Good news on the way for broadband users.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Brendon, Oct 12, 2005.

  1. Brendon

    Brendon Guest

    Brendon, Oct 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brendon

    Bruce Knox Guest

    Bruce Knox, Oct 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nathan Mercer, Oct 13, 2005
    #3
  4. Brendon

    Richard Guest

    Richard, Oct 13, 2005
    #4
  5. On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:16:41 +1300, Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >
    > How fast down can you go, when you still only have 128 up?


    In my experience, it's about 4Mbit Maximum. At that point, the upstream
    just gets saturated with ACK (Acknowledge) packets.

    When I last downloaded from the Jetstream Games server, I was downloading
    at a rate of 4.1Mbit, and was uploading at the rate of about 16-17kBytes
    per second (128kbit/s).
     
    Pacific Dragon, Oct 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Brendon

    Richard Guest

    Pacific Dragon wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:16:41 +1300, Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >
    >>How fast down can you go, when you still only have 128 up?

    >
    >
    > In my experience, it's about 4Mbit Maximum. At that point, the upstream
    > just gets saturated with ACK (Acknowledge) packets.
    >
    > When I last downloaded from the Jetstream Games server, I was downloading
    > at a rate of 4.1Mbit, and was uploading at the rate of about 16-17kBytes
    > per second (128kbit/s).


    Acks should get a lot of compression in PPP however, but in reality, WHO THE
    **** LET THEM GET AWAY WITH 128K!!
     
    Richard, Oct 13, 2005
    #6
  7. On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:55:51 GMT, Brendon wrote:

    > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10349994
    >
    > Cheaper - lets hope!


    I'll believe it when we get it. Two things concern me...

    No mention is made of the upstream speed, 128kbit is IMHO pathetic for
    anything over 1Mbit. I'm not sure what Telecom are trying to stop by
    imposing a 128kbit upload. Currently takes too blimin long to send family
    photos to rellies.
    Additionally if more than two people are using the connection
    simultaneously, forget about trying to do anything latency sensitive such
    as streaming as the ACK packets can't get out.

    Further more, The caps have to increase, most of our usage consists of just
    generalized surfing and it's easy to chew around 50MB per person every
    evening by surfing alone. Particulary searching for information and
    researching. Forget about streaming for more than a few minutes as your
    usage is chewed up in no time. The problem is further compounded by the
    fact Telecom have just killed the Jetstream Games realm and can't get large
    files like linux ISO's anymore.

    Program updates have just really bloated out in the recent years.
    Realistically, we should have at least 30-40GB caps for the heavy users,
    while the 10-20GB caps as the benchmark for medium users such as with my
    situation.
    I'm really tired of playing bandwidth Nazi in the household.

    Sorry I can see this game of trying to hang on to the tails of the OCED
    broadband rankings going on for years while we beg comcom to keep nudging
    Telecom. I reckon more needs to be done I'm afraid.
     
    Pacific Dragon, Oct 13, 2005
    #7
  8. On 13/10/2005 8:08 p.m., Pacific Dragon wrote:
    > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:55:51 GMT, Brendon wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10349994
    >>
    >> Cheaper - lets hope!

    >
    > I'll believe it when we get it. Two things concern me...
    >
    > No mention is made of the upstream speed, 128kbit is IMHO pathetic for
    > anything over 1Mbit. I'm not sure what Telecom are trying to stop by
    > imposing a 128kbit upload. Currently takes too blimin long to send family
    > photos to rellies.


    Slowing down the uplink speed also trashes P2P stuff, which is globally
    considered to be >50% of all internet traffic. By severely crippling P2P
    traffic, Telecom are essentially reducing the traffic load on their entire
    network. As you found, it has detrimental effects on ordinary email traffic too.

    It also makes it less practical to run a server or in fact any service where
    uploading is critical, such as a high volume web or mail server. Telecom
    clearly would rather you bought a Frame Relay or PON connection at much
    greater cost, for that..........

    > Additionally if more than two people are using the connection
    > simultaneously, forget about trying to do anything latency sensitive such
    > as streaming as the ACK packets can't get out.


    Traffic queueing can fix that problem - something like 'weighted fair'
    queueing will give priority to outbound small streams of traffic and hold back
    bigger more bulky traffic, thus more or less solving your problem (although if
    you have to employ traffic prioritisation you probably need more bandwidth
    anyway). But you'll probably need a router for that, and I would not expect a
    basic $50 noname one to do anything remotely clever :(

    I would dearly love to see the uplink speed also unrestricted, or at least
    raised, even if I had to pay extra for it.

    Reuben
     
    Reuben Farrelly, Oct 13, 2005
    #8
  9. Brendon

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:08:16 +1300, Pacific Dragon wrote:

    > Further more, The caps have to increase,


    YES!! I will take 256 and a 40GB cap any day, over 2MB/s and 10GB cap.

    > [snip] and can't get large
    > files like linux ISO's anymore.


    Bittorrent blows the cap faster than a prositute in action.

    The idea of going faster with the same cap is just maketing masterbation.
    Trouble is it make too many people feel that they are getting something.

    > Sorry I can see this game of trying to hang on to the tails of the OCED
    > broadband rankings going on for years while we beg comcom to keep nudging
    > Telecom. I reckon more needs to be done I'm afraid.


    Or until Telecom feels the competition in its wallet.
     
    Gordon, Oct 13, 2005
    #9
  10. Brendon

    Mercury Guest

    thats a joke. tried getting one installed recently?

    "Reuben Farrelly" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 13/10/2005 8:08 p.m., Pacific Dragon wrote:
    >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:55:51 GMT, Brendon wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10349994
    >>>
    >>> Cheaper - lets hope!

    >>
    >> I'll believe it when we get it. Two things concern me...
    >>
    >> No mention is made of the upstream speed, 128kbit is IMHO pathetic for
    >> anything over 1Mbit. I'm not sure what Telecom are trying to stop by
    >> imposing a 128kbit upload. Currently takes too blimin long to send
    >> family
    >> photos to rellies.

    >
    > Slowing down the uplink speed also trashes P2P stuff, which is globally
    > considered to be >50% of all internet traffic. By severely crippling P2P
    > traffic, Telecom are essentially reducing the traffic load on their entire
    > network. As you found, it has detrimental effects on ordinary email
    > traffic too.
    >
    > It also makes it less practical to run a server or in fact any service
    > where uploading is critical, such as a high volume web or mail server.
    > Telecom clearly would rather you bought a Frame Relay or PON connection at
    > much greater cost, for that..........
    >
    >> Additionally if more than two people are using the connection
    >> simultaneously, forget about trying to do anything latency sensitive such
    >> as streaming as the ACK packets can't get out.

    >
    > Traffic queueing can fix that problem - something like 'weighted fair'
    > queueing will give priority to outbound small streams of traffic and hold
    > back bigger more bulky traffic, thus more or less solving your problem
    > (although if you have to employ traffic prioritisation you probably need
    > more bandwidth anyway). But you'll probably need a router for that, and I
    > would not expect a basic $50 noname one to do anything remotely clever :(
    >
    > I would dearly love to see the uplink speed also unrestricted, or at least
    > raised, even if I had to pay extra for it.
    >
    > Reuben
     
    Mercury, Oct 13, 2005
    #10
  11. Brendon

    shannon Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > Pacific Dragon wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:16:41 +1300, Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >>
    >>> How fast down can you go, when you still only have 128 up?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> In my experience, it's about 4Mbit Maximum. At that point, the upstream
    >> just gets saturated with ACK (Acknowledge) packets.
    >> When I last downloaded from the Jetstream Games server, I was downloading
    >> at a rate of 4.1Mbit, and was uploading at the rate of about 16-17kBytes
    >> per second (128kbit/s).

    >
    >
    > Acks should get a lot of compression in PPP however, but in reality, WHO
    > THE **** LET THEM GET AWAY WITH 128K!!
    >


    <Kent Brockman>
    I blame you, the customer
     
    shannon, Oct 13, 2005
    #11
  12. <scratches head> Getting one what installed?

    A router?
    A PON service?
    A server?


    On 13/10/2005 9:21 p.m., Mercury wrote:
    > thats a joke. tried getting one installed recently?
    >
    > "Reuben Farrelly" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On 13/10/2005 8:08 p.m., Pacific Dragon wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:55:51 GMT, Brendon wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10349994
    >>>>
    >>>> Cheaper - lets hope!
    >>> I'll believe it when we get it. Two things concern me...
    >>>
    >>> No mention is made of the upstream speed, 128kbit is IMHO pathetic for
    >>> anything over 1Mbit. I'm not sure what Telecom are trying to stop by
    >>> imposing a 128kbit upload. Currently takes too blimin long to send
    >>> family
    >>> photos to rellies.

    >> Slowing down the uplink speed also trashes P2P stuff, which is globally
    >> considered to be >50% of all internet traffic. By severely crippling P2P
    >> traffic, Telecom are essentially reducing the traffic load on their entire
    >> network. As you found, it has detrimental effects on ordinary email
    >> traffic too.
    >>
    >> It also makes it less practical to run a server or in fact any service
    >> where uploading is critical, such as a high volume web or mail server.
    >> Telecom clearly would rather you bought a Frame Relay or PON connection at
    >> much greater cost, for that..........
    >>
    >>> Additionally if more than two people are using the connection
    >>> simultaneously, forget about trying to do anything latency sensitive such
    >>> as streaming as the ACK packets can't get out.

    >> Traffic queueing can fix that problem - something like 'weighted fair'
    >> queueing will give priority to outbound small streams of traffic and hold
    >> back bigger more bulky traffic, thus more or less solving your problem
    >> (although if you have to employ traffic prioritisation you probably need
    >> more bandwidth anyway). But you'll probably need a router for that, and I
    >> would not expect a basic $50 noname one to do anything remotely clever :(
    >>
    >> I would dearly love to see the uplink speed also unrestricted, or at least
    >> raised, even if I had to pay extra for it.
    >>
    >> Reuben

    >
    >
     
    Reuben Farrelly, Oct 13, 2005
    #12
  13. Brendon

    Richard Guest

    Reuben Farrelly wrote:
    > <scratches head> Getting one what installed?
    >
    > A router?
    > A PON service?
    > A server?


    I think the answer was (D) true Broadband
     
    Richard, Oct 13, 2005
    #13
  14. Brendon

    Geoff M Guest

    On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:08:16 +1300, Pacific Dragon wrote:

    > Additionally if more than two people are using the connection
    > simultaneously, forget about trying to do anything latency sensitive such
    > as streaming as the ACK packets can't get out.


    There is your answer - latency sensitive applications. VoIP such as Skype
    is one such application, and it has huge potential to gut Telecom's cash
    cow and mega profits. If they can kill that, they can cream off another
    $billion a year until they can get their IP network sorted, so they can
    rule that area as well. Since they own the network, they can then dictate
    the terms and service to the other providers, so the monopoly continues.
    G
     
    Geoff M, Oct 13, 2005
    #14
  15. Brendon

    Mercury Guest

    the answer was any leased link - fibre, frame... etc.

    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Reuben Farrelly wrote:
    >> <scratches head> Getting one what installed?
    >>
    >> A router?
    >> A PON service?
    >> A server?

    >
    > I think the answer was (D) true Broadband
     
    Mercury, Oct 14, 2005
    #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. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    429
  3. Neil
    Replies:
    174
    Views:
    3,384
    Briscobar
    Apr 17, 2006
  4. John John

    AMD Opteron: 1-way, 2-way, ... Up to 8-way.

    John John, Dec 24, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    846
    Tony Sperling
    Dec 27, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,255
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page