More Orcon FUD ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Chris Mayhew, Feb 17, 2005.

  1. Chris Mayhew

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    From a letter to Orcon customers posted in this NG 1/2/2005

    "Hi Customers

    Our UBS problems are occurring because of congestion on the data
    circuit between us and Telecom used for UBS (NOT because we have a
    shortage of 'Bandwidth' - which is capacity from Orcon's network to
    the Internet)."

    And Orcons current System Status

    "SYSTEM STATUS
    International Latency and High Pings.
    Users may currently be experiencing high latency and slower than normal
    downloads on BitStream DSL.

    This performance degradation is due to network congestion, and we are
    working with our upstream providers to get increased capacity
    provisioned as soon as possible."

    My ping times have always been much longer (about double most of the
    time) since I got changed over to UBS. Downloads have always been
    slower since changing.

    IIRC, the second ATM line went in a few days or a week ago so the first
    problem should have been solved ?

    So how can you go from a situation of NOT having a shortage of
    International Bandwidth to "network congestion" in a matter of days if
    there is a limited number of new customers that Telecom can connect to
    Orcon each day ?

    Is this an example of Orcon FUD (always blaming Telecom) or is poor
    planning on Orcon part a major factor as well?

    How can their projections for Bandwidth requirements be so out of step
    with what's happening on the ground ?

    As I have said in the past - if it's not one thing, it's another.


    --
     
    Chris Mayhew, Feb 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris Mayhew wrote:
    > So how can you go from a situation of NOT having a shortage of
    > International Bandwidth to "network congestion" in a matter of days if
    > there is a limited number of new customers that Telecom can connect to
    > Orcon each day ?


    simple... the lack of bandwidth between Telecom and Orcon hid the fact
    that there was a lack of bandwidth between Orcon and the net... once the
    floodgates were opened, there was a new bottleneck... well, atleast
    thats how I see it.

    > Is this an example of Orcon FUD (always blaming Telecom) or is poor
    > planning on Orcon part a major factor as well?


    AFAICT, it is more a Telecom thing that Orcon... not that it matters, as
    the customeres buy from Orcon, and so Orcon are the public face for the
    problem, so they get the slamming.

    > How can their projections for Bandwidth requirements be so out of step
    > with what's happening on the ground ?


    Network hogs, P2P... any number of things.

    > As I have said in the past - if it's not one thing, it's another.


    it always is with networks... nothing is ever perfect as users are an
    ever changing variable.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Feb 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris Mayhew

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Chris Mayhew wrote:
    >
    >> So how can you go from a situation of NOT having a shortage of
    >> International Bandwidth to "network congestion" in a matter of days if
    >> there is a limited number of new customers that Telecom can connect to
    >> Orcon each day ?

    >
    >
    > simple... the lack of bandwidth between Telecom and Orcon hid the fact
    > that there was a lack of bandwidth between Orcon and the net... once the
    > floodgates were opened, there was a new bottleneck... well, atleast
    > thats how I see it.


    Thats how I see it also, however Orcon where saying that they had plenty
    of BW and that the problem was solely due to Telecom.

    >
    >> Is this an example of Orcon FUD (always blaming Telecom) or is poor
    >> planning on Orcon part a major factor as well?

    >
    >
    > AFAICT, it is more a Telecom thing that Orcon... not that it matters, as
    > the customeres buy from Orcon, and so Orcon are the public face for the
    > problem, so they get the slamming.


    I think it does matter in the sence that peter cried wolfe once too
    often, and then no one believed him when he was telling the truth.
    There was a problem, it was Telecom, Orcon blamed Telecom saying they
    had "plenty" of international BW, Telecom fixed their problem, but there
    is still a problem - Orcon didn't have plenty of International BW
    afterall. The fact that my UBS is now performing worse than it was
    before the additional ATM was installed seems to suggest that fact -
    i.e. now that more people can suck more out of Orcon, performance has
    dropped - if Orcon had "plenty" of BW why would this be the case. I
    guess it comes down to how much is "plenty", I'm sure everyone will have
    a different POV on that, after all "plenty" is a very subjective amount.

    >
    >> How can their projections for Bandwidth requirements be so out of step
    >> with what's happening on the ground ?

    >
    >
    > Network hogs, P2P... any number of things.


    There has always been those "problems", it doesn't explain IMO, how
    someone could be so out of step with whats happening. In fact my UBS is
    running a little slower than it has been the last few weeks.
    >
    >> As I have said in the past - if it's not one thing, it's another.

    >
    >
    > it always is with networks... nothing is ever perfect as users are an
    > ever changing variable.


    Other utilities don't seem to suffer to anywhere near the same extent.

    --
     
    Chris Mayhew, Feb 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Chris Mayhew

    Mike_P Guest

    "Chris Mayhew" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > From a letter to Orcon customers posted in this NG 1/2/2005
    >
    > "Hi Customers
    >
    > Our UBS problems are occurring because of congestion on the data
    > circuit between us and Telecom used for UBS (NOT because we have a
    > shortage of 'Bandwidth' - which is capacity from Orcon's network to
    > the Internet)."
    >
    > And Orcons current System Status
    >
    > "SYSTEM STATUS
    > International Latency and High Pings.
    > Users may currently be experiencing high latency and slower than normal
    > downloads on BitStream DSL.
    >
    > This performance degradation is due to network congestion, and we are
    > working with our upstream providers to get increased capacity provisioned
    > as soon as possible."
    >
    > My ping times have always been much longer (about double most of the time)
    > since I got changed over to UBS. Downloads have always been slower
    > since changing.
    >
    > IIRC, the second ATM line went in a few days or a week ago so the first
    > problem should have been solved ?
    >
    > So how can you go from a situation of NOT having a shortage of
    > International Bandwidth to "network congestion" in a matter of days if
    > there is a limited number of new customers that Telecom can connect to
    > Orcon each day ?
    >
    > Is this an example of Orcon FUD (always blaming Telecom) or is poor
    > planning on Orcon part a major factor as well?
    >
    > How can their projections for Bandwidth requirements be so out of step
    > with what's happening on the ground ?
    >
    > As I have said in the past - if it's not one thing, it's another.
    >
    >
    > --


    And it's been going on for not days or weeks but months.

    Mike_P



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    Mike_P, Feb 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Chris Mayhew

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    Mike_P wrote:

    >
    >
    > And it's been going on for not days or weeks but months.
    >
    > Mike_P
    >
    >
    >


    Thats true, but I guess it's all relative..


    --
     
    Chris Mayhew, Feb 17, 2005
    #5
  6. Chris Mayhew

    mark Guest

    "Mike_P" <> wrote in
    news:4215224f$1_2@127.0.0.1:

    >> Is this an example of Orcon FUD (always blaming Telecom) or is poor
    >> planning on Orcon part a major factor as well?
    >>
    >> How can their projections for Bandwidth requirements be so out of
    >> step with what's happening on the ground ?
    >>
    >> As I have said in the past - if it's not one thing, it's another.
    >>
    >>
    >> --

    >
    > And it's been going on for not days or weeks but months.
    >
    > Mike_P



    Orcon performance as been so poor that they gone from being the ISP I
    recommend to the one I tell people to avoid. Frankly, I have been
    recommending Telecom, which is something I never thought I'd do again.
     
    mark, Feb 18, 2005
    #6
  7. On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:28:31 +1300, Chris Mayhew wrote:

    > From a letter to Orcon customers posted in this NG 1/2/2005
    >
    > "Hi Customers
    >
    > Our UBS problems are occurring because of congestion on the data
    > circuit between us and Telecom used for UBS (NOT because we have a
    > shortage of 'Bandwidth' - which is capacity from Orcon's network to
    > the Internet)."
    >
    > And Orcons current System Status
    >
    > "SYSTEM STATUS
    > International Latency and High Pings.
    > Users may currently be experiencing high latency and slower than normal
    > downloads on BitStream DSL.
    >
    > This performance degradation is due to network congestion, and we are
    > working with our upstream providers to get increased capacity
    > provisioned as soon as possible."
    >
    > My ping times have always been much longer (about double most of the
    > time) since I got changed over to UBS. Downloads have always been
    > slower since changing.
    >
    > IIRC, the second ATM line went in a few days or a week ago so the first
    > problem should have been solved ?
    >
    > So how can you go from a situation of NOT having a shortage of
    > International Bandwidth to "network congestion" in a matter of days if
    > there is a limited number of new customers that Telecom can connect to
    > Orcon each day ?
    >
    > Is this an example of Orcon FUD (always blaming Telecom) or is poor
    > planning on Orcon part a major factor as well?
    >
    > How can their projections for Bandwidth requirements be so out of step
    > with what's happening on the ground ?
    >
    > As I have said in the past - if it's not one thing, it's another.


    Please don't post about them it just gets me too ##@! mad.
    They seem to have been caught out by their lies. I bet they are still
    signing up poor sods who will wonder why "broadband" is better than a
    modem.

    What is particularly dodgy is when they removed the known issue(s) notice..
     
    wogers nemesis, Feb 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Chris Mayhew

    Guest

    On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:28:31 +1300, Chris Mayhew wrote:

    > How can their projections for Bandwidth requirements be so out of step
    > with what's happening on the ground ?


    Maybe it's because Orcon did not expect such a rush of new subscribers so
    quickly.

    Just guessing...


    Divine

    --
    The Queen's Mother: "Well I don't know what all you queens are doing,
    but this old Queen wants a drink."
     
    , Feb 19, 2005
    #8
  9. Chris Mayhew

    Crash Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.02.19.04.27.49.609808@TRACKER...
    > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:28:31 +1300, Chris Mayhew wrote:
    >
    >> How can their projections for Bandwidth requirements be so out of step
    >> with what's happening on the ground ?

    >
    > Maybe it's because Orcon did not expect such a rush of new subscribers so
    > quickly.
    >
    > Just guessing...


    A couple of months ago I contacted TelstraClear asking about their
    high-speed internet/TV/Phone offering. They said their internet service was
    fully loaded in my area but they were keen to talk to me about the rest. It
    seems to me that Orcon could do with help from Paradise...

    Crash.
     
    Crash, Feb 19, 2005
    #9
  10. Chris Mayhew

    Ryan Jacobs Guest

    "" <> provided this
    moment of wisdom....

    >On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:28:31 +1300, Chris Mayhew wrote:
    >
    >> How can their projections for Bandwidth requirements be so out of step
    >> with what's happening on the ground ?

    >
    >Maybe it's because Orcon did not expect such a rush of new subscribers so
    >quickly.
    >
    >Just guessing...
    >



    And it's a logical guess.

    But in their case, they can no longer use that as a valid excuse.

    I joined Orcon about 18 months ago (IIRC), and the service delivery
    was crap then.

    They used the excuse that they didn't expect the sudden "demand". On
    that, I told them to shove it.

    So, given that they are incapable of providing sufficient supply to
    meet the demand - why the heck are they still signing up new
    customers.

    And, its nothing new - its been going on for at least 18 months.

    The other excuse (it's all telescums fault), is not valid either -
    simply because their total customer service standards have gone down
    the toilet (nntp, helpdesk, etc) - you cant convince me that it
    telescums fault.



    --
     
    Ryan Jacobs, Feb 19, 2005
    #10
  11. Chris Mayhew

    -=rjh=- Guest

    wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:28:31 +1300, Chris Mayhew wrote:
    >
    >
    >>How can their projections for Bandwidth requirements be so out of step
    >>with what's happening on the ground ?

    >
    >
    > Maybe it's because Orcon did not expect such a rush of new subscribers so
    > quickly.
    >
    > Just guessing...


    I doubt it, in fact I think those who have changed over would probably
    say that the glacial pace with which Telecom switched Orcon customers
    over to UBS would have helped Orcon avoid such a rush of subscribers.

    Even now, I have a friend who has signed up with Orcon as a new
    customer, and it has taken a month for Orcon and Telecom to organise the
    connection. There was a mistake in the phone number area code, and
    even though Telecom had both a telecom phone account number, full
    address and a customer name, they sent the paperwork back to Orcon to
    fix up. Then guess what? It went to the back of the queue.

    Anybody else seen such blatant delaying tactics?

    On the other hand, I think Orcon did badly underestimate the amount of
    data uncapped users would use, and shows just how artificial and
    limiting the more generally available caps are. "Broadband" is for
    using, what is the point of having it if you can't use it? I know I
    certainly have been, I probably used 30GB last month although that
    probably wasn't typical.
     
    -=rjh=-, Feb 19, 2005
    #11
    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. Gazwad

    Re: FUD anyone?

    Gazwad, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    428
    Gazwad
    Aug 30, 2003
  2. thing

    FUD: Get the facts Windows v Linux

    thing, Oct 31, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    128
    Views:
    2,053
    Patrick Dunford
    Nov 7, 2004
  3. Chris Hope

    Novell Responds to Get The Fud

    Chris Hope, Nov 5, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    333
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Nov 7, 2004
  4. Peter

    More MS FUD

    Peter, Jan 31, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    962
    Collector»NZ
    Feb 1, 2005
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    You Want FUD, Here’s FUD

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 23, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    362
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jan 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page