Telecom Big Time plan trouble thread

Forums › Spark New Zealand › Telecom Big Time plan trouble thread

1 | ... | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | ... | 120

503 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 323988 28-Apr-2010 08:00

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

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.

I think shaping is fine it just isn't being done well. Capping http outright 24/7 is not shaping. Shape during the day/evening etc, shape the hell out of the file sharing sites if need be, then let it go offpeak.. It will encourage people just downloading big files from file sharing sites to do it offpeak eventually and then free up more bandwidth during peak times.

sbiddle

28589 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

# 323991 28-Apr-2010 08:05

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?

This has to be the smartest post I've read in this thread for weeks!

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
65318 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 323994 28-Apr-2010 08:21

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?

The man deserves a beer. No sentiments, only real explanation of how people think in these situations.

A lot of people have been banned because of some posts in this very thread (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.

No name calling, no bullshitting (don't try to quote me folks, the filter will catch you, but yes, there are ways around).

Kilack

503 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 323996 28-Apr-2010 08:25

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

doozy

245 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

# 324011 28-Apr-2010 08:47

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?

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.

Tarawera Ultra 2015 done, bring on 2016

nzpossum

42 posts

Geek

# 324014 28-Apr-2010 08:52

(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.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
65318 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 324015 28-Apr-2010 08:55

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.

You are right, you can't blame users trying to get what they were told they could. And yes, why mom and dad are on Big Time, if they use 10GB a month on Facebook, Trade Me and email?

I've seem someone saying his parents were feeling bad about the limitations of the plan, and the question remains then... Why are they on that plan (unless the person posting here still lives in mom and dad's basement)?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
65318 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 324020 28-Apr-2010 08:59

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.

You wrote:

"Doozy is an example of why people have such hostility towards Telecom at the moment. As an employee he obviously could lay out the cold hard facts about the throttling going on but instead gives us some absurd excuse that he does not what to be seen as helping people bypass the traffic management ( or should i say capping) that is going on. "

You are attacking a person. You could have said instead:

"There's again an example of why people have such hostility towards Telecom at the moment. Telecom could lay out the cold hard facts about the throttling going on but instead gives us some absurd excuse that they do not what to be seen as helping people bypass the traffic management ( or should i say capping) that is going on."

If you want to attack the company go for it. But never ever attack a person here. End of story.

juha

1319 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 324026 28-Apr-2010 09:08

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.

Juha

sbiddle

28589 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

# 324044 28-Apr-2010 09:27

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 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!

nzpossum

42 posts

Geek

# 324045 28-Apr-2010 09:28

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.

juha

1319 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 324047 28-Apr-2010 09:30

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!

Possibly, but the network dimensioning for Big Time might explain why Telecom is shaping traffic on it.

Juha

crazed

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

# 324049 28-Apr-2010 09:35

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

Have read that article before.

CraZeD,
Your friendly Southern Geeky Fellow :P

sbiddle

28589 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

# 324056 28-Apr-2010 09:59

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.

It's very clear you have never worked for a large corporate company.

DravidDavid

1892 posts

Uber Geek

# 324057 28-Apr-2010 10:06

This is very strange.

It appears that my international cap comes and goes. I can download demos from ausgamers at 990KB/s one minute...If I cancel and start again, I'm back to 75-100KB/s.

Ventrilo actually worked last night aswell. I was amazed.

Sometimes what you don't get is a blessing in disguise!

1 | ... | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | ... | 120