downloading a well-seeded torrent, I got 48MB (Of 1.2GB).
    Probably not a lot more than I would get on 56k dial up.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Dec 30, 2005
    #13
  14. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> They came down at between 220kB/s and 250kB/s while Azureus was
    >>>> (doggedly) getting the other 10kB/s or so. You'd think that, with
    >>>> them claiming that a large number of their customers are P2P users,
    >>>> they'd look after them a bit
    >>>
    >>> Are you sure it's Orcon that's causing the slow speeds? It's just
    >>> that I'm on the 256k plan and I get huge variations in speed with
    >>> various torrents, ranging from 1k/sec to 30k/sec. I've always just
    >>> put it down to the other PC's that I'm downloading from or something
    >>> to do with the P2P connection rather than Orcon....

    >>
    >> No, I'm sure it's Orcon. Two reasons; I've spent enough time watching
    >> the damn files download to be able to recognise the times when there
    >> is ample data available but I just can't get it. (80 seeds, 400
    >> peers, 2.5kB/s download?) Also I have a Krazy friend just down the
    >> road who has a 2M plan with Xtra and he gets the same files *very*
    >> much faster on his connection. As in, one hour for him, one week for
    >> me. No shit, that's the truth. He gets files about (24 x 7) 168 times
    >> faster than me. Both plans are nominally 2M.

    >
    > Just left Azureus running for four hours while I had a wee sleep
    > (10:54pm - 3:45am) and, downloading a well-seeded torrent, I got 48MB
    > (Of 1.2GB). Probably not a lot more than I would get on 56k dial up.


    LOL, I thought, as the P2P was going so slowly, I'd stop it, check
    newsgroups, then play an on-line game. Played for about 15 minutes with lots
    of periods of lag until I got dumped from the server with a ping-time of
    2,624ms. The servers, based in the states, are only lightly loaded as
    evidenced by the </players> command.

    This is getting beyond a joke. The status page

    http://www.orcon.net.nz/help/status

    hasn't been updated since just after the new ATM came on-line, the 7th
    December. At least the ATM usage part hasn't. I'd like to see it now. A real
    representation, during peak hours and at night. How hard can it be to run a
    wee script to update it twice daily? Sheeit, even show it in real-time. I
    can do that with my connections easilly and I don't have Orcon's resources.
    (Ferrari etc.) Otherwise what's the point in having it there? Month-old data
    isn't relavant.

    I've said it before but I swear I'm not likely to be in a position to say it
    much more. If they don't get their shit together bloody soon not only am I
    out of there but I forsee bad things for Orcon. How long can you run a
    business on promises? I have been disconnected 17 times since Xmas day FFS!
    Twice in the middle of a game with a friend from Philadelphia. And I've just
    paid them $92 dollars for last month's usage. (Including Tolls).
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Dec 30, 2005
    #14
  15. -=rjh=-

    Squirrel Guest

    Broadband questions

    On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:24:40 +1300, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >~misfit~ wrote:
    >> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> They came down at between 220kB/s and 250kB/s while Azureus was
    >>>>> (doggedly) getting the other 10kB/s or so. You'd think that, with
    >>>>> them claiming that a large number of their customers are P2P users,
    >>>>> they'd look after them a bit
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you sure it's Orcon that's causing the slow speeds? It's just
    >>>> that I'm on the 256k plan and I get huge variations in speed with
    >>>> various torrents, ranging from 1k/sec to 30k/sec. I've always just
    >>>> put it down to the other PC's that I'm downloading from or something
    >>>> to do with the P2P connection rather than Orcon....
    >>>
    >>> No, I'm sure it's Orcon. Two reasons; I've spent enough time watching
    >>> the damn files download to be able to recognise the times when there
    >>> is ample data available but I just can't get it. (80 seeds, 400
    >>> peers, 2.5kB/s download?) Also I have a Krazy friend just down the
    >>> road who has a 2M plan with Xtra and he gets the same files *very*
    >>> much faster on his connection. As in, one hour for him, one week for
    >>> me. No shit, that's the truth. He gets files about (24 x 7) 168 times
    >>> faster than me. Both plans are nominally 2M.

    >>
    >> Just left Azureus running for four hours while I had a wee sleep
    >> (10:54pm - 3:45am) and, downloading a well-seeded torrent, I got 48MB
    >> (Of 1.2GB). Probably not a lot more than I would get on 56k dial up.

    >
    >LOL, I thought, as the P2P was going so slowly, I'd stop it, check
    >newsgroups, then play an on-line game. Played for about 15 minutes with lots
    >of periods of lag until I got dumped from the server with a ping-time of
    >2,624ms. The servers, based in the states, are only lightly loaded as
    >evidenced by the </players> command.
    >
    >This is getting beyond a joke. The status page
    >
    >http://www.orcon.net.nz/help/status
    >
    >hasn't been updated since just after the new ATM came on-line, the 7th
    >December. At least the ATM usage part hasn't. I'd like to see it now. A real
    >representation, during peak hours and at night. How hard can it be to run a
    >wee script to update it twice daily? Sheeit, even show it in real-time. I
    >can do that with my connections easilly and I don't have Orcon's resources.
    >(Ferrari etc.) Otherwise what's the point in having it there? Month-old data
    >isn't relavant.
    >
    >I've said it before but I swear I'm not likely to be in a position to say it
    >much more. If they don't get their shit together bloody soon not only am I
    >out of there but I forsee bad things for Orcon. How long can you run a
    >business on promises? I have been disconnected 17 times since Xmas day FFS!
    >Twice in the middle of a game with a friend from Philadelphia. And I've just
    >paid them $92 dollars for last month's usage. (Including Tolls).


    hate to be insensitive to your need, but I heard on radio telstra is
    jammed and will be for some time, now I am pleased ti be with Xtra

    And now the important thing, what games do you play, can I join in,
    got a laptop designed for gaming but cant seem to get my foot in the
    door



    I've gone crazy......but I will be back soon
    ============================================
    Squirrel, Dec 30, 2005
    #15
  16. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Re: Broadband questions

    Squirrel wrote:
    > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:24:40 +1300, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> They came down at between 220kB/s and 250kB/s while Azureus was
    >>>>>> (doggedly) getting the other 10kB/s or so. You'd think that, with
    >>>>>> them claiming that a large number of their customers are P2P
    >>>>>> users, they'd look after them a bit
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are you sure it's Orcon that's causing the slow speeds? It's just
    >>>>> that I'm on the 256k plan and I get huge variations in speed with
    >>>>> various torrents, ranging from 1k/sec to 30k/sec. I've always just
    >>>>> put it down to the other PC's that I'm downloading from or
    >>>>> something to do with the P2P connection rather than Orcon....
    >>>>
    >>>> No, I'm sure it's Orcon. Two reasons; I've spent enough time
    >>>> watching the damn files download to be able to recognise the times
    >>>> when there is ample data available but I just can't get it. (80
    >>>> seeds, 400 peers, 2.5kB/s download?) Also I have a Krazy friend
    >>>> just down the road who has a 2M plan with Xtra and he gets the
    >>>> same files *very* much faster on his connection. As in, one hour
    >>>> for him, one week for me. No shit, that's the truth. He gets files
    >>>> about (24 x 7) 168 times faster than me. Both plans are nominally
    >>>> 2M.
    >>>
    >>> Just left Azureus running for four hours while I had a wee sleep
    >>> (10:54pm - 3:45am) and, downloading a well-seeded torrent, I got
    >>> 48MB (Of 1.2GB). Probably not a lot more than I would get on 56k
    >>> dial up.

    >>
    >> LOL, I thought, as the P2P was going so slowly, I'd stop it, check
    >> newsgroups, then play an on-line game. Played for about 15 minutes
    >> with lots of periods of lag until I got dumped from the server with
    >> a ping-time of 2,624ms. The servers, based in the states, are only
    >> lightly loaded as evidenced by the </players> command.
    >>
    >> This is getting beyond a joke. The status page
    >>
    >> http://www.orcon.net.nz/help/status
    >>
    >> hasn't been updated since just after the new ATM came on-line, the
    >> 7th December. At least the ATM usage part hasn't. I'd like to see it
    >> now. A real representation, during peak hours and at night. How hard
    >> can it be to run a wee script to update it twice daily? Sheeit, even
    >> show it in real-time. I can do that with my connections easilly and
    >> I don't have Orcon's resources. (Ferrari etc.) Otherwise what's the
    >> point in having it there? Month-old data isn't relavant.
    >>
    >> I've said it before but I swear I'm not likely to be in a position
    >> to say it much more. If they don't get their shit together bloody
    >> soon not only am I out of there but I forsee bad things for Orcon.
    >> How long can you run a business on promises? I have been
    >> disconnected 17 times since Xmas day FFS! Twice in the middle of a
    >> game with a friend from Philadelphia. And I've just paid them $92
    >> dollars for last month's usage. (Including Tolls).

    >
    > hate to be insensitive to your need, but I heard on radio telstra is
    > jammed and will be for some time, now I am pleased ti be with Xtra
    >
    > And now the important thing, what games do you play, can I join in,
    > got a laptop designed for gaming but cant seem to get my foot in the
    > door


    I play Diablo 2 with the Lord of Destruction expansion pack on-line. It's an
    oldie but a goodie. Diablo 2 has been out for over 5 years. I've bought a
    lot of games in that time but this is the only one that I keep playing,
    month after month.

    Happy New Year. :)
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Dec 30, 2005
    #16
  17. -=rjh=-

    Squirrel Guest

    Re: Broadband questions

    On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:56:43 +1300, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Squirrel wrote:
    >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 04:24:40 +1300, "~misfit~"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> They came down at between 220kB/s and 250kB/s while Azureus was
    >>>>>>> (doggedly) getting the other 10kB/s or so. You'd think that, with
    >>>>>>> them claiming that a large number of their customers are P2P
    >>>>>>> users, they'd look after them a bit
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Are you sure it's Orcon that's causing the slow speeds? It's just
    >>>>>> that I'm on the 256k plan and I get huge variations in speed with
    >>>>>> various torrents, ranging from 1k/sec to 30k/sec. I've always just
    >>>>>> put it down to the other PC's that I'm downloading from or
    >>>>>> something to do with the P2P connection rather than Orcon....
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, I'm sure it's Orcon. Two reasons; I've spent enough time
    >>>>> watching the damn files download to be able to recognise the times
    >>>>> when there is ample data available but I just can't get it. (80
    >>>>> seeds, 400 peers, 2.5kB/s download?) Also I have a Krazy friend
    >>>>> just down the road who has a 2M plan with Xtra and he gets the
    >>>>> same files *very* much faster on his connection. As in, one hour
    >>>>> for him, one week for me. No shit, that's the truth. He gets files
    >>>>> about (24 x 7) 168 times faster than me. Both plans are nominally
    >>>>> 2M.
    >>>>
    >>>> Just left Azureus running for four hours while I had a wee sleep
    >>>> (10:54pm - 3:45am) and, downloading a well-seeded torrent, I got
    >>>> 48MB (Of 1.2GB). Probably not a lot more than I would get on 56k
    >>>> dial up.
    >>>
    >>> LOL, I thought, as the P2P was going so slowly, I'd stop it, check
    >>> newsgroups, then play an on-line game. Played for about 15 minutes
    >>> with lots of periods of lag until I got dumped from the server with
    >>> a ping-time of 2,624ms. The servers, based in the states, are only
    >>> lightly loaded as evidenced by the </players> command.
    >>>
    >>> This is getting beyond a joke. The status page
    >>>
    >>> http://www.orcon.net.nz/help/status
    >>>
    >>> hasn't been updated since just after the new ATM came on-line, the
    >>> 7th December. At least the ATM usage part hasn't. I'd like to see it
    >>> now. A real representation, during peak hours and at night. How hard
    >>> can it be to run a wee script to update it twice daily? Sheeit, even
    >>> show it in real-time. I can do that with my connections easilly and
    >>> I don't have Orcon's resources. (Ferrari etc.) Otherwise what's the
    >>> point in having it there? Month-old data isn't relavant.
    >>>
    >>> I've said it before but I swear I'm not likely to be in a position
    >>> to say it much more. If they don't get their shit together bloody
    >>> soon not only am I out of there but I forsee bad things for Orcon.
    >>> How long can you run a business on promises? I have been
    >>> disconnected 17 times since Xmas day FFS! Twice in the middle of a
    >>> game with a friend from Philadelphia. And I've just paid them $92
    >>> dollars for last month's usage. (Including Tolls).

    >>
    >> hate to be insensitive to your need, but I heard on radio telstra is
    >> jammed and will be for some time, now I am pleased ti be with Xtra
    >>
    >> And now the important thing, what games do you play, can I join in,
    >> got a laptop designed for gaming but cant seem to get my foot in the
    >> door

    >
    >I play Diablo 2 with the Lord of Destruction expansion pack on-line. It's an
    >oldie but a goodie. Diablo 2 has been out for over 5 years. I've bought a
    >lot of games in that time but this is the only one that I keep playing,
    >month after month.
    >
    >Happy New Year. :)


    I take it you must purchase the game firsrt>???



    I've gone crazy......but I will be back soon
    ============================================
    Squirrel, Dec 31, 2005
    #17
  18. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Re: Broadband questions

    Squirrel wrote:
    > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:56:43 +1300, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Squirrel wrote:
    >>> And now the important thing, what games do you play, can I join in,
    >>> got a laptop designed for gaming but cant seem to get my foot in the
    >>> door

    >>
    >> I play Diablo 2 with the Lord of Destruction expansion pack on-line.
    >> It's an oldie but a goodie. Diablo 2 has been out for over 5 years.
    >> I've bought a lot of games in that time but this is the only one
    >> that I keep playing, month after month.
    >>
    >> Happy New Year. :)

    >
    > I take it you must purchase the game firsrt>???


    Yes, the game and the Expansion Pack, LoD. Or what's called The Battlechest,
    which has both in it as well as the original Diablo game. Around $100. When
    you connect to the battle.net servers it checks the validity of your CD keys
    so, while you may get away with a non-legal version if you only play
    off-line, you'll need a legal one for on-line play.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Dec 31, 2005
    #18
  19. Hi there,

    wrote:
    >>You don't have to sit there and watch your downloads you know. Something I
    >>learned early having Orcon as an ISP

    >
    >
    > No, but I'd still rather have a DVD downloaded in 10 mins than in 30
    > (though 30 would still be awesome compared to what we'd have to wait
    > now!).
    >
    > The same argument about faster broadband could be used for LAN speeds -
    > do we really need 100mbps? Couldn't be just live with a 2mbps network?


    Depends on your personal use. I'd like to build a Linux based cluster
    of 4-8 CPU nodes one-day, for SMP dv editing and SMP POV-ray renders.
    I'd need Gigabit LAN to make the node communication pipes fast enough.
    Anything less than Gigabit would be worthless...

    If people want fast, they buy fast...if slow is OK they make do with
    slow...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
    Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
    spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
    Chris Wilkinson, Dec 31, 2005
    #19
  20. -=rjh=-

    Guest

    Chris Wilkinson wrote:
    > If people want fast, they buy fast...if slow is OK they make do with
    > slow...


    I agree, which is why I felt I was missing the point of the article,
    because to me is suggests that nobody really needs faster broadband...
    , Jan 1, 2006
    #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. Dolphion
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    366
    Dolphion
    May 19, 2004
  2. Larry Spitz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    549
    Moz Champion
    Sep 6, 2005
  3. TechNews

    Interesting Articles

    TechNews, Jun 2, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    381
    TechNews
    Jun 2, 2004
  4. thingy
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    360
    Peter Huebner
    Mar 29, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page