Jetstream and Bitstream and useless broadband

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Dorado, Aug 6, 2005.

  1. Dorado

    Dorado Guest

    When I was forced to switch over to a crap UBS plan (due to telecom getting
    rid of the old Jetstream plans) I was expecting things to get bad. But I
    never imagined them to be THIS bad. I can nolonger play any online games.
    Ping times are ridicules for a supposedly 'broadband' connection.

    Is the only real option switting to xtra? I hate the guts of telescum but it
    appears to be the only way to get a decent broadband connection at the
    moment. *sigh*

    Tracing route to jetstreamgames.co.nz [203.96.92.95]

    Before Switching to Ihug Bllink

    1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
    2 49 ms 50 ms 47 ms 222-152-xxx-xxx.adsl.ihug.co.nz
    [222.152.xxx.xxx]
    3 46 ms 48 ms 54 ms 222.152.127.53
    4 46 ms 48 ms 47 ms 202.50.245.190
    5 49 ms 49 ms 47 ms v282.aksw7.global-gateway.net.nz
    [202.50.245.193]
    6 46 ms 48 ms 47 ms xtra-dom-2.aksw7.global-gateway.net.nz
    [203.96.120.150]
    7 47 ms 47 ms 48 ms 203-96-92-95.ipnets.xtra.co.nz
    [203.96.92.95]

    After Switching to Ihug Bllink

    1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
    2 289 ms 126 ms 132 ms xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.ihug.net [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
    3 278 ms 308 ms 225 ms Vl117-tig-nz-core-1.ihug.net
    [203.109.156.209]
    4 462 ms 306 ms 323 ms 203-109-156-98.ihug.net [203.109.156.98]
    5 297 ms 401 ms 255 ms xtra.ape.net.nz [192.203.154.60]
    6 138 ms 152 ms 126 ms v512.XTRAK1-B1.xtra.co.nz [202.27.176.225]
    7 177 ms 160 ms 131 ms 203-96-92-95.ipnets.xtra.co.nz
    [203.96.92.95]
     
    Dorado, Aug 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. As the Nelson character from the Simpsons says "Ha Ha".
    Welcome to UBS! They'd even make your hop to your router lag if they were
    allowed...
     
    wogers nemesis, Aug 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dorado

    Brad Guest

    Hi this is on Orcon 2Mb plan at 8am Sunday morning.

    Tracing route to jetstreamgames.co.nz [203.96.92.95]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 58 ms 58 ms 59 ms 219.88.242.171
    2 55 ms 58 ms 58 ms fe-ape-core.nct.orcon.net.nz
    [219.88.242.252]
    3 61 ms 58 ms 62 ms xtra.ape.net.nz [192.203.154.60]
    4 59 ms 56 ms 60 ms v512.XTRAK1-B1.xtra.co.nz [202.27.176.225]
    5 61 ms 64 ms 68 ms 203-96-92-95.ipnets.xtra.co.nz
    [203.96.92.95]

    Trace complete.

    C:\Documents and Settings\User>
     
    Brad, Aug 6, 2005
    #3
  4. Dorado

    Steve Guest

    1 10.0.0.138 (10.0.0.138) 0.353 ms 0.325 ms 0.259 ms
    2 203-109-xxx-xxx.ihug.net (203.109.xxx.xxx) 66.344 ms 65.431 ms 61.852 ms
    3 Vl117-tig-nz-core-1.ihug.net (203.109.156.209) 65.987 ms 68.212 ms 70.664 ms
    4 203-109-156-98.ihug.net (203.109.156.98) 169.726 ms 176.289 ms 113.988 ms
    5 * xtra.ape.net.nz (192.203.154.60) 77.519 ms 71.582 ms
    6 v512.XTRAK1-B1.xtra.co.nz (202.27.176.225) 62.499 ms 74.701 ms 74.408 ms
    7 203-96-92-95.ipnets.xtra.co.nz (203.96.92.95) 72.151 ms 72.451 ms 65.571 ms

    .... so nowhere near your poor performance levels from bliiiink. And that's
    from a RD as well. Looks like the problem's over-subscription or similar?
    Or maybe we're seeing the difference in efficiency between the M$ and
    Linux TCP stack - I've no references from telecom days.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Aug 6, 2005
    #4
  5. Dorado

    Dorado Guest

    Actually it has gone down to your ping times this morning. But it appears to
    get quite bad late at night. I will check again today to see if this was
    just a one off thing or not.
     
    Dorado, Aug 7, 2005
    #5
  6. But, you raise a very important consideration - noone in the NZ media (or,
    am i wrong??) reports the QoS , or response times when comparing NZ
    Broadband with the rest of the world.

    But, in terms of the overall connection, these are as important as the raw
    transfer rate.
     
    news.xtra.co.nz, Aug 7, 2005
    #6
  7. Dorado

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Much more so for some people. Low latency is my number one priority and I
    would happily take a connection with less bandwidth and better latency if
    they were priced similarly. I'd take a 128K connection over a 2M one if the
    latency was significantly better.
     
    ~misfit~, Aug 7, 2005
    #7
  8. Dorado

    Brendan Guest

    Telecom wants to ruin voip, so they will continue to munge it until the
    ..gov busts their knee caps. Which they should do...

    --

    .... Brendan

    #212775 +(3734)- [X]

    Primus521: hey dude the funniest thing happened to me today
    Primus521: im at walmart and this chick is buying a box of tampons and they
    are missing the upc and wont ring up
    Primus521: so the cashier tells his buddy to get a price check on tampax
    Primus521: the dude looks at him and says, "the kind u push in, or the kind
    you hammer in?"
    Primus521: lol
    Primus521: turns out he misheard him
    Primus521: he thought he said thumbtacs
    Primus521: you should have seen the look on the chicks face
    Primus521: omfg
    Primus521: til the day i die
    Primus521: i will never forget it


    Note: All my comments are copyright 7/08/2005 1:29:01 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
     
    Brendan, Aug 7, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.