shiroshadows:

Ragnor:

doozy:

Given the amount of threads and such around people trying to get around shaping, much like how we wouldn't publish how a spam filter works, I really don't think it would be wise for me to give any details on the configuration of the traffic shaping policy

It's a classic case of treating the symptons not the cause leading to more symptons, why not just deal with the problem users downloading terabytes?

That solution is too easy for Telecom to come up with

Ragnor:

doozy:

Given the amount of threads and such around people trying to get around shaping, much like how we wouldn't publish how a spam filter works, I really don't think it would be wise for me to give any details on the configuration of the traffic shaping policy

How many spam filters work is actually fairly well documented.

It's sad to see Telecom stuck in the dark ages practising security through obscurity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

It's also sad to see that:

When some people found they could get around the rapidshare/megaupload/etc limits by resolving the host names to ip addresses...

Telecom's response was:
- 100 KB/s rate shape on all (non whitelisted) international http tranfers.

This then led to people figuring out they could use a whitelisted http referrer.

It's a classic case of treating the symptons not the cause leading to more symptons, why not just deal with the problem users downloading terabytes?

Ragnor:

doozy:

Given the amount of threads and such around people trying to get around shaping, much like how we wouldn't publish how a spam filter works, I really don't think it would be wise for me to give any details on the configuration of the traffic shaping policy

How many spam filters work is actually fairly well documented.

It's sad to see Telecom stuck in the dark ages practising security through obscurity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

It's also sad to see that:

When some people found they could get around the rapidshare/megaupload/etc limits by resolving the host names to ip addresses...

Telecom's response was:
- 100 KB/s rate shape on all (non whitelisted) international http tranfers.

This then led to people figuring out they could use a whitelisted http referrer.

It's a classic case of treating the symptons not the cause leading to more symptons, why not just deal with the problem users downloading terabytes?

crazed: Here is a couple of questions I would like answered which may infact be related to internet access in NZ.

What is the actual cost of the SX cable to maintain, per year? Is that cost directly or indirectly requiring NZ tier 1 providers such as Telecom, etc to keep NZ Bandwidth prices artificially high to pay for the upkeep/upgrade of the cable?

If residential/commercial Bandwidth prices are directly related to the cost of accessing, using, maintaining the SX cable, then why isn't Local NZ based traffic reduced heavily in price?

Wouldn't it be be beneficial to NZ, to drop the price of NZ local traffic and cap international traffic? Alot of NZ ISP's charge the exact same price for international traffic as they do for national(nz) traffic.

Ragnor:

doozy:

Given the amount of threads and such around people trying to get around shaping, much like how we wouldn't publish how a spam filter works, I really don't think it would be wise for me to give any details on the configuration of the traffic shaping policy

How many spam filters work is actually fairly well documented.

It's sad to see Telecom stuck in the dark ages practising security through obscurity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

It's also sad to see that:

When some people found they could get around the rapidshare/megaupload/etc limits by resolving the host names to ip addresses...

Telecom's response was:
- 100 KB/s rate shape on all (non whitelisted) international http tranfers.

This then led to people figuring out they could use a whitelisted http referrer.

It's a classic case of treating the symptons not the cause leading to more symptons, why not just deal with the problem users downloading terabytes?

 (nzpossum you came very close due to your post on Doozy so now you know you are under the microscope here). But no one came closer to explaining the situation, as seen from outside the company.

Kilack: You cannot blame users if they are offered an unlimited plan and take advantage of it.  That being said, obviously some users are going to use far more traffic than others but if you arent using a lot of traffic then why are you on a big time plan anyway?  It is obvious this type of plan will draw users wanting to use a lot of traffic. 

nzpossum:

 (nzpossum you came very close due to your post on Doozy so now you know you are under the microscope here). But no one came closer to explaining the situation, as seen from outside the company.

So what was wrong with my post on Doozy exactly. What rule in the FUG did i break now. Is asking somebody to tell the truth and not make silly excuses considered a banning offense now. Was it insulting to say that Doozy like all other Telecom employees isn't being up front with us. Paying customers are being given the run around by Telecom employees of all walks of life and now i'm the villain because i asked for some simple answers. 

juha: When I heard of Big Time, I was curious how it would be compatible with the DSL bandwidth provisioning of 32kbit/s on average over a 15 minute period, per user and month. Works out at around 10GB of data per user and month.

I should clarify I don't think its wise to share information around the policy configuration, but its not up to me to make those kinds of decisions on my own, I've asked my legal overlords what can/can't be shared but I imagine it will take a few days and a few meetings before everyone involved is comfortable with a clear position on whether it will happed or not.

I should point out that those who thought they were 'getting around' shaping with the IP address thing were simply moving their traffic to a different classification a patch from the vendor corrected that.  I may have said this before ... (its a pretty long thread that has seen many people come and go) but keeping that policy up to date is no small task and it is constantly under review with changes being made, it is not static and the changes being made are not always to restrict people, I would say the majority is to ensure 'undesirable' traffic isn't impacting day-to-day activities.

And I agree with freitasm and sbiddle, it was a good post, nice to see one every now and then.

sbiddle:

I can see that this thread has the potential to hit page 200 if you want to start discussing the limitations of backhaul and UBS/UBA/EUBA services!

Kilack:

crazed: Here is a couple of questions I would like answered which may infact be related to internet access in NZ.

What is the actual cost of the SX cable to maintain, per year? Is that cost directly or indirectly requiring NZ tier 1 providers such as Telecom, etc to keep NZ Bandwidth prices artificially high to pay for the upkeep/upgrade of the cable?

If residential/commercial Bandwidth prices are directly related to the cost of accessing, using, maintaining the SX cable, then why isn't Local NZ based traffic reduced heavily in price?

Wouldn't it be be beneficial to NZ, to drop the price of NZ local traffic and cap international traffic? Alot of NZ ISP's charge the exact same price for international traffic as they do for national(nz) traffic.

This article is rather interesting and might answer some of your questions and more.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/chris-keall/meet-bad-guy

nzpossum:

I should clarify I don't think its wise to share information around the policy configuration, but its not up to me to make those kinds of decisions on my own, I've asked my legal overlords what can/can't be shared but I imagine it will take a few days and a few meetings before everyone involved is comfortable with a clear position on whether it will happed or not.

I should point out that those who thought they were 'getting around' shaping with the IP address thing were simply moving their traffic to a different classification a patch from the vendor corrected that.  I may have said this before ... (its a pretty long thread that has seen many people come and go) but keeping that policy up to date is no small task and it is constantly under review with changes being made, it is not static and the changes being made are not always to restrict people, I would say the majority is to ensure 'undesirable' traffic isn't impacting day-to-day activities.

And I agree with freitasm and sbiddle, it was a good post, nice to see one every now and then.

The fact that Telecom need to have meetings to decide whether they will keep lying to people pretty much sums it up.