Repost: Orcon UBS choking.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by ~misfit~, Nov 27, 2005.

  1. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    I posted this earlier. It's in my sent items folder but didn't show up in
    the group. Through Orcon. Hmmm.

    Anyway:

    *******************************

    I have Orcon 2M/128k UBS. I run bittorrent sometimes. I know Orcon use layer
    7 packet sniffing to de-prioritise p2p traffic and I accept that. However,
    at the moment thay've de-prioritised it so much I might as well be on
    dial-up.

    See: http://www.orcon.net.nz/index.html/help/status/bitstream/

    This fourth ATM can't come on-line too soon IMO. I have had Azurus running
    for 20 hours now unthrottled (although I pause it when I want to download
    groups or play an on-line game) and I have a share ratio of 1.753 for this
    session. I have downloaded only 309MB and uploaded 543MB!!! This on a
    connection that is supposedly 16 times faster downstream than upstream! This
    includes running overnight when one would expect demand to taper off a
    little.

    Also, I've noticed that, even with Azureus turned off, latency sensitive
    applications are running slowly in the last few days particularly. Orcon are
    running at 100%+ of their current capacity (Don't beleive that graphic) and
    currently aren't able to supply their product as advertised. (Although, in
    their TOS, they are covered by a 'best effort' clause).

    C'mon Orcon, get that fourth ATM running! You knew this was going to happen,
    don't cut it too fine and annoy the customers who have been with you through
    thick and thin. You want to be a serious contender for best NZ ISP? This ATM
    should have been on-line two weeks ago. Then I would be singing your praises
    instead of suffering a major slow-down.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ~misfit~

    Kazonme Guest

    On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:05:40 +1300, "~misfit~" <> wrote:

    >I posted this earlier. It's in my sent items folder but didn't show up in
    >the group. Through Orcon. Hmmm.
    >
    >Anyway:
    >
    >*******************************
    >
    >I have Orcon 2M/128k UBS. I run bittorrent sometimes. I know Orcon use layer
    >7 packet sniffing to de-prioritise p2p traffic and I accept that. However,
    >at the moment thay've de-prioritised it so much I might as well be on
    >dial-up.
    >
    >See: http://www.orcon.net.nz/index.html/help/status/bitstream/


    Yes same here

    choke , choke choke!

    come on Orcon!
     
    Kazonme, Nov 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:05:40 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > I posted this earlier. It's in my sent items folder but didn't show up in
    > the group. Through Orcon. Hmmm.
    >
    > Anyway:
    >
    > *******************************
    >
    > I have Orcon 2M/128k UBS. I run bittorrent sometimes. I know Orcon use layer
    > 7 packet sniffing to de-prioritise p2p traffic and I accept that. However,
    > at the moment thay've de-prioritised it so much I might as well be on
    > dial-up.
    >
    > See: http://www.orcon.net.nz/index.html/help/status/bitstream/
    >
    > This fourth ATM can't come on-line too soon IMO. I have had Azurus running
    > for 20 hours now unthrottled (although I pause it when I want to download
    > groups or play an on-line game) and I have a share ratio of 1.753 for this
    > session. I have downloaded only 309MB and uploaded 543MB!!! This on a
    > connection that is supposedly 16 times faster downstream than upstream! This
    > includes running overnight when one would expect demand to taper off a
    > little.
    >
    > Also, I've noticed that, even with Azureus turned off, latency sensitive
    > applications are running slowly in the last few days particularly. Orcon are
    > running at 100%+ of their current capacity (Don't beleive that graphic) and
    > currently aren't able to supply their product as advertised. (Although, in
    > their TOS, they are covered by a 'best effort' clause).
    >
    > C'mon Orcon, get that fourth ATM running! You knew this was going to happen,
    > don't cut it too fine and annoy the customers who have been with you through
    > thick and thin. You want to be a serious contender for best NZ ISP? This ATM
    > should have been on-line two weeks ago. Then I would be singing your praises
    > instead of suffering a major slow-down.


    It is easier just to leave ...
    They want to get rid of any non-http users by the looks of things..
     
    wogers nemesis, Nov 27, 2005
    #3
  4. ~misfit~

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Kazonme wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:05:40 +1300, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I posted this earlier. It's in my sent items folder but didn't show up in
    >>the group. Through Orcon. Hmmm.
    >>
    >>Anyway:
    >>
    >>*******************************
    >>
    >>I have Orcon 2M/128k UBS. I run bittorrent sometimes. I know Orcon use layer
    >>7 packet sniffing to de-prioritise p2p traffic and I accept that. However,
    >>at the moment thay've de-prioritised it so much I might as well be on
    >>dial-up.
    >>
    >>See: http://www.orcon.net.nz/index.html/help/status/bitstream/

    >
    >
    > Yes same here
    >
    > choke , choke choke!
    >
    > come on Orcon!
    >


    Orcon must be dealing with 2M and 256K plans differently, or there are
    some other factors at play here.

    I'm getting >20Kb/s downloading one torrent at present (Ubuntu 5.10 - a
    *very* popular torrent) and this is probably during the peak evening
    traffic, too.

    256/128 Orcon UBS. What are other 256K UBS customers seeing?
     
    -=rjh=-, Nov 27, 2005
    #4
  5. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    wogers nemesis wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:05:40 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >> I posted this earlier. It's in my sent items folder but didn't show
    >> up in the group. Through Orcon. Hmmm.
    >>
    >> Anyway:
    >>
    >> *******************************
    >>
    >> I have Orcon 2M/128k UBS. I run bittorrent sometimes. I know Orcon
    >> use layer 7 packet sniffing to de-prioritise p2p traffic and I
    >> accept that. However, at the moment thay've de-prioritised it so
    >> much I might as well be on dial-up.
    >>
    >> See: http://www.orcon.net.nz/index.html/help/status/bitstream/
    >>
    >> This fourth ATM can't come on-line too soon IMO. I have had Azurus
    >> running for 20 hours now unthrottled (although I pause it when I
    >> want to download groups or play an on-line game) and I have a share
    >> ratio of 1.753 for this session. I have downloaded only 309MB and
    >> uploaded 543MB!!! This on a connection that is supposedly 16 times
    >> faster downstream than upstream! This includes running overnight
    >> when one would expect demand to taper off a little.
    >>
    >> Also, I've noticed that, even with Azureus turned off, latency
    >> sensitive applications are running slowly in the last few days
    >> particularly. Orcon are running at 100%+ of their current capacity
    >> (Don't beleive that graphic) and currently aren't able to supply
    >> their product as advertised. (Although, in their TOS, they are
    >> covered by a 'best effort' clause).
    >>
    >> C'mon Orcon, get that fourth ATM running! You knew this was going to
    >> happen, don't cut it too fine and annoy the customers who have been
    >> with you through thick and thin. You want to be a serious contender
    >> for best NZ ISP? This ATM should have been on-line two weeks ago.
    >> Then I would be singing your praises instead of suffering a major
    >> slow-down.

    >
    > It is easier just to leave ...
    > They want to get rid of any non-http users by the looks of things..


    I don't believe that. Otherwise they'd have stuck with their flat-rate plans
    and just throttled p2p out of existence. Instead they now charge for data.
    I've downloaded 29.6GB in the last billing cycle, thereby paying an extra
    $20 on top of my monthly charge. I don't mind that *if* it's going to speed
    up a bit. At the rate it's going now there's no way I could download that in
    the current month.

    It's my belief that, by going to a pay-per-10GB plan they are actually
    catering for the high-bandwidth users. At least that's what they said, I
    wouldn't be penalised so much speed-wise if I was paying for my data as I
    would if I was on flat rate.

    If you look at the pie-chart on that page you will see that around 60% of
    the traffic going through their UBS is p2p. (WTF is "Generic TCP? That's
    another 13% or so, the third biggest segment. If that's p2p as well then
    we're looking at around 70%). If they want to get rid of non-http users then
    they'll lose a large portion of their customer-base. Personally, I have
    'broadband' for p2p, the latency on my old Xtra dial-up was better than
    Orcon UBS so it's no advantage for gaming. I use my connection for mainly
    p2p, gaming and newsgroups. Email too of course but only plain text and a
    14.4k modem would be fine for that. I don't use Flash so browsing isn't too
    bad on dial-up. I'm paying a premium for data. at speed. They're not
    supplying it. Yet their 'new' plans are charging by the GB so it looks to me
    like they want high-throughput users.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 27, 2005
    #5
  6. On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:05:40 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > This fourth ATM can't come on-line too soon IMO. I have had Azurus running
    > for 20 hours now unthrottled (although I pause it when I want to download
    > groups or play an on-line game) and I have a share ratio of 1.753 for this
    > session. I have downloaded only 309MB and uploaded 543MB!!! This on a
    > connection that is supposedly 16 times faster downstream than upstream! This
    > includes running overnight when one would expect demand to taper off a
    > little.


    Just my two cents here and Off the track a little bit.

    Sometimes with the cut throat nature of the ISP industry as it is now, I
    can't help thinking and dreading (and I sincerely HOPE that I am wrong on
    this) that regular slowdowns and outages such as this situation you
    describe could probably become the norm for some ISP for the foreseeable
    future. There has been mention that Margins are wafer thin with UBS,
    resulting in less capital to spend on preventative maintenance and extra
    redundancy for anticipated growth.

    I remember when I first signed up with Orcon about 5 years ago after having
    left Ihug, Orcon charged a much higher price for their Jetstart and Dial up
    accounts, but their service quality I believed were second to none.
    Throughout the time I had Orcon Dialup and Jetstart, I had experienced very
    few if any problems. Things always downloaded fast and their mail, Usenet
    and homepage servers hardly blinked. This was I believe due to the fact
    they actually had the additional capital for additional preventative
    maintenance and for the purchase of extra redundancy to account for growth
    way before it was required.

    Recently we had to jump ship to Xtra in order to save our Jetstream
    Connection from the Chop. I had been waiting patiently on the side lines
    for things to pan out on the UBS front, but time obviously ran out.

    I am hoping to come back to Orcon in due course, but if what I said in the
    first paragraph is true of the current situation, then it looks Like I
    could be on *shivers* Telecom Xtra indefinitely. I wonder if Orcon will
    ever decide to offer WSA Jetstream along side UBS like World-net have done?
    The catch I suppose is that it could be interpreted as an admission that
    their own service (Orcon Bitstream) which they provide through UBS is
    substandard...
     
    Pacific Dragon, Nov 27, 2005
    #6
  7. ~misfit~

    russell Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in
    news:4389315c$:

    > I posted this earlier. It's in my sent items folder but didn't show up
    > in the group. Through Orcon. Hmmm.
    >
    > Anyway:
    >
    > *******************************
    >
    > I have Orcon 2M/128k UBS. I run bittorrent sometimes. I know Orcon use
    > layer 7 packet sniffing to de-prioritise p2p traffic and I accept
    > that. However, at the moment thay've de-prioritised it so much I might
    > as well be on dial-up.
    >
    > See: http://www.orcon.net.nz/index.html/help/status/bitstream/
    >
    > This fourth ATM can't come on-line too soon IMO. I have had Azurus
    > running for 20 hours now unthrottled (although I pause it when I want
    > to download groups or play an on-line game) and I have a share ratio
    > of 1.753 for this session. I have downloaded only 309MB and uploaded
    > 543MB!!! This on a connection that is supposedly 16 times faster
    > downstream than upstream! This includes running overnight when one
    > would expect demand to taper off a little.
    >
    > Also, I've noticed that, even with Azureus turned off, latency
    > sensitive applications are running slowly in the last few days
    > particularly. Orcon are running at 100%+ of their current capacity
    > (Don't beleive that graphic) and currently aren't able to supply their
    > product as advertised. (Although, in their TOS, they are covered by a
    > 'best effort' clause).
    >
    > C'mon Orcon, get that fourth ATM running! You knew this was going to
    > happen, don't cut it too fine and annoy the customers who have been
    > with you through thick and thin. You want to be a serious contender
    > for best NZ ISP? This ATM should have been on-line two weeks ago. Then
    > I would be singing your praises instead of suffering a major
    > slow-down.


    I think the best way for orcon to control p2p download is to have a more
    complete news server then less people would use it. My 2 cents
     
    russell, Nov 27, 2005
    #7
  8. ~misfit~

    Brendan Guest

    On 27 Nov 2005 23:48:30 +1200, russell wrote:

    >> C'mon Orcon, get that fourth ATM running! You knew this was going to
    >> happen, don't cut it too fine and annoy the customers who have been
    >> with you through thick and thin. You want to be a serious contender
    >> for best NZ ISP? This ATM should have been on-line two weeks ago. Then
    >> I would be singing your praises instead of suffering a major
    >> slow-down.

    >
    > I think the best way for orcon to control p2p download is to have a more
    > complete news server then less people would use it. My 2 cents


    P2P is the 'killer app' of Broadband.

    Fact is, there is no need for it for 99% of web sites or email.

    Sharing music, movies, and other large files is what consumer broadband is
    about. From it, fortunes will be made or lost.

    The main problem with p2p here in nz, is Telecom. The sooner we can leash
    this destructive parasite the better for this country.

    Orcon and other ISP's should change their business models away from selling
    access to their http cache and mail servers and towards p2p.

    The RIAA, and MPAA, etc ? irrelevant has beens of a bygone age, as dead as
    the dinosaur and not nearly as interesting. They will be remembered as the
    Ku Klux Klan of culture. Regardless of the laws they force through, people
    have had the taste now. The genie is out of the bottle, thankfully.

    Look forward to p2p systems indistinguishable from normal HTTP (to avoid
    traffic shaping), that encrypt transfers with military grade encryption,
    downloading from thousands of sources, trust facilities that remove rouge
    traders in real time, DMCA protected protocols and licenses outlawing
    investigations by agents of the MPAA, Open source and un-killable in any
    fashion.

    And what about the movie industry ? Won't it die ? Yes, and who cares ? As
    the fat cats are soo fond of telling us, when technology destroys one
    industry, it opens up another. We will have plenty of films made for free:
    already amatuer productions are of a quality of multi-million dollar
    blockbusters of 15 years ago. Music and movie will be something you and a
    few friends can make in your comp room and give away. And so it fucking
    well should be: are you not sick to death of the formula CRAP they dish out
    to us and charge long-since-proven-ripoff prices for ?

    /rant ends.

    --

    .... Brendan

    #151227 +(4227)- [X]

    IronChef Foicite: well, there's a lot of reasons
    IronChef Foicite: i mean, roses only last like a couple weeks
    IronChef Foicite: and that's if you leave them in water
    IronChef Foicite: and they really only exist to be pretty
    IronChef Foicite: so that's like saying
    IronChef Foicite: "my love for you is transitory and based solely on your
    appearance"
    IronChef Foicite: but a potato!
    IronChef Foicite: potatos last for fucking ever, man
    IronChef Foicite: in fact, not only will they not rot, they actually grow
    shit even if you just leave them in the sack
    IronChef Foicite: that part alone makes it a good symbol
    IronChef Foicite: but there's more!
    IronChef Foicite: there are so many ways to enjoy a potato! you can even
    make a battery with it!
    IronChef Foicite: and that's like saying "i have many ways in which I show
    my love for you"
    IronChef Foicite: and potatos may be ugly, but they're still awesome
    IronChef Foicite: so that's like saying "it doesn't matter at all what you
    look like, I'll still love you"


    Note: All my comments are copyright 28/11/2005 12:24:25 a.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
     
    Brendan, Nov 27, 2005
    #8
  9. ~misfit~

    Richard Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:

    > Orcon must be dealing with 2M and 256K plans differently, or there are
    > some other factors at play here.
    >
    > I'm getting >20Kb/s downloading one torrent at present (Ubuntu 5.10 - a
    > *very* popular torrent) and this is probably during the peak evening
    > traffic, too.
    >
    > 256/128 Orcon UBS. What are other 256K UBS customers seeing?


    Crap is what I am seeing at the moment.

    Based on there inability to get me a direct debit form, I think they are totally
    incompitent.
     
    Richard, Nov 27, 2005
    #9
  10. ~misfit~

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Brendan wrote:
    > On 27 Nov 2005 23:48:30 +1200, russell wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>C'mon Orcon, get that fourth ATM running! You knew this was going to
    >>>happen, don't cut it too fine and annoy the customers who have been
    >>>with you through thick and thin. You want to be a serious contender
    >>>for best NZ ISP? This ATM should have been on-line two weeks ago. Then
    >>>I would be singing your praises instead of suffering a major
    >>>slow-down.

    >>
    >>I think the best way for orcon to control p2p download is to have a more
    >>complete news server then less people would use it. My 2 cents

    >
    >
    > P2P is the 'killer app' of Broadband.


    Strongly disagree.

    P2P is *currently* *one* of the "killer apps" for broadband. Other
    people would vote for podcasting, or streaming radio. Others might just
    like the fact it is always on, making it irrelevant whether your data
    resides on your PC or elsewhere on the net. Some people think Skype is
    the "killer app" for broadband.
    >
    > Fact is, there is no need for it for 99% of web sites or email.


    True enough, if you are talking about the speed - and since P2P isn't
    realtime, it doesn't require broadband either. But you are ignoring the
    always on aspect, which is just as (possibly more) important.
    >
    > Sharing music, movies, and other large files is what consumer broadband is
    > about. From it, fortunes will be made or lost.
    >

    I don't think sharing is as big a deal as publishing in the first place.
    Look at what is happening with personal publishing, for example. Some
    people are making real money at it, some are having a real effect on
    mainstream media. Some are reaching huge audiences, in near realtime,
    without the normal media gatekeepers.

    The big deal as I see it wrt to P2P, is the possible use of BT or some
    derivative as a widespread transport method.

    > The main problem with p2p here in nz, is Telecom. The sooner we can leash
    > this destructive parasite the better for this country.
    >
    > Orcon and other ISP's should change their business models away from selling
    > access to their http cache and mail servers and towards p2p.


    Absolutely not! That is a myopic viewpoint. If decisions like this were
    made a few years ago, the NZ internet would be optimised for streaming
    video, as that was what Telecom were thinking broadband was going to be
    used for. That's dumb - generally video doesn't need to be realtime.

    All traffic should be treated equally. That way the gives the best
    chance for the next new thing on the internet to get started. And
    treating all traffic equally is the best way to get innovation
    happening. It is how the internet was intended to be from the beginning.

    Vint Cerf (who knows a little about the internet) recently wrote:

    (http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200511/msg00149.html)

    "The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in
    many ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics
    that were part of its design. The Internet was designed with no
    gatekeepers over new content or services. The Internet is based on a
    layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the
    network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence
    at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the
    Internet has created a platform for innovation. This has led to an
    explosion of offerings – from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to blogging – that
    might never have evolved had central control of the network been
    required by design."

    ISPs should just sell us access and data; nothing more, nothing less.
    They can (and do) differentiate on added services.

    >
    > The RIAA, and MPAA, etc ? irrelevant has beens of a bygone age, as dead as
    > the dinosaur and not nearly as interesting. They will be remembered as the
    > Ku Klux Klan of culture. Regardless of the laws they force through, people
    > have had the taste now. The genie is out of the bottle, thankfully.
    >

    You seem to forget that the whole Hollywood movie culture was itself
    born out of rebellion against the incumbent movie system; it is just as
    likely that something will take its place. It might even be worse.

    > Look forward to p2p systems indistinguishable from normal HTTP (to avoid
    > traffic shaping), that encrypt transfers with military grade encryption,
    > downloading from thousands of sources, trust facilities that remove rouge
    > traders in real time, DMCA protected protocols and licenses outlawing
    > investigations by agents of the MPAA, Open source and un-killable in any
    > fashion.
    >

    Not going to happen. Look at it being more likely that MPAA start
    figuring out how to use BT distribution in conjunction with DRM. Eventually.

    > And what about the movie industry ? Won't it die ? Yes, and who cares ? As
    > the fat cats are soo fond of telling us, when technology destroys one
    > industry, it opens up another. We will have plenty of films made for free:
    > already amatuer productions are of a quality of multi-million dollar
    > blockbusters of 15 years ago. Music and movie will be something you and a
    > few friends can make in your comp room and give away.


    Get real, while there are a few with skills, it isn't going to be just
    anybody who can make a movie worth watching. Most people can't even make
    a sentence worth reading.

    And so it fucking
    > well should be: are you not sick to death of the formula CRAP they dish out
    > to us and charge long-since-proven-ripoff prices for ?
    >


    No, 'cos I just don't see it. It isn't a problem - for me. It might be,
    for them. Nobody is forcing you to watch - just ignore it, it'll go
    away. There's plenty else to do - too much else, in fact.
     
    -=rjh=-, Nov 28, 2005
    #10
  11. ~misfit~

    -=rjh=- Guest

    russell wrote:
    >
    >
    > I think the best way for orcon to control p2p download is to have a more
    > complete news server then less people would use it. My 2 cents


    Usenet was never intended for distribution of binaries, it was
    originally for text based messages only.

    Consequently it is a hugely inefficient method for distributing large
    files - they get sent to all corners of the globe, and sit on servers
    where they may never be accessed.

    In addition, probably 99.9% of internet users wouldn't know what usenet
    is; and have you not seen the pie chart on

    http://www.orcon.net.nz/index.html/help/status/bitstream/
     
    -=rjh=-, Nov 28, 2005
    #11
  12. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > -=rjh=- wrote:
    >
    >> Orcon must be dealing with 2M and 256K plans differently, or there
    >> are some other factors at play here.
    >>
    >> I'm getting >20Kb/s downloading one torrent at present (Ubuntu 5.10
    >> - a *very* popular torrent) and this is probably during the peak
    >> evening traffic, too.
    >>
    >> 256/128 Orcon UBS. What are other 256K UBS customers seeing?

    >
    > Crap is what I am seeing at the moment.
    >
    > Based on there inability to get me a direct debit form, I think they
    > are totally incompitent.


    Since my first post Azureus had been running for 1 day, 21 hours on my
    2M/128k connection, unthrottled, although paused at times. It has been left
    to run at night when you'd think the most bandwidth would be available for
    allocating to p2p according to Orcon's policy.

    My statistics show that, for that period, I have a share ratio of 1.524. I
    have uploaded ~1.5GB and downloaded ~1GB.

    I know that the 'A' in ADSL stands for asymetrical but, according to my
    calculations it should be 16:1 in favour of downstream, not 1.5:1 in favour
    of upstream.

    Orcon's layer 7 packet snooping device automatically allocates non-latency
    sensitive bandwidth to the p2p pool. Going by the abysmal results that I've
    had trying to download over the last two nights it's obvious that there is
    *no* spare bandwidth available, even in the quietest moments. [A chocolate
    fish to whoever can spot the 'musical' reference] (Or their flash new
    hardware is faulty) They're running on empty. 100% capacity. Their own data
    shows that p2p takes up over 50% of their traffic. Therefore, going by how
    severely my p2p bandwidth is throttled they must be about 100%
    undersupplied. They need 6 ATMs, not 4.

    I knew and accepted that p2p traffic would be deprioritised when I went to
    this plan. I specifically discussed p2p with one of their representatives
    who assured me that, overnight, pretty much the full 2M of my connection
    would be available for p2p as their HTTP etc. traffic dropped off. However
    that has turned out to be not the case, there is a difference between
    deprioritised and completely crippled.

    It seems that their blanket advertising campaign on TV of late is doing it's
    job. They must be getting new customers by the truckload. Shame they didn't
    spend some of that advertising budget on actually providing the product
    they're advertising.

    <rant/>
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 28, 2005
    #12
  13. ~misfit~

    -=rjh=- Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Richard wrote:
    >
    >>-=rjh=- wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Orcon must be dealing with 2M and 256K plans differently, or there
    >>>are some other factors at play here.
    >>>
    >>>I'm getting >20Kb/s downloading one torrent at present (Ubuntu 5.10
    >>>- a *very* popular torrent) and this is probably during the peak
    >>>evening traffic, too.
    >>>
    >>>256/128 Orcon UBS. What are other 256K UBS customers seeing?

    >>
    >>Crap is what I am seeing at the moment.
    >>
    >>Based on there inability to get me a direct debit form, I think they
    >>are totally incompitent.

    >
    >
    > Since my first post Azureus had been running for 1 day, 21 hours on my
    > 2M/128k connection, unthrottled, although paused at times. It has been left
    > to run at night when you'd think the most bandwidth would be available for
    > allocating to p2p according to Orcon's policy.
    >
    > My statistics show that, for that period, I have a share ratio of 1.524. I
    > have uploaded ~1.5GB and downloaded ~1GB.
    >
    > I know that the 'A' in ADSL stands for asymetrical but, according to my
    > calculations it should be 16:1 in favour of downstream, not 1.5:1 in favour
    > of upstream.
    >
    > Orcon's layer 7 packet snooping device automatically allocates non-latency
    > sensitive bandwidth to the p2p pool. Going by the abysmal results that I've
    > had trying to download over the last two nights it's obvious that there is
    > *no* spare bandwidth available, even in the quietest moments. [A chocolate
    > fish to whoever can spot the 'musical' reference] (Or their flash new
    > hardware is faulty) They're running on empty. 100% capacity. Their own data
    > shows that p2p takes up over 50% of their traffic. Therefore, going by how
    > severely my p2p bandwidth is throttled they must be about 100%
    > undersupplied. They need 6 ATMs, not 4.
    >
    > I knew and accepted that p2p traffic would be deprioritised when I went to
    > this plan. I specifically discussed p2p with one of their representatives
    > who assured me that, overnight, pretty much the full 2M of my connection
    > would be available for p2p as their HTTP etc. traffic dropped off. However
    > that has turned out to be not the case, there is a difference between
    > deprioritised and completely crippled.
    >
    > It seems that their blanket advertising campaign on TV of late is doing it's
    > job. They must be getting new customers by the truckload. Shame they didn't
    > spend some of that advertising budget on actually providing the product
    > they're advertising.
    >
    > <rant/>


    Supertramp

    :)
     
    -=rjh=-, Nov 28, 2005
    #13
  14. ~misfit~

    shannon Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> -=rjh=- wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Orcon must be dealing with 2M and 256K plans differently, or there
    >>>> are some other factors at play here.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm getting >20Kb/s downloading one torrent at present (Ubuntu 5.10
    >>>> - a *very* popular torrent) and this is probably during the peak
    >>>> evening traffic, too.
    >>>>
    >>>> 256/128 Orcon UBS. What are other 256K UBS customers seeing?
    >>>
    >>> Crap is what I am seeing at the moment.
    >>>
    >>> Based on there inability to get me a direct debit form, I think they
    >>> are totally incompitent.

    >>
    >>
    >> Since my first post Azureus had been running for 1 day, 21 hours on my
    >> 2M/128k connection, unthrottled, although paused at times. It has been
    >> left to run at night when you'd think the most bandwidth would be
    >> available for allocating to p2p according to Orcon's policy.
    >>
    >> My statistics show that, for that period, I have a share ratio of
    >> 1.524. I have uploaded ~1.5GB and downloaded ~1GB.
    >>
    >> I know that the 'A' in ADSL stands for asymetrical but, according to
    >> my calculations it should be 16:1 in favour of downstream, not 1.5:1
    >> in favour of upstream.
    >>
    >> Orcon's layer 7 packet snooping device automatically allocates
    >> non-latency sensitive bandwidth to the p2p pool. Going by the abysmal
    >> results that I've had trying to download over the last two nights it's
    >> obvious that there is *no* spare bandwidth available, even in the
    >> quietest moments. [A chocolate fish to whoever can spot the 'musical'
    >> reference] (Or their flash new hardware is faulty) They're running on
    >> empty. 100% capacity. Their own data shows that p2p takes up over 50%
    >> of their traffic. Therefore, going by how severely my p2p bandwidth is
    >> throttled they must be about 100% undersupplied. They need 6 ATMs, not 4.
    >>
    >> I knew and accepted that p2p traffic would be deprioritised when I
    >> went to this plan. I specifically discussed p2p with one of their
    >> representatives who assured me that, overnight, pretty much the full
    >> 2M of my connection would be available for p2p as their HTTP etc.
    >> traffic dropped off. However that has turned out to be not the case,
    >> there is a difference between deprioritised and completely crippled.
    >>
    >> It seems that their blanket advertising campaign on TV of late is
    >> doing it's job. They must be getting new customers by the truckload.
    >> Shame they didn't spend some of that advertising budget on actually
    >> providing the product they're advertising.
    >>
    >> <rant/>

    >
    > Supertramp
    >
    > :)


    BWR !

    :)
     
    shannon, Nov 28, 2005
    #14
  15. ~misfit~

    russell Guest

    -=rjh=- <> wrote in news::

    > russell wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> I think the best way for orcon to control p2p download is to have a
    >> more complete news server then less people would use it. My 2 cents

    >
    > Usenet was never intended for distribution of binaries, it was
    > originally for text based messages only.


    It evolved

    >
    > Consequently it is a hugely inefficient method for distributing large
    > files - they get sent to all corners of the globe, and sit on servers
    > where they may never be accessed.
    >
    > In addition, probably 99.9% of internet users wouldn't know what
    > usenet is; and have you not seen the pie chart on
    >
    > http://www.orcon.net.nz/index.html/help/status/bitstream/
    >
    >


    Have seen the pie chart months ago but i still think if orcon had a
    complete nntp server more people would use it if they took there full feed
    from giganews instead of half there feed.For the last few months i was
    using test servers and they had good completing ang if parts of files were
    missing there were repair file to use

    when orcon did there test server i think last december it would take about
    6 to 8 hours to download a roughly one 650gb binary file on p2p it take me
    the same amount of time but it is many parts of different binary files so
    to me nntp servers are better my 5 cents
     
    russell, Nov 28, 2005
    #15
  16. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:


    <snip>

    >> Orcon's layer 7 packet snooping device automatically allocates
    >> non-latency sensitive bandwidth to the p2p pool. Going by the
    >> abysmal results that I've had trying to download over the last two
    >> nights it's obvious that there is *no* spare bandwidth available,
    >> even in the quietest moments. [A chocolate fish to whoever can spot
    >> the 'musical' reference] (Or their flash new hardware is faulty)
    >> They're running on empty. 100% capacity. Their own data shows that
    >> p2p takes up over 50% of their traffic. Therefore, going by how
    >> severely my p2p bandwidth is throttled they must be about 100%
    >> undersupplied. They need 6 ATMs, not 4. I knew and accepted that p2p
    >> traffic would be deprioritised when I
    >> went to this plan. I specifically discussed p2p with one of their
    >> representatives who assured me that, overnight, pretty much the full
    >> 2M of my connection would be available for p2p as their HTTP etc.
    >> traffic dropped off. However that has turned out to be not the case,
    >> there is a difference between deprioritised and completely crippled.
    >>
    >> It seems that their blanket advertising campaign on TV of late is
    >> doing it's job. They must be getting new customers by the truckload.
    >> Shame they didn't spend some of that advertising budget on actually
    >> providing the product they're advertising.
    >>
    >> <rant/>

    >
    > Supertramp
    >
    > :)


    Well done. Where should I send the chocolate fish?
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 28, 2005
    #16
  17. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    shannon wrote:
    > -=rjh=- wrote:


    >> Supertramp
    >>
    >> :)

    >
    > BWR !
    >
    > :)


    That's not short for Breakfast in America.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 28, 2005
    #17
  18. On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:43:15 +1300, Pacific Dragon wrote:

    > This was I believe due to the fact
    > they actually had the additional capital for additional preventative
    > maintenance and for the purchase of extra redundancy to account for growth
    > way before it was required.


    Surely capital is not used for "maintenance".

    I would have thought that maintenance would come out of operating revenue,
    as maintenance would be a tax-deductable expense, unless any replacement
    equipment cost more than a certain amount, in which case it would be
    capitalised and the annual depreciation would be tax-deductable.

    Capital should be used for investment and development, not for maintenance.


    Undeniably Sluttish

    --
    Free software on every PC on every desk.
     
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Nov 28, 2005
    #18
  19. On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:48:30 +1200, russell wrote:

    > I think the best way for orcon to control p2p download is to have a more
    > complete news server then less people would use it. My 2 cents


    How would a "more complete news server" stop people from using P2P?

    How would a person be able to offer something to share, and still have
    reasonable bandwidth costs, and have it constantly available, if they
    were not using P2P?

    Surely P2P is the future of sharing anything. News Servers are for
    news/communication, not for binaries.

    I used to use news servers for binaries, but now... I think that P2P
    networks, such as Bit Torrent, are much better suited for sharing binaries.

    IMHO, news servers are much better suited for sharing... news.


    Undeniably Sluttish

    --
    Free software on every PC on every desk.
     
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Nov 28, 2005
    #19
  20. On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:35:10 +1300, Brendan wrote:

    > are you not sick to death of the formula CRAP they dish out
    > to us and charge long-since-proven-ripoff prices for ?


    Are you counting Peter Jackson's rendition of The Lord of the Rings, for
    example, in your "formula CRAP" description?

    I choose carefully what films I go to see. I choose even more carefully
    what films I choose to purchase on DVD.

    I don't buy "formula CRAP". I rarely go to see "formula CRAP".

    why do you?


    Undeniably Sluttish

    --
    Free Open Source software - it's not just about better code, as important as
    that is. It's about better values, higher ethics.
     
    Mr Undeniably Sluttish, Nov 28, 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. -=rjh=-

    Orcon "UBS" - anyone been switched yet?

    -=rjh=-, Oct 16, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    851
  2. Mike_P

    Orcon UBS update

    Mike_P, Oct 27, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    626
    [John]
    Oct 29, 2004
  3. AT
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    405
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Dec 15, 2004
  4. Brendan

    changing from Orcon UBS to Orcon Jetstream

    Brendan, Feb 25, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    563
    Brendan
    Feb 25, 2005
  5. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Orcon UBS 2MBit or stick with Telecom/Orcon 2MBit ADSL?

    Jamie Kahn Genet, Apr 29, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    516
    Jamie Kahn Genet
    Apr 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page