Cheaper Faster Broadband

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Vista, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Vista

    Vista Guest

    Does anyone know why upload speeds for 'broadband' will decrease in speed
    when xtra brings out their new plans? It used to be 192, and now it is going
    to 128, unless you opt to one of their more expensive plans. I am going to
    be doing a lot of uploading, so it definitely isn't going to be cheaper and
    faster for me when the new plans are rolled out.
     
    Vista, Mar 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:44:25 +1300, someone purporting to be Vista didst
    scrawl:

    > Does anyone know why upload speeds for 'broadband' will decrease in speed
    > when xtra brings out their new plans? It used to be 192, and now it is going
    > to 128

    *SNIP*

    It was 192kbps on Xtra for a short period of time, until the entirely
    reasonable howls from every other ISP caught up with Telescum. Those howls
    were brought about by the fact that ONLY Xtra customers could get that
    192 upstream, everyone else was stuck with 128.
    So, it's not dropping at all. It's staying where it's been all along - at
    a pathetic, non-broadband level.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Vista

    Crash Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:44:25 +1300, someone purporting to be Vista didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >
    >>Does anyone know why upload speeds for 'broadband' will decrease in speed
    >>when xtra brings out their new plans? It used to be 192, and now it is going
    >>to 128

    >
    > *SNIP*
    >
    > It was 192kbps on Xtra for a short period of time, until the entirely
    > reasonable howls from every other ISP caught up with Telescum. Those howls
    > were brought about by the fact that ONLY Xtra customers could get that
    > 192 upstream, everyone else was stuck with 128.
    > So, it's not dropping at all. It's staying where it's been all along - at
    > a pathetic, non-broadband level.
    >


    I am on the 'swift' plan - a plan no longer sold but it offered 192kb/s up and
    10mb/s down. If my speed has been changed I have never been told - is there any
    way to tell? My modem reports 320 kb/sec up and 4707 kb/sec down so that is no use.

    Crash.
     
    Crash, Mar 17, 2006
    #3
  4. On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:55:54 +1300, Crash wrote:

    > I am on the 'swift' plan - a plan no longer sold but it offered 192kb/s
    > up and 10mb/s down. If my speed has been changed I have never been told
    > - is there any way to tell? My modem reports 320 kb/sec up and 4707
    > kb/sec down so that is no use.


    If the maximum speed of DSL is 8mb/s, how can you possibly get 10mb/s?

    Also, if you are supposed to be getting 10mb/s then why is your modem only
    showing a speed of 4707kb/s


    > Crash.



    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Vista

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:44:25 +1300, someone purporting to be Vista didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >> Does anyone know why upload speeds for 'broadband' will decrease in speed
    >> when xtra brings out their new plans? It used to be 192, and now it is going
    >> to 128

    > *SNIP*
    >
    > It was 192kbps on Xtra for a short period of time, until the entirely
    > reasonable howls from every other ISP caught up with Telescum. Those howls
    > were brought about by the fact that ONLY Xtra customers could get that
    > 192 upstream, everyone else was stuck with 128.
    > So, it's not dropping at all. It's staying where it's been all along - at
    > a pathetic, non-broadband level.
    >


    So, you are saying that Telecom are so bloody-minded that they would
    rather decrease their service to their own customers, rather than let
    other ISPs get hold of the same service.

    The effect of the 128Kbps upload limit must be very important to Telecom
    for them to do this - or is their network just far worse than anyone
    else knows?
     
    -=rjh=-, Mar 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Vista

    JohnO Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > Matthew Poole wrote:
    > > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:44:25 +1300, someone purporting to be Vista didst
    > > scrawl:
    > >
    > >> Does anyone know why upload speeds for 'broadband' will decrease in speed
    > >> when xtra brings out their new plans? It used to be 192, and now it is going
    > >> to 128

    > > *SNIP*
    > >
    > > It was 192kbps on Xtra for a short period of time, until the entirely
    > > reasonable howls from every other ISP caught up with Telescum. Those howls
    > > were brought about by the fact that ONLY Xtra customers could get that
    > > 192 upstream, everyone else was stuck with 128.
    > > So, it's not dropping at all. It's staying where it's been all along - at
    > > a pathetic, non-broadband level.
    > >

    >
    > So, you are saying that Telecom are so bloody-minded that they would
    > rather decrease their service to their own customers, rather than let
    > other ISPs get hold of the same service.
    >
    > The effect of the 128Kbps upload limit must be very important to Telecom
    > for them to do this - or is their network just far worse than anyone
    > else knows?


    They are probably just trying to hobble PTP and VOIP
     
    JohnO, Mar 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Vista

    Reg Guest

    I have a telecom account that costs me 59.95 a month - dunno what it is
    called.
    I have just run a test and got the following
    current bandwidth reading according to nzdsl.co.nz:
    2.00 Mbps (2049 kbps )
    "which means you can download at 256.13 KB/sec..."

    I have just done an upload to a server in the USA and my FTP client reported
    and upload speed of 180Kbps. The file uploaded about the speed it usually
    does so I guess this is about average for what I get uploading.



    "-=rjh=-" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Matthew Poole wrote:
    >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:44:25 +1300, someone purporting to be Vista didst
    >> scrawl:
    >>
    >>> Does anyone know why upload speeds for 'broadband' will decrease in
    >>> speed when xtra brings out their new plans? It used to be 192, and now
    >>> it is going to 128

    >> *SNIP*
    >>
    >> It was 192kbps on Xtra for a short period of time, until the entirely
    >> reasonable howls from every other ISP caught up with Telescum. Those
    >> howls
    >> were brought about by the fact that ONLY Xtra customers could get that
    >> 192 upstream, everyone else was stuck with 128.
    >> So, it's not dropping at all. It's staying where it's been all along - at
    >> a pathetic, non-broadband level.
    >>

    >
    > So, you are saying that Telecom are so bloody-minded that they would
    > rather decrease their service to their own customers, rather than let
    > other ISPs get hold of the same service.
    >
    > The effect of the 128Kbps upload limit must be very important to Telecom
    > for them to do this - or is their network just far worse than anyone else
    > knows?
     
    Reg, Mar 17, 2006
    #7
  8. On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:39:00 +1300, someone purporting to be -=rjh=- didst
    scrawl:

    > Matthew Poole wrote:

    *SNIP*
    > So, you are saying that Telecom are so bloody-minded that they would
    > rather decrease their service to their own customers, rather than let
    > other ISPs get hold of the same service.
    >

    That's precisely what I'm saying. What's rather sad is that they were
    legally able to get away with such a move in the first place - offering
    better speeds to their own customers than to their wholesale partners
    is absolutely illegal in nearly any other country with a developed
    telecommunications industry.

    > The effect of the 128Kbps upload limit must be very important to Telecom
    > for them to do this - or is their network just far worse than anyone
    > else knows?


    The law states an upstream of 128kbps for the UBS product - allegedly
    because it was deemed necessary to protect Telecon from competitive from
    VoIP services - so they obviously decided that it was better to shaft
    their own customers than risk tough questions about why they pushed for a
    128kbps upstream in legislation but were happy to give their customers
    something half as fast again.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 17, 2006
    #8
  9. Vista

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:39:00 +1300, someone purporting to be -=rjh=- didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >> Matthew Poole wrote:

    > *SNIP*
    >> So, you are saying that Telecom are so bloody-minded that they would
    >> rather decrease their service to their own customers, rather than let
    >> other ISPs get hold of the same service.
    >>

    > That's precisely what I'm saying. What's rather sad is that they were
    > legally able to get away with such a move in the first place - offering
    > better speeds to their own customers than to their wholesale partners
    > is absolutely illegal in nearly any other country with a developed
    > telecommunications industry.
    >
    >> The effect of the 128Kbps upload limit must be very important to Telecom
    >> for them to do this - or is their network just far worse than anyone
    >> else knows?

    >
    > The law states an upstream of 128kbps for the UBS product - allegedly
    > because it was deemed necessary to protect Telecon from competitive from
    > VoIP services - so they obviously decided that it was better to shaft
    > their own customers than risk tough questions about why they pushed for a
    > 128kbps upstream in legislation but were happy to give their customers
    > something half as fast again.
    >


    And the Commerce Commission went along with this? Amazing!

    :)
     
    -=rjh=-, Mar 17, 2006
    #9
  10. On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:33:21 +1300, someone purporting to be -=rjh=- didst
    scrawl:

    > Matthew Poole wrote:

    *SNIP*
    >> The law states an upstream of 128kbps for the UBS product - allegedly
    >> because it was deemed necessary to protect Telecon from competitive from
    >> VoIP services - so they obviously decided that it was better to shaft
    >> their own customers than risk tough questions about why they pushed for a
    >> 128kbps upstream in legislation but were happy to give their customers
    >> something half as fast again.
    >>

    >
    > And the Commerce Commission went along with this? Amazing!
    >

    I don't think they had much say in it, really. I'm not sure who got the
    128kbps restriction put into law, but my guess would be that it came as
    the result of lots of whinging at the hands of a certain major telco whose
    name starts with T and ends with elecom.
    Once it was in the law, the ComCom can't do anything about it, they can
    only enforce it as required. It's bloody stupid, and I think that it will
    be one of the provisions that will certainly be stripped out in the review.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Vista

    joe_90 Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:

    > The law states an upstream of 128kbps for the UBS product - allegedly
    > because it was deemed necessary to protect Telecon from competitive from
    > VoIP services - so they obviously decided that it was better to shaft
    > their own customers than risk tough questions about why they pushed for a
    > 128kbps upstream in legislation but were happy to give their customers
    > something half as fast again.


    Are you sure about that? I thought the CC set the minimum upstream speed
    for UBS to 128kbps. They have also flagged (in the past) that TC show no
    willingness to deliver anything more than the absolute minimum spec.
    they are obliged to under the law.
     
    joe_90, Mar 17, 2006
    #11
  12. Vista

    Richard Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

    > If the maximum speed of DSL is 8mb/s, how can you possibly get 10mb/s?


    Who knows. I thought the swift plan was 2 meg?

    > Also, if you are supposed to be getting 10mb/s then why is your modem only
    > showing a speed of 4707kb/s


    Because his modem is in the real world, like how most people never get 56k on
    there dialups and most adsl2+ customers never get 24 megs...
     
    Richard, Mar 17, 2006
    #12
  13. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:18:30 +1300, Richard wrote:

    >> Also, if you are supposed to be getting 10mb/s then why is your modem only
    >> showing a speed of 4707kb/s

    >
    > Because his modem is in the real world, like how most people never get 56k on
    > there dialups and most adsl2+ customers never get 24 megs...


    Funny that.

    Using a 56k modem, I'm currently uploading data at a speed of
    <checks speed>... 5.8 kB/s.

    And that's the upload data transfer rate of my 56k modem at the moment I
    looked at it.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 18, 2006
    #13
  14. Vista

    David Empson Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:18:30 +1300, Richard wrote:
    >
    > >> Also, if you are supposed to be getting 10mb/s then why is your modem
    > >> only showing a speed of 4707kb/s

    > >
    > > Because his modem is in the real world, like how most people never get
    > > 56k on there dialups and most adsl2+ customers never get 24 megs...

    >
    > Funny that.
    >
    > Using a 56k modem, I'm currently uploading data at a speed of
    > <checks speed>... 5.8 kB/s.


    5.8 kilobytes per second? That's about 47500 bps.

    This is theoretically possible for a V.92 modem (maximum of 48kbps
    upload given the right equipment at the other end). V.90 is limited to
    33.6kbps upload.

    If the data being sent is not compressed then somewhat higher rates are
    possible, assuming the modem has error correction and data compression
    enabled, since the modem can compress the data before sending it.

    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, Mar 18, 2006
    #14
  15. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:26:08 +1300, David Empson wrote:

    >> Using a 56k modem, I'm currently uploading data at a speed of
    >> <checks speed>... 5.8 kB/s.

    >
    > 5.8 kilobytes per second? That's about 47500 bps.
    >
    > This is theoretically possible for a V.92 modem (maximum of 48kbps
    > upload given the right equipment at the other end). V.90 is limited to
    > 33.6kbps upload.
    >
    > If the data being sent is not compressed then somewhat higher rates are
    > possible, assuming the modem has error correction and data compression
    > enabled, since the modem can compress the data before sending it.


    I am aware of that. Why else would I repeat that it was the upload speed
    that I was mentioning.

    Of course it does not sustain that speed for the entire transfer.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 18, 2006
    #15
    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. PAT HAMILLTON

    Cheaper and Faster Internet !!!!

    PAT HAMILLTON, Jun 10, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    822
    joevan
    Jun 11, 2005
  2. Tom
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    347
  3. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Xtraordinaries "Cheaper, faster internet"

    Jamie Kahn Genet, Apr 4, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    317
    Invisible
    Apr 4, 2006
  4. Jedmeister

    Telecoms faster-cheaper plans.

    Jedmeister, May 22, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    349
    Nik Coughlin
    May 23, 2006
  5. Roger Brown

    New Cheaper Telstra Clear Broadband

    Roger Brown, Mar 16, 2012, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    949
    Gordon
    Mar 17, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page