Telecom Jetstream Letter

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by PseUDO, Oct 21, 2004.

  1. PseUDO

    PseUDO Guest

    Anyone else get a letter from Telecom about the jetstream surf changes??

    Not much in the letter about other new plans, just that when you go over
    your 3GB surf level , instead of paying 5c per MB, you now get dropped
    to 64kbps.
    Doesn't really worry me since i have never gone 2GB's yet.
    And on your bill, it will say "jetstream explorer" instead of "surf".

    Here's the link for changes in November www.telecom.co.nz/novemberchanges

    PseUDO
     
    PseUDO, Oct 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PseUDO

    JedMeister Guest

    "PseUDO" <> wrote in message
    news:BRCdd.13225$...
    > Anyone else get a letter from Telecom about the jetstream surf changes??
    >
    > Not much in the letter about other new plans, just that when you go over
    > your 3GB surf level , instead of paying 5c per MB, you now get dropped to
    > 64kbps.
    > Doesn't really worry me since i have never gone 2GB's yet.
    > And on your bill, it will say "jetstream explorer" instead of "surf".
    >
    > Here's the link for changes in November www.telecom.co.nz/novemberchanges
    >
    > PseUDO


    Hmm, this concerns me ....

    We will also be managing data traffic across our network to ensure that it
    is delivered with the speed and priority that is appropriate for various
    broadband services. You may notice a change in performance including some
    latency if you use delay sensitive applications.

    I assume the change in performance will not be for the better - I am
    particularly concerned as I use services such as Skype which require low
    latency.
     
    JedMeister, Oct 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PseUDO

    Nik Coughin Guest

    JedMeister wrote:
    >
    > I assume the change in performance will not be for the better - I am
    > particularly concerned as I use services such as Skype which require
    > low latency.


    Ah crap, I hadn't thought about latency in regards to Skype. I haven't had
    a chance to try it with Woosh yet, but because of the SkypeOut thingy I
    wanted to start using it as a landline replacement (I know, still no inbound
    calls from landlines, but don't really care) but I'm on Woosh, and we all
    know what the latency is like with Woosh.
     
    Nik Coughin, Oct 21, 2004
    #3
  4. JedMeister wrote:
    > I assume the change in performance will not be for the better - I am
    > particularly concerned as I use services such as Skype which require low
    > latency.


    from the DSL and nznog lists, UBS will be ~30ms worse than current DSL...

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.karyn.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Nik Coughin wrote:
    > but I'm on Woosh, and we all
    > know what the latency is like with Woosh.


    from actual users I havent heard much if anything... limited userbase?

    I have seen a lot of speculation, all bad.

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.karyn.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 21, 2004
    #5
  6. PseUDO

    Nik Coughin Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > JedMeister wrote:
    >> I assume the change in performance will not be for the better - I am
    >> particularly concerned as I use services such as Skype which require
    >> low latency.

    >
    > from the DSL and nznog lists, UBS will be ~30ms worse than current
    > DSL...


    Yeah, they're talking about their own new 2mbit service though, not UBS, so
    it could be higher than that due to the "data management" that they're
    talking about.
     
    Nik Coughin, Oct 21, 2004
    #6
  7. PseUDO

    Nik Coughin Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Nik Coughin wrote:
    >> but I'm on Woosh, and we all
    >> know what the latency is like with Woosh.

    >
    > from actual users I havent heard much if anything... limited userbase?
    >
    > I have seen a lot of speculation, all bad.


    Latency is quite high, haven't actually attempted to measure it but you can
    forget about most online gaming.
     
    Nik Coughin, Oct 21, 2004
    #7
  8. Nik Coughin wrote:
    >>from actual users I havent heard much if anything... limited userbase?
    >>I have seen a lot of speculation, all bad.


    > Latency is quite high, haven't actually attempted to measure it but you can
    > forget about most online gaming.


    ping cisco.com and post it here...

    I have varying connections, and the highest is here at work, which gives
    2097172ms... but somethings broken with our connection.

    All the rest are under 150ms even on dialup.

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.karyn.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 21, 2004
    #8
  9. PseUDO

    EMB Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    > ping cisco.com and post it here...
    >
    > I have varying connections, and the highest is here at work, which gives
    > 2097172ms... but somethings broken with our connection.
    >
    > All the rest are under 150ms even on dialup.


    Ihug/Jetstream surf (not the UBS yet AFAIK) gives 172ms


    --
    EMB
    change two to the number to reply
     
    EMB, Oct 21, 2004
    #9
  10. PseUDO

    Nik Coughin Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Nik Coughin wrote:
    >>> from actual users I havent heard much if anything... limited
    >>> userbase? I have seen a lot of speculation, all bad.

    >
    >> Latency is quite high, haven't actually attempted to measure it but
    >> you can forget about most online gaming.

    >
    > ping cisco.com and post it here...
    >
    > I have varying connections, and the highest is here at work, which
    > gives 2097172ms... but somethings broken with our connection.
    >
    > All the rest are under 150ms even on dialup.


    I'm at work at the moment, will post Woosh when I get home, but at work on
    some kind of Jetstream business plan I get 178ms, slower than your dialup.
     
    Nik Coughin, Oct 21, 2004
    #10
  11. EMB wrote:
    >> ping cisco.com and post it here...
    >> I have varying connections, and the highest is here at work, which
    >> gives 2097172ms... but somethings broken with our connection.
    >> All the rest are under 150ms even on dialup.


    > Ihug/Jetstream surf (not the UBS yet AFAIK) gives 172ms


    I may have just had some amazing luck with the dialup account, it now
    shows ~280ms, maybe I selected the wrong remote session.

    from my webserver I get the following.

    $ ping cisco.com
    PING cisco.com (198.133.219.25): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=155.620 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=153.127 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=152.099 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=152.126 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=152.949 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=151.690 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=6 ttl=241 time=151.577 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=7 ttl=241 time=152.617 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=8 ttl=241 time=153.480 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=9 ttl=241 time=151.691 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=10 ttl=241 time=151.622 ms
    64 bytes from 198.133.219.25: icmp_seq=11 ttl=241 time=151.618 ms
    ^C
    --- cisco.com ping statistics ---
    12 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 151.577/152.518/155.620/1.130 ms

    after doing this I thought that something local might be a better idea,
    to cut down on potential bottle necks... anyone got a ping friendly
    machine on a fat pipe?

    tracerts could be handy too, giving info on where the latency is.


    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.karyn.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 21, 2004
    #11
  12. PseUDO

    EMB Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    > after doing this I thought that something local might be a better idea,
    > to cut down on potential bottle necks... anyone got a ping friendly
    > machine on a fat pipe?
    >
    > tracerts could be handy too, giving info on where the latency is.


    Try mailhost.auckland.ac.nz

    pings in 47ms for me.

    --
    EMB
    change two to the number to reply
     
    EMB, Oct 21, 2004
    #12
  13. PseUDO

    Nik Coughin Guest

    EMB wrote:
    > Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>
    >> after doing this I thought that something local might be a better
    >> idea, to cut down on potential bottle necks... anyone got a ping
    >> friendly machine on a fat pipe?
    >>
    >> tracerts could be handy too, giving info on where the latency is.

    >
    > Try mailhost.auckland.ac.nz
    >
    > pings in 47ms for me.


    46ms
     
    Nik Coughin, Oct 21, 2004
    #13
  14. EMB wrote:
    > Try mailhost.auckland.ac.nz
    > pings in 47ms for me.


    $ ping mailhost.auckland.ac.nz
    *snip*
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 26.460/27.425/28.754/0.816 ms

    no traceroute on that server, but from here...

    traceroute to 130.216.190.11 (130.216.190.11), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
    1 cr.amp.synaptic.net.nz (202.150.101.30) 0.455 ms 0.389 ms 0.401 ms
    2 link-akl.dun1.synaptic.net.nz (202.150.101.125) 1.584 ms 0.924 ms
    0.813 ms
    3 atm3-0-133.ar1.akl1.concept.net.nz (202.150.111.9) 24.776 ms
    24.418 ms 24.315 ms
    4 fe20-0-0.cr1.akl1.concept.net.nz (202.150.96.249) 25.034 ms
    24.493 ms 25.126 ms
    5 fe0-0-0.br1.akl1.concept.net.nz (202.150.96.254) 24.479 ms 24.632
    ms 24.21 ms
    6 ipgw1-gig1-0-207-acld.auckland.clix.net.nz (203.167.219.181)
    25.212 ms 33.707 ms 24.794 ms
    7 218.101.61.11 (218.101.61.11) 30.85 ms 25.627 ms 25.258 ms
    8 clix-uofauckland-nz-1.cpe.clix.net.nz (203.167.226.42) 26.828 ms
    26.46 ms 25.739 ms
    9 sec6509-1.net.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.1.252) 26.099 ms 27.72 ms
    26.59 ms
    10 mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 26.039 ms 26.364 ms
    28.041 ms


    then it loops.
    12 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 28.458 ms 28.637 ms
    13 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 33.806 ms 33.131 ms
    14 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 29.434 ms 31.537 ms
    15 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 31.65 ms 28.94 ms
    16 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 28.718 ms 29.97 ms
    17 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 26.429 ms 27.787 ms
    18 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 33.132 ms 33.914 ms
    19 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 31.089 ms 28.143 ms
    20 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 31.121 ms 28.518 ms
    21 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 28.355 ms 33.378 ms
    22 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 31.009 ms 29.411 ms
    23 * mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 29.825 ms 31.401 ms
    24 mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 32.348 ms * 29.113 ms
    25 mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 32.326 ms * 31.452 ms
    26 mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 26.894 ms * 31.068 ms
    27 mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 28.596 ms * 26.066 ms
    28 mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 27.529 ms * 29.026 ms
    29 mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 27.14 ms * 26.005 ms
    30 mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (130.216.190.11) 27.667 ms * 26.197 ms


    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    http://www.karyn.net.nz
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 21, 2004
    #14
  15. PseUDO

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    Nik Coughin wrote:
    > EMB wrote:
    >
    >>Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>
    >>>after doing this I thought that something local might be a better
    >>>idea, to cut down on potential bottle necks... anyone got a ping
    >>>friendly machine on a fat pipe?
    >>>
    >>>tracerts could be handy too, giving info on where the latency is.

    >>
    >>Try mailhost.auckland.ac.nz
    >>
    >>pings in 47ms for me.

    >
    >
    > 46ms
    >
    >

    ranges from 58 to 135 on Jetsurf via Orcon (non ubs)


    --
     
    Chris Mayhew, Oct 21, 2004
    #15
  16. PseUDO

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:50:37 +1300, PseUDO wrote:

    > Here's the link for changes in November www.telecom.co.nz/novemberchanges


    To what, oh December on November 31.
     
    Gordon, Oct 21, 2004
    #16
  17. PseUDO

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:13:09 +1300, JedMeister wrote:

    > Hmm, this concerns me ....
    >
    > We will also be managing data traffic across our network to ensure that it
    > is delivered with the speed and priority that is appropriate for various
    > broadband services. You may notice a change in performance including some
    > latency if you use delay sensitive applications.


    Whoa! This seems like spin to me, or from a spin dr.

    Don M., is that you? ;-)
     
    Gordon, Oct 21, 2004
    #17
  18. PseUDO

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:45:09 +1300, Harry wrote:

    > That worries me too.
    > It means that *they* are going to decide what the appropriate speed
    > and priority is for each service.
    >
    > Optus did this in Australia and effectively killed p2p and many other
    > protocols, including (and especially) nntp, on their cable network.
    >
    > Apparently Optus decided that everyone should only use http, and they should
    > only ever want to read web pages, and they configured their network
    > according. They even stuffed up ftp by trying (unsuccessfully) to
    > transparently proxy it. Unfortunately this meant the demise of ability
    > to do simple ftp 'reget's.
    >
    > And all this comes straight after Telecom CEOs recent trip to Australia.
    >
    > "Oh, so they have traffic shaping in Australia."
    > "Oh, so they throttle traffic when over download limit."
    > "Let's do exactly the same in NZ because we lead the world!"


    Psst http://www.maxnet.co.nz , look for details of 256K service.

    Been happening here, in NZ, and in this ng for many moons now.
     
    Gordon, Oct 21, 2004
    #18
  19. PseUDO

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:19:17 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > JedMeister wrote:
    >> I assume the change in performance will not be for the better - I am
    >> particularly concerned as I use services such as Skype which require low
    >> latency.

    >
    > from the DSL and nznog lists, UBS will be ~30ms worse than current DSL...


    Wireless has just fired a shot, and not across DSL bows either then.
     
    Gordon, Oct 21, 2004
    #19
  20. PseUDO

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:22:01 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Nik Coughin wrote:
    >> but I'm on Woosh, and we all
    >> know what the latency is like with Woosh.

    >
    > from actual users I havent heard much if anything... limited userbase?
    >
    > I have seen a lot of speculation, all bad.


    Who cares, if one does not play games. Or try to get data not speculation.
     
    Gordon, Oct 21, 2004
    #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. Is That A Letter...A Letter For Me?

    , Dec 9, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    675
    Gordon
    Dec 10, 2006
  2. Callum
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    322
    T.N.O.
    Sep 20, 2003
  3. K T T

    Telecom change jetstream plan

    K T T, Jun 29, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    341
    Chris
    Jun 29, 2004
  4. Mike Diack

    Counties/Ihug wireless vs Telecom Jetstream

    Mike Diack, Jun 29, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    719
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Jul 5, 2004
  5. Brendan
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,108
    Brendan
    Nov 28, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page