Telecom Big Time plan trouble thread

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Telecom Big Time plan trouble thread

1 | ... | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | ... | 120

5 posts

Wannabe Geek

#326097 3-May-2010 16:18

BenH: More Big Time gaming problems... some of my games appear to be seen as P2P programs and are being duely throttled. I bought these games off of Steam, and whereas Steam itself now seems to download, albeit very slowly, these other games are being majorly effected.

1: Golbal Agenda, in-game sever connectivity problems due to what appears to be large latency. Can most of the time log onto main server but have extremly frequent troubles logging into PvP and PvE servers (servers you actually play on). I'm not certain if this is due to Big Time throttling, but it looks to me as if it might be.

2: Final Fantasy XI, uses Play Online program to launch/update game and it appears to be throttled to a state that makes it unplayable as it cannot update.

3: Fallen Earth, Updater for FE appears to also be throttled so that it cannot update, making the game unplayable.

All these games are not hugely popular so I assume that these problems are due to thier connections not being marked as "safe" and let through Big Time throttling.

PlayOnline test:

========================== Connection Test ============================

Tested on = 3/05/2010 3:59:19 p.m.
Test Finished at = 4:13:09 p.m.
Test Duration = 00:13:50
Upload Bandwidth = Could not connect to server.
Download Bandwidth = Could not connect to server.
Latency = Could not connect to server.
P2P = Could not connect to server.
UPnP Port Map = Success
Tracert = qc000.pol.com [202.67.56.181]
01 =   <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms 192.168.2.1
02 =   49 ms    48 ms    47 ms 210.55.69.48
03 =    *        *        *     Request timed out.
04 =   70 ms    72 ms    70 ms 202.37.244.221
05 =   70 ms    70 ms    70 ms 122.56.127.90
06 =   71 ms    70 ms    70 ms 202.50.232.77
07 =   95 ms    94 ms    95 ms 122.56.127.30
08 = 153 ms   151 ms   152 ms 203.96.120.82
09 = 290 ms   289 ms   293 ms 203.181.102.137
10 = 291 ms   290 ms   291 ms 124.211.33.3
11 = 294 ms   292 ms   292 ms 59.128.4.73
12 = 334 ms   472 ms   291 ms 203.181.101.14
13 = 251 ms   252 ms   252 ms 203.181.98.10
14 = 426 ms   397 ms   500 ms 202.67.63.106
15 = 308 ms   306 ms   309 ms 202.67.63.122
16 =    *        *        *     Request timed out.
17 =    *        *        *     Request timed out.
18 =    *        *        *     Request timed out.

  II

63 =    *        *        *     Request timed out.
64 =    *        *        *     Request timed out.
Ping =

No number was given for ping even though it "completed"....

Crucius

55 posts

Master Geek

#326131 3-May-2010 17:28

asylum: For me the distinction between shaping and a cap is that shaping is dynamic and takes into account conditions such as level of network activity where an artificial cap is a constantly imposed speed reduction.

Quote from telecom t&c
Traffic Management - We don't place an artificial cap on the download or upload speed on the majority of the internet activity our customers have on this plan.

Do you agree that this statement is false under the present cap?

Well, assuming HTTP does have a speed cap, and does comprise the majority of telecoms internet activity, then yes. However, without any data from telecom, it's impossible to know, we can only speculate.

Also, shaping is the slowing down of packets. This can be for doing anything from smoothing out bandwidth use to speed limiting certain protocols to blocking certain services that compete with ones the ISP is providing (see US internet).

asylum:
Also
When the network is busy (generally inside the hours of 9am and 2am) you may notice reduced speeds, in particular you are likely to see reduced speeds in relation to file sharing traffic and online gaming.

Under an artificial cap speeds are reduced constantly and consistently irrespective of how busy the network is. This is at best misleading as it implies better speeds outside 9am and 2am.

In the same way telecom expects me to pay bills on time I expect telecom to provide the service advertised.

It in no way implies better speeds outside 9am and 2am, it implies the possibility of worse speeds inside 9am and 2am. If HTTP has a constant speed cap 24/7, that doesn't mean they're failing to provide any service they said they would. Internet speeds are (currently) unarguably broadband, with no data cap, only shaping. The service promised is the service provided.

A few weeks ago however......

sheagae:
Well then, one could say advertise the plan not as "all you can eat" but instead as "657GB per month" I know what you're saying, and yeah its a heap of data, I wouldn't even use close to it, I guess the point is, how things are currently are that Telecom is selling a plan that doesn't do what it says it does.

In theory, they should then advertise the plan as 'A data cap equal to your maximum linespeed in Mbit/s times the number of seconds in a month'

I get where you're coming from, but just like unlimited 256k plans weren't literally unlimited, so this plan, while not literally unlimited, can be reasonably called such.

asylum

19 posts

Geek

#326159 3-May-2010 19:25

The prsence of the artificial cap can only be inferred because telecom refuses to properly inform it's customers about changes.

You state shaping is the slowing down of packets. This can be for doing anything from smoothing out bandwidth use to speed limiting certain protocols. When this speed limiting of certain protocols is constantly applied by a constantdegree, it is an artificial cap on speed irrespective of whether telecom are willing to acknowledge it or how they going about creating it.

What do you think the reduced speeds telecom makes reference to are relative to? reduced from what? The customers line speeds? Or a further reduction of speed ontop of the already reduced speeds under the unstated artificial cap. Telecom makes no reference to the presence of an artificial cap in the TOS other than saying they don't impose one on uploads or downloads for the majority of internet activity, so it follows the two megabit artificial cap may be considered a reduction of speed.

I don't really have a desire to do battle over semantics, I understand numerous complaints have been made to the commerce commission, probably that is the appropriate forum for that kind of argument. My last word is I stand behind my interpretation.

Crucius

55 posts

Master Geek

#326282 4-May-2010 09:52

Fair enough, but all telecom have to prove is that their interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances.

Which, for the most part, it has been. Had the situation remained as it was a few weeks ago however, I think they'd be hard pressed to make a case.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#326297 4-May-2010 10:13

I am really enjoying the plan. My father isn't all that pleased as videos don't stream when he wants to watch them. But I am working on that...

I can still do all the things I used to do on the internet with the added bonus I have no cap. I was on a cap of 350MB per day. Some would cry, but it was normal for me. I'm still coming to terms with the fact I can watch YouTube without worrying or download something absolutely massive with little effect on everything.

Kilack

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Trusted

#326298 4-May-2010 10:14

Crucius: Fair enough, but all telecom have to prove is that their interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances.

Which, for the most part, it has been. Had the situation remained as it was a few weeks ago however, I think they'd be hard pressed to make a case.

I would disagree :)

Allo they have done from a few weeks ago is double the http cap but the cap remains. For me the speed is reasonable and i dont have an issue with the plan anymore but I still think it goes against their description of the plan and is a big change from the way the plan was for the first several months. It is obvious they hammered http down because it was having a big effect on everything else and that supports the idea that http is probably the majority of their traffic and reading articles on the internet by other isp's that would be supported due to sites like youtube and the rapid rise of one click hosters.

They also market the plan as optimised for adsl2 but really no one is getting close to that now as the http is capped at well below top line speeds for even adsl 1.

I think your interpretation of speeds offpeak etc is different to what most people would read it as.

Some people may read the description differently and somethings could be taken differently by some and some people think something is reasonable and others don't but the com com don't care how a lawyer would interpret the advertising, they care if it is misleading to the general public and obviously a fair amount of people do think it is

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#326308 4-May-2010 10:26

"Optimized for ADSL 2+" doesn't necessarily mean it is optimized to get as close as possible to maximum line speed for 2+ users.

It could mean that they adjusted some hardware somewhere to work better with ADSL 2+ over ADSL1 connections.

Kilack

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Trusted

#326314 4-May-2010 10:34

DravidDavid: "Optimized for ADSL 2+" doesn't necessarily mean it is optimized to get as close as possible to maximum line speed for 2+ users.

It could mean that they adjusted some hardware somewhere to work better with ADSL 2+ over ADSL1 connections.

heh yeah I don't think they list it as optimised for adsl2 so people will think that.
It is marketing pure and simple.

I think if you ask most people what the difference between adsl1 and adsl2 they will say speed.
Telecom are well aware of that. Even going to the link on adsl2 on telecoms page they are just marketing the improved speed of adsl2.

They do say it depends on the plan but then again.. is it misleading to advertise a plan as optimised for adsl2 when perhaps really it isn't?

acetone

204 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 57

#326316 4-May-2010 10:38

I was told last night by the lovely help desk in mars that there was an international gateway issue that they were trying to resolve which was affecting my connectivity. I do hope this is true and not the new filtering that is affecting my connections. I can confirm it isn't just me either; I have another friend on the plan with the same issue. It is unusable and if it isn't sorted soon I will have to jump ship.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#326318 4-May-2010 10:38

Kilack:
DravidDavid: "Optimized for ADSL 2+" doesn't necessarily mean it is optimized to get as close as possible to maximum line speed for 2+ users.

It could mean that they adjusted some hardware somewhere to work better with ADSL 2+ over ADSL1 connections.

heh yeah I don't think they list it as optimised for adsl2 so people will think that.
It is marketing pure and simple.

What "Optimised for ADSL2+" actually means in the context of the plan descriptions for Telecom Broadband is that the upstream is not constrained to 128kbit - ie the ADSL profile is FS/FS

That's all it is intended to mean guys. It is marketing-speak I admit, but there's your translation :-)

Cheers - Neil G

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#326322 4-May-2010 10:45

I thought ADSL1 connections were unconstrained on BigTime as well. ADSL1 is capable of 1mbps upload correct?

I'm pretty sure this is the case since I was uploading a file to an FTP server in Prague at 87KB/s

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

mattk

255 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#326323 4-May-2010 10:50

I'm happy that BigTime is usable again but still a bit miffed gaming is rubbish! xbox live is a dog, Before march i was regually getting games in the >50ms and now it's in the 150+ms bracket, impossbile to hit someone in MW2 unless they're stationary, you're grenading them or they're running towards or away from you.

Steam games are in the 390ms region, i'm unable to join most games so haven't had a PC game in over 4 weeks.

Downloads are topping out around 240k/s but thats not bad considering my connection is only 3.5Mb.

If TC offered something along the lines of pro but with more data/less cost i'd go for it, the overage on the pro plan is stupid expensive on what is already moderately expensive plan.

acetone

204 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 57

#326329 4-May-2010 10:58

I agree. There needs to be a plan for say 200gigs which doesn't cost one million dollars.

mattk

255 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#326342 4-May-2010 11:16

acetone: I agree. There needs to be a plan for say 200gigs which doesn't cost one million dollars.

Pro should be the same cost as big time and they need another plan bigger than pro. I'm not leeching 24/7 and my usage is in the 40-60GB's but i'm not wanting overages and do expect to be able to game! 10pm last night my ping is thru the roof and i'm jittering all over the place in the game. it's rubbish!

Is it really so hard to exclude xbox live ports from shaping!?

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#326373 4-May-2010 11:51

XBL ports are considered P2P from memory. So they are shaped to death.

1 | ... | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | ... | 120