Telecom nets lead on rivals

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nova, Mar 18, 2006.

  1. Nova

    Nova Guest

    Nova, Mar 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:52:55 +1200, someone purporting to be Nova didst
    scrawl:

    > Telecom will jump the gun on its rivals waiting for regulation, rolling
    > out adsl2
    >
    > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3609198a13,00.html


    I'd love to know who the analyst was who suggested that we're number 22
    for broadband because we're number 18 for GDP per capita. Korea is below
    us for GDP, but they're the number one for broadband. Ireland is number
    four for GDP, but was 24 for broadband in the last published report.
    Finland is 15 for GDP (NZ is 21 in the most recent report I found on the
    OECD site), but seven for broadband.

    That suggests that there may be some relationship between the two
    standings but it's not an absolute by any means. To claim otherwise is to
    be an apologist for the abysmal performance of "the market".

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:51:41 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

    > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:52:55 +1200, someone purporting to be Nova didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >> Telecom will jump the gun on its rivals waiting for regulation, rolling
    >> out adsl2
    >>
    >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3609198a13,00.html

    >
    > I'd love to know who the analyst was who suggested that we're number 22
    > for broadband because we're number 18 for GDP per capita. Korea is below
    > us for GDP, but they're the number one for broadband. Ireland is number
    > four for GDP, but was 24 for broadband in the last published report.
    > Finland is 15 for GDP (NZ is 21 in the most recent report I found on the
    > OECD site), but seven for broadband.
    >
    > That suggests that there may be some relationship between the two
    > standings but it's not an absolute by any means. To claim otherwise is to
    > be an apologist for the abysmal performance of "the market".


    Interesting quote:

    "The new ADSL2 services will lift broadband download speeds from about 2
    megabits a second to as much as 24mb/s. Upload speeds will increase from
    about 256 kilobits a second to around 1mb/s, four times as fast."

    While download speed will increase by 12 times, upload speeds will only
    increase by 7.8 times (asuming that the 1mb/s rate is correct) - and
    upload speeds are already disproportionately slow.


    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 19, 2006
    #3
  4. Nova

    Philip Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:
    > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:52:55 +1200, someone purporting to be Nova didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >> Telecom will jump the gun on its rivals waiting for regulation, rolling
    >> out adsl2
    >>
    >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3609198a13,00.html

    >
    > I'd love to know who the analyst was who suggested that we're number 22
    > for broadband because we're number 18 for GDP per capita. Korea is below
    > us for GDP, but they're the number one for broadband. Ireland is number
    > four for GDP, but was 24 for broadband in the last published report.
    > Finland is 15 for GDP (NZ is 21 in the most recent report I found on the
    > OECD site), but seven for broadband.
    >
    > That suggests that there may be some relationship between the two
    > standings but it's not an absolute by any means. To claim otherwise is to
    > be an apologist for the abysmal performance of "the market".
    >

    The cited article reeks of Telecom (and Business New Zealand) spin. What
    does seem to be happening is that Telecom are saying - look, we can sell
    you a Ferrari in Auckland, so all you people that just wanted a Toyota
    shut up and stop complaining.

    Roll on regulation and compulsory splitting of the company.


    Philip
     
    Philip, Mar 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Nova

    Enkidu Guest

    Nova wrote:
    >
    > Telecom will jump the gun on its rivals waiting for regulation, rolling
    > out adsl2
    >
    > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3609198a13,00.html
    >

    ADSL2 is great. Provided you are less than about a kilometre from the
    exchange. If you are further than that away from the exchange you will
    have to rely on ordinary ADSL.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Mar 19, 2006
    #5
  6. Nova

    David Empson Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea <> wrote:

    > > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:52:55 +1200, someone purporting to be Nova didst
    > > scrawl:
    > >
    > >> Telecom will jump the gun on its rivals waiting for regulation, rolling
    > >> out adsl2
    > >>
    > >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3609198a13,00.html

    > >

    > Interesting quote:
    >
    > "The new ADSL2 services will lift broadband download speeds from about 2
    > megabits a second to as much as 24mb/s. Upload speeds will increase from
    > about 256 kilobits a second to around 1mb/s, four times as fast."


    If they are claiming 24 Mbps downstream, it is actually ADSL2+. (ADSL2
    is only 12 Mbps downstream: ADSL2+ doubles the frequency band to 2.2 MHz
    which allows the downstream bandwidth to be doubled.)

    The upload speed claim is misleading. ADSL2 and ADSL2+ have exactly the
    same maximum upload speed as the original ADSL standard: all can support
    up to 1 Mbps in the right conditions, though ADSL2/2+ will usually get
    somewhat better performance than ADSL1 on the same connection. The
    achievable speed drops off rapidly as you get further from the exchange.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsl for a general overview.

    (The Wikipedia ADSL2 entry has a link to a white paper which explains
    ADSL2 and ADSL2+ in more detail.)

    It sounds suspiciously like Telecom are priming the public to charge
    more for a premium fast ADSL2+ service which doesn't have speed caps,
    while constraining all ADSL1 customers to the speed limits due to be
    introduced in April (either 128 or 512 kbps upstream, 2 or 3.5 Mbps
    downstream).

    Note also that in order to use ADSL2/2+, your modem must support it.
    Older modems will have to be replaced, but many newer ones already
    support ADSL2/2+ (or may get it with a firmware update).

    This means it makes some sense for Telecom to introduce ADSL2
    selectively, only for the customers who opt for it (and have the
    necessary equipment). If the ADSL2 DSLAM can automatically drop back to
    ADSL1 when necessary, then this excuse is removed.

    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, Mar 19, 2006
    #6
  7. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:20:35 +1300, David Empson wrote:

    > It sounds suspiciously like Telecom are priming the public to charge
    > more for a premium fast ADSL2+ service which doesn't have speed caps,
    > while constraining all ADSL1 customers to the speed limits due to be
    > introduced in April (either 128 or 512 kbps upstream, 2 or 3.5 Mbps
    > downstream).


    Yup, agreed.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    "The key benefit of open technologies such as open source software is
    freedom of choice."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006
    #7
  8. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:20:35 +1300, someone purporting to be David Empson
    didst scrawl:

    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea <> wrote:
    >

    *SNIP*
    > It sounds suspiciously like Telecom are priming the public to charge
    > more for a premium fast ADSL2+ service which doesn't have speed caps,

    *SNIP*

    You didn't need to expend the bits to say "charge more". It's an unwritten
    rule that anything from Telecon that's better will be exponentially more
    expensive that whatever it replaces.
    I wouldn't expect any ADSL2+ plan to be under $100, and at that price
    you'll probably get a 1GB data cap. Whether they go for overage (at
    2c/MB), or just throttle you back to 64kbps is anyone's guess.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 19, 2006
    #8
  9. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:51:56 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

    > I wouldn't expect any ADSL2+ plan to be under $100, and at that price
    > you'll probably get a 1GB data cap. Whether they go for overage (at
    > 2c/MB), or just throttle you back to 64kbps is anyone's guess.


    Don't ya love it!

    A 24mbit/s link being throttled back to 64kb/s. Might as well just pull
    the plug on it for all the use it would be as a "Broadband" link if they
    throttle it.

    Broadband should be full speed, uncapped, flat rate, and affordable by
    everybody.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    One Unix to rule them all,
    One Resolver to find them,
    One IP to bring them all
    And in the Zone to Bind them.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 19, 2006
    #9
  10. Nova

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Enkidu wrote:
    > Nova wrote:
    >>
    >> Telecom will jump the gun on its rivals waiting for regulation,
    >> rolling out adsl2
    >>
    >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3609198a13,00.html
    >>

    > ADSL2 is great. Provided you are less than about a kilometre from the
    > exchange. If you are further than that away from the exchange you will
    > have to rely on ordinary ADSL.


    Ordinary ADSL would be fine with me if they gave me a 3.5M down, 1M up
    connection at a reasonable price. Without having God-awful contention
    ratios.
    --
    ~Shaun~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 19, 2006
    #10
  11. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:52:34 +1200, someone purporting to be ~misfit~
    didst scrawl:

    > Enkidu wrote:

    *SNIP*
    > Ordinary ADSL would be fine with me if they gave me a 3.5M down, 1M up
    > connection at a reasonable price. Without having God-awful contention
    > ratios.


    If you want 1Mb up you need something better than ADSL, as it has a
    maximum upstream of 640kb.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 19, 2006
    #11
  12. Nova

    colinco Guest

    In article Matthew Poole says...
    > If you want 1Mb up you need something better than ADSL, as it has a
    > maximum upstream of 640kb.
    >

    Where do you get that idea? It's line length limited but I have seen
    over 800 on full speed Jetstream.
     
    colinco, Mar 19, 2006
    #12
  13. Nova

    MarkH Guest

    Matthew Poole <> wrote in
    news:p:

    > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:52:34 +1200, someone purporting to be ~misfit~
    > didst scrawl:
    >
    >> Enkidu wrote:

    > *SNIP*
    >> Ordinary ADSL would be fine with me if they gave me a 3.5M down, 1M up
    >> connection at a reasonable price. Without having God-awful contention
    >> ratios.

    >
    > If you want 1Mb up you need something better than ADSL, as it has a
    > maximum upstream of 640kb.


    It is my understanding that Telecom can set how much of the available
    bandwidth can be used for upstream and downstream. So if there are enough
    pipes with ADSL for 8Mb then they could use 2Mb for up and 6Mb for down,
    currently they have chosen to use very little for upstream, probably based
    on the current bandwidth usage.

    With ADSL2 there is more bandwidth available and some overseas ISPs
    configure it to 1Mb up and 24Mb down. Obviously they are expecting FTP
    servers, hosting companies, web servers, etc to be using something other
    than ADSL for their connection.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
    "The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
    young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
    for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
    Maskerade
     
    MarkH, Mar 19, 2006
    #13
  14. Nova

    colinco Guest

    In article MarkH says...
    > It is my understanding that Telecom can set how much of the available
    > bandwidth can be used for upstream and downstream. So if there are enough
    > pipes with ADSL for 8Mb then they could use 2Mb for up and 6Mb for down,
    > currently they have chosen to use very little for upstream, probably based
    > on the current bandwidth usage.
    >
    >

    No it is based on a standard. G.dmt allows for maximum 8Mbps down 1Mbps
    up.
     
    colinco, Mar 19, 2006
    #14
  15. Nova

    ~misfit~ Guest

    colinco wrote:
    > In article Matthew Poole says...
    >> If you want 1Mb up you need something better than ADSL, as it has a
    >> maximum upstream of 640kb.
    >>

    > Where do you get that idea? It's line length limited but I have seen
    > over 800 on full speed Jetstream.


    That was my understanding too, 1M up was achievable if you're close enough
    to the exchange and the line was of good enough quality. My S/N ratio is
    really good, not sure how far I am from the exchange but Pukekohe urban area
    isn't all *that* big and there are two DSLAMs here (whether they're
    physically located in the same spot or not I don't know).

    Anyway, at a pinch I'd take 3.5M down, 640kb up. Anything better than this
    pathetic 128 I have now. It's so hard to keep a decent ratio on torrents.
    Check out my usage on a 2M / 128kbps connection over the last few weeks:

    ttp://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1142813285.jpg

    Nearly half my data goes upwards, making a mockery of the 2M down speed.
    --
    ~Shaun~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 20, 2006
    #15
  16. On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:03:24 +1200, someone purporting to be colinco didst
    scrawl:

    > In article Matthew Poole says...
    >> If you want 1Mb up you need something better than ADSL, as it has a
    >> maximum upstream of 640kb.
    >>

    > Where do you get that idea? It's line length limited but I have seen
    > over 800 on full speed Jetstream.


    Everything I've ever seen regarding speeds has said it's a maximum of
    640kbps upstream. Looks like it is, as you say, a function of ISP and
    distance rather than a restriction of the standard.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 20, 2006
    #16
  17. Nova

    Nova Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > colinco wrote:
    >> In article Matthew Poole says...
    >>> If you want 1Mb up you need something better than ADSL, as it has a
    >>> maximum upstream of 640kb.
    >>>

    >> Where do you get that idea? It's line length limited but I have seen
    >> over 800 on full speed Jetstream.

    >
    > That was my understanding too, 1M up was achievable if you're close enough
    > to the exchange and the line was of good enough quality. My S/N ratio is
    > really good, not sure how far I am from the exchange but Pukekohe urban area
    > isn't all *that* big and there are two DSLAMs here (whether they're
    > physically located in the same spot or not I don't know).
    >
    > Anyway, at a pinch I'd take 3.5M down, 640kb up. Anything better than this
    > pathetic 128 I have now. It's so hard to keep a decent ratio on torrents.
    > Check out my usage on a 2M / 128kbps connection over the last few weeks:
    >
    > ttp://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1142813285.jpg
    >
    > Nearly half my data goes upwards, making a mockery of the 2M down speed.


    128kbits uplink is horrid, I decided to use frogprints for the first
    time after having used digitalmax for a while. Wanted to see the
    difference.. I printed 53 photos and it took over 3 hours to upload
    them.. That is crazy..., i was impressed with the quality of frogprints,
    they are I believe better than the digitalmax ones I compared them with
    but also more expensive..
     
    Nova, Mar 20, 2006
    #17
  18. Nova

    colinco Guest

    In article Matthew Poole says...
    > Everything I've ever seen regarding speeds has said it's a maximum of
    > 640kbps upstream.
    >

    A lot of that info refers to early US implementations possibly not even
    DMT.
     
    colinco, Mar 20, 2006
    #18
  19. Nova

    ~misfit~ Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:

    >Check out my usage on a 2M / 128kbps connection over the
    > last few weeks:


    Eeek! Missed out the leading 'h' on that, let me correct it:

    > http://test.internet-webmaster.de/upload/1142813285.jpg


    That's better.

    > Nearly half my data goes upwards, making a mockery of the 2M down
    > speed.

    --
    ~Shaun~
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 20, 2006
    #19
    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. wysiwyg21
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,584
    brian mack
    Jun 28, 2005
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    717
    Arnold Nipper
    Aug 19, 2005
  3. AeoN

    Linux: Fewer Bugs Than Rivals

    AeoN, Dec 19, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    419
    Conor
    Dec 20, 2004
  4. Anony Mouse

    Bot Nets from Nanae Post by Rev BeerGoogles

    Anony Mouse, Nov 20, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    415
    Anony Mouse
    Nov 20, 2006
  5. Jake
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    990
Loading...

Share This Page