[TelstraClear] TelstraClear Cable connections appear to be rate shaped in one way or another

Forums › One NZ (including Farmside) › [TelstraClear] TelstraClear Cable connections appear to be rate shaped in one way or another

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#526194 27-Sep-2011 13:47

jnawk:

Don't want or need a POTS line, certainly not for $40 per month, but its not really about the $$ in that regard - I run Asterisk. Why? I like not having people being able to just dial straight through. My server presents a menu, which is only really navigable if you actually already know who you want to talk to).

$40?

Not sure how much data you use but for example: The price difference between Telstraclear Lightspeed 60GB (naked no phone) at $95 and Telecom Total Home Broadband 60GB (includes land line) at $105 is $10 (not $40).

So assuming you never used the land line, would you pay $10 more a month for not being limited by Telstraclears upstream TCP issues?

I would also look at Snap and maybe even specialist ISP's like Unleash who do offer naked ADSL, even offering VDSL2 now too.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#526195 27-Sep-2011 13:50

jnawk:
If you don't like my definition of shaping, please kindly substitute a more appropriate one. I'm not trying to put any spin on here.

Sorry, I don't want to try and put words in TCLs mouth. I personally think of shaping as an active per protocol or per user form of deliberate traffic management. While I agree that random (or non random) packet drops at some point in the end to end path will affect throughput capability, I don't think most people would consider it shaping. I can see how you got there though...

[snip] FM tried a test last night. And we all know how fast his connection is. He reported 4mbit/sec. That is the same speed as me (he's probably rounded up, whereas I tend to go down. In any rate, I observe in between 3 and 4.) The Telstra dudes have done some tests - 90mbit/sec or so, over UDP, 3.5mbit/sec over TCP. What gives? I'm sure, Mr. Telecom (sorry, N isn't much to go on!) you'd be unhappy with that kind of imbalance - imagine instead of ADSL with rubbish speeds you had purchased VDSL. Still residential grade, mind you. VDSL is supposed to be able to do 55mbit/sec or so. Those are the numbers I've seen bandied around. Now imagine you get 3.5mbit/sec down that pipe. You'd be pretty pissed. Or, rather, I would be.

Honestly, no I wouldn't be pissed... Not unless I had bought a service with a performance SLA that specified the performance profile I should expect.

BTW, my name's Neil (I have signed off in this thread as that before), or my handle "Talkiet" is also acceptable, having been my only online moniker since 1993. My last name isn't "Telecom".

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.

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

#526215 27-Sep-2011 14:26

Talkiet:
jnawk:
If you don't like my definition of shaping, please kindly substitute a more appropriate one. I'm not trying to put any spin on here.

Sorry, I don't want to try and put words in TCLs mouth. I personally think of shaping as an active per protocol or per user form of deliberate traffic management. While I agree that random (or non random) packet drops at some point in the end to end path will affect throughput capability, I don't think most people would consider it shaping. I can see how you got there though...

Just looked up traffic shaping on Wikipedia, and it says that it's typically a delay, but that when the fifo is full, packets are typically dropped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping

So, if there are FIFOs on TCP sockets, which overflow at 3-4mbps, then that would exhibit this behaviour. Slow-start would speed up until it got a timeout because a packet was lost, and then throttle back.

The guy who was measuring the bufferbloat problem might have a test which can show the size of the buffers between the networks. I'll add that to my list.

Jason

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#526217 27-Sep-2011 14:34

Talkiet: BTW, my name's Neil (I have signed off in this thread as that before), or my handle "Talkiet" is also acceptable, having been my only online moniker since 1993. My last name isn't "Telecom".

CHeers - Neil G

Sorry from looking down the side, I don't see that, and there's been enough going on lately that I don't remember word for word what everyone said.

Having made a point of it, I'll no doubt remember it. :-)

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#526218 27-Sep-2011 14:36

jnawk:
Talkiet: BTW, my name's Neil (I have signed off in this thread as that before), or my handle "Talkiet" is also acceptable, having been my only online moniker since 1993. My last name isn't "Telecom".

CHeers - Neil G

Sorry from looking down the side, I don't see that, and there's been enough going on lately that I don't remember word for word what everyone said.

Having made a point of it, I'll no doubt remember it. :-)

Chuckle... no probs... I also just tried clicking on my nickname and it goes through to my profile page with my full name :-)

Cheers - N

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.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#526221 27-Sep-2011 14:39

Talkiet: Honestly, no I wouldn't be pissed... Not unless I had bought a service with a performance SLA that specified the performance profile I should expect.

Surely the Fair Trading Act would have something to say about that. Something around the product not being "fit for purpose"...

Proving it to a court, that'd be nigh on impossible, which is where my point of view of "hiding behind a rubbish SLA" comes in to play. Yes my SLA says (effectively) "we don't gotta deliver you nothing never". Yes it couches that in language such as best effort, etc. But I think best effort includes making a best effort to rectify the obvious problems like this one. Telstra are making that best effort at the moment - until they tell me otherwise, or until I loose my patience. Given my reluctance to switch, I think it's clear my patience is a long time from running out - for better or worse..

Actually, Neil, if you have it off the top of your head, what kind of service would $69.95/mo get me on Telecom? (That being what I'm paying for Cable, 40GB, no phone, no TV).

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#526229 27-Sep-2011 14:55

jnawk:
Talkiet: Honestly, no I wouldn't be pissed... Not unless I had bought a service with a performance SLA that specified the performance profile I should expect.

Surely the Fair Trading Act would have something to say about that. Something around the product not being "fit for purpose"...

Proving it to a court, that'd be nigh on impossible, which is where my point of view of "hiding behind a rubbish SLA" comes in to play. Yes my SLA says (effectively) "we don't gotta deliver you nothing never". Yes it couches that in language such as best effort, etc. But I think best effort includes making a best effort to rectify the obvious problems like this one. Telstra are making that best effort at the moment - until they tell me otherwise, or until I loose my patience. Given my reluctance to switch, I think it's clear my patience is a long time from running out - for better or worse..

Actually, Neil, if you have it off the top of your head, what kind of service would $69.95/mo get me on Telecom? (That being what I'm paying for Cable, 40GB, no phone, no TV).

Best effort doesn't mean what you think it means. I grant you that there's very few people around that really know what it means but the wikipedia article actually does a decent job of a simple explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_effort_delivery

There's NO WAY that being termed best efforts means that a provider should make the kind of effort that TCL appear to be making to resolve this idiosyncrasy. Note I'm not going to call it a problem anymore - I'm certain the service you are receiving not only satisfies their own understanding of what it should supply, but would easily satisfy the FTA and virtually every customer they have. In fact, I believe it's probably better than a lot of other ISPs.

In the context of a residential broadband connection, and the very subtle impact of the performance hit you are seeing, I'd say they are making a heroic effort.

You CAN buy better than best efforts connectivity, but the SLAs around it will be constrained to the network elements and reach in the direct control of the supplier.

Telecom Retail at this stage don't offer any Naked BB connections, so there isn't a package available at a similar price I'm afraid. The best VALUE plans are the Total Home plans, although they package in a landline which isn't of interest to you.

http://www.telecom.co.nz/packages/packages/plansandpricing/comparepackages

I'd also caution you about switching if you expect full rate TCP throughput on a single thread. The Telecom retail BB product is not designed to deliver that performance - it's a best efforts service.

Cheers - N

[edit... ps. personal opinion, blah blah, not official policy etc :-) ]

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.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41037

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#526230 27-Sep-2011 14:56

jnawk: Surely the Fair Trading Act would have something to say about that. Something around the product not being "fit for purpose"...

Nothing personal, but anytime I see someone's claiming "not being fit for purpose" on a non-SLA service I get a strange feeling.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#526233 27-Sep-2011 15:01

Talkiet: I'd also caution you about switching if you expect full rate TCP throughput on a single thread.

XNet can do it. What is different in their setup?

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#526236 27-Sep-2011 15:04

freitasm:
jnawk:?Surely the Fair Trading Act would have something to say about that. Something around the product not being "fit for purpose"...

Nothing personal, but anytime I see someone's claiming "not being fit for purpose" on a non-SLA service I get a strange feeling.

?

Having no SLA is not an excuse to deliver less than what you've promised to deliver. Others may disagree, but I feel Telstra are not delivering that which they have promised.

That one other ISP out there can deliver it just goes to show there is no reason why Telstra should be unable to. This all brings is right back to that whole shaping and are they doing it, can we trust them, etc.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#526238 27-Sep-2011 15:07

jnawk:
Talkiet: I'd also caution you about switching if you expect full rate TCP throughput on a single thread.

XNet can do it. What is different in their setup?

I didn't say the Telecom BB connection wouldn't do it... I cautioned you that it's not explicitly designed to do it. It _MIGHT_ deliver it. We test throughput from ADSL connections but if we see less than line rate for a single thread connection to a random server outside of NZ we don't mark it down as a fail!.

If you know that XNet will reliably deliver this capability, then I suggest they should be your first choice for a replacement provider.

(evil grin at any WXC staff watching :-)

Cheers - N

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.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#526240 27-Sep-2011 15:11

Talkiet: Telecom Retail at this stage don't offer any Naked BB connections, so there isn't a package available at a similar price I'm afraid. The best VALUE plans are the Total Home plans, although they package in a landline which isn't of interest to you.

http://www.telecom.co.nz/packages/packages/plansandpricing/comparepackages
[edit... ps. personal opinion, blah blah, not official policy etc :-) ]

Cheapest on that list is $78, and it offers 2GB. But I don't think the page sells the service that well. If one scrolls right the way to the bottom, there are upgrades here there and everywhere...

So, could one get the Total Home Starter for $78, and slap on a 40GB "upgrade" for $30 to have 42GB total for $108?

Assuming so far so good, compare that to what the same would cost with Telstra Clear - $69.95 plus whatever they charge for a landline that I don't want. $109 total according to their web site. So Telecom is cheaper. But I don't want that landline! Oh well.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#526241 27-Sep-2011 15:13

Talkiet:
jnawk:
Talkiet: I'd also caution you about switching if you expect full rate TCP throughput on a single thread.

XNet can do it. What is different in their setup?

I didn't say the Telecom BB connection wouldn't do it... I cautioned you that it's not explicitly designed to do it. It _MIGHT_ deliver it. We test throughput from ADSL connections but if we see less than line rate for a single thread connection to a random server outside of NZ we don't mark it down as a fail!.

If you know that XNet will reliably deliver this capability, then I suggest they should be your first choice for a replacement provider.

(evil grin at any WXC staff watching :-)

Cheers - N

Only problem with them is their plan starts at $10 more than I'm currently paying (not a big deal), and that is with no daytime traffic added in (big deal!).

I wonder if they unmeter national traffic? (serious question - anybody know?)

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#526243 27-Sep-2011 15:17

Talkiet: Best effort doesn't mean what you think it means. I grant you that there's very few people around that really know what it means but the wikipedia article actually does a decent job of a simple explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_effort_delivery

There's NO WAY that being termed best efforts means that a provider should make the kind of effort that TCL appear to be making to resolve this idiosyncrasy.

Best effort also doesn't mean traffic be shaped. Which has to be the case - we've proven each endpoint and all the hops along the way have capacity, and that there is no droppage occurring. Its just TCP that suffers.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#526248 27-Sep-2011 15:25

jnawk: I wonder if they unmeter national traffic? (serious question - anybody know?)

Appears not. :-( Only "local" traffic.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12