[WXC/VFX] xnet's speed issues

Forums › Vodafone New Zealand › [WXC/VFX] xnet's speed issues

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

3535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

Reply # 165489 18-Sep-2008 22:08

I've finally decided -- reluctantly -- to move my remaining wireless connection away from Xnet's Xtencity service. Reason being that $99 is just too much to pay for a 256k/128k connection. At nights, I could not even stream YouTube without buffering for more than half the time. Bl**dy annoying when you are trying to watch a 40 minute clip.

I'm switching to Netspeed, who offer a 1Mbps/340kbps plan for $30 less, although I will now have to pay $11.25 per month extra for VFX. Even so, the saving is still about $19 per month and I am getting 4 x faster speed

Instead of not being able to stream just one YouTube video, I can now stream 2 at once with no buffering whatsoever

Currently, a Trace Route shows that my connection to YouTube is going via Asianetcom (ANC) aka Pacnet which is the same provider that Xnet use.

Now that I am connected via a different ISP, it is quite obvious that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with using ANC/Pacnet as an international bandwidth provider. Peak-Time International performance is NOT an issue if you are prepared to stump up the cash to buy sufficient bandwidth.

Regrettably, it seems that Xnet have not seen fit to do that, and IMO, the "Torrent" plan has effectively been an exercise akin to reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

It's a shame when a good ISP turns to custard. However, this does not detract in any way from Xnet's customer support, especially the staffers who participate here on GZ. IMO, their support is the best in the business and other ISPs could profitably follow their lead.

pistolpower

139 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 165494 18-Sep-2008 22:21

Not true. Im on adsl1 with torrent plan and today i downloaded like a 188MB file at 700KBps and it took like 3minutes. And that was as fast as i could theoreticly go with my synch rates.

grant_k

3535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

Reply # 165497 18-Sep-2008 22:26

pistolpower: Not true. Im on adsl1 with torrent plan and today i downloaded like a 188MB file at 700KBps and it took like 3minutes. And that was as fast as i could theoreticly go with my synch rates.

What time of day was that though? Off-peak hours speed (i.e. before 7pm-ish) has always been great, no issue there.

Also, in response to this earlier post:

PottsyNZ: Part of the problem porbably is with Asianetcom offering ISPs soemthing they can't deliver.

If you look @ ispmap.co.nz the ISPs with "good" plans i.e. Slingshot/xnet use Asianetcom whilst the ones that are more expensive and reportedly have quite good service ie.e snap use a diff Gateway.

From experience, as in when I worked at QSI before it fell apart, ISPs will try to get customers by offering the biggest plans and they'll try to use the losest bidder to supply this - looks like ANC is this. :)

QSI did have a brain on their heads by using TCL for high priority stuff.

As I have proven tonight (see my post above), there is NOTHING WRONG with Asianetcom. It's all a question of how many $$$ you want to pay.

wuffie

27 posts

Geek

Reply # 165504 18-Sep-2008 22:39

grant_k: ...Reason being that $99 is just too much to pay for a 256k/128k connection...

256kbit/s equates to 32KB/s and isnt enuff to stream the majority of youtube videos so it might not have been xnet but the limmits of ur connection speed at fault :)

as for a 40 min video on youtube, I thought they where limmited to 10mins?

(further details on youtubes FLV codec bitrates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Technical_notes )

grant_k

3535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

Reply # 165507 18-Sep-2008 22:48

wuffie: 256kbit/s equates to 32KB/s and isnt enuff to stream the majority of youtube videos so it might not have been xnet but the limmits of ur connection speed at fault :)

Yes, I know it's a bit marginal, but until late January/February this year, I could stream YouTube at night with just the occasional pause for buffering. According to some tests I have done, you need at least 280kbps not to see any buffering. So, with 256kbps, you would expect to see occasional pauses for buffering. However, I wasn't just seeing the odd bit of buffering like I used to, but buffering for half or more of the time.

wuffie: as for a 40 min video on youtube, I thought they where limmited to 10mins?

Well, earlier today I played a 41-minute video non-stop

insane

2280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 370

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 165523 18-Sep-2008 23:32

....., it is quite obvious that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with using ANC/Pacnet as an international bandwidth provider.

I look at the monitoring of upstream provider(s) latencies throughout the day and can tell you that pacnet has less stable latencies (talking like 4ms differences here) compared to telstra and GGI, however this does not affect throughput in anyway as 4ms difference is well nothing really.

I can't thnk of the last time that pacnet actually had a real issue that was not brought on by the ISP.

They have gotten a bad rep as many of the cheaper ISPs use their connections and have over subscribed. Combine this with their significantly cheaper prices and its not hard to see how rumars can start.

Out of interest, what are you latencies like with netsmart, does the traffic have to get routed all the way down to where they are in Tauranga? or somewhere like that.

grant_k

3535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

Reply # 165526 18-Sep-2008 23:38

insane: Out of interest, what are you latencies like with netsmart, does the traffic have to get routed all the way down to where they are in Tauranga? or somewhere like that.

NetSpeed are based in Dunedin I believe, so Yes, there will be some additional latency to local servers. But compared to the 200ms or so to LAX, the extra few ms is insignificant.

The speed increase though, was what blew me away

pistolpower

139 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 165553 19-Sep-2008 08:29

Ok i admit it. I donloaded it at like 3pm yesterday when everyone was at work lol. But still.

marmel

1492 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 42

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 165670 19-Sep-2008 16:23

It's fairly obvious now after more than 6 months of complaints on this forum that xnet simply do not have enough international bandwidth for the type of service/plans they are offering.

Posting here won't make any difference, xnet staff no longer participate in these "speed" threads.

If you do manage to get good speed via xnet or can work around the peak times then all is well and good. If you want access to decent speeds day or night look elsewhere as I did several months ago.

Pretty simple really.

I should add that this isn't restricted to xnet, most if not all of the smaller players seem to have problems managing their int bandwidth.

wuffie

27 posts

Geek

Reply # 165678 19-Sep-2008 16:53

Well put MARMEL :)

Niel

3267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 77

Trusted

Reply # 165683 19-Sep-2008 17:07

This is not intended to be a personal attack, only to give a balanced view:

marmel: It's fairly obvious now after more than 6 months of complaints on this forum that xnet simply do not have enough international bandwidth for the type of service/plans they are offering.

Depends on what you want to do with their plans. If not for you, then it is not for you.

marmel: Posting here won't make any difference, xnet staff no longer participate in these "speed" threads.

Correct, they stated long ago they will not reply to this any more.

marmel: If you do manage to get good speed via xnet or can work around the peak times then all is well and good. If you want access to decent speeds day or night look elsewhere as I did several months ago.

Speed is good for most people, thus only a handful of people complaining. Day is fine, evening is fine, as for after midnight I do not know as it is of no interest to me.

marmel: I should add that this isn't restricted to xnet, most if not all of the smaller players seem to have problems managing their int bandwidth.

You mean their peak time international bandwidth, with "peak time" being when their network carries the most international data which for XNet is (currently) after midnight. I get slower speeds in the evening, but it is definitely not coming to a grinding halt even at 11:30 at night. If your connection goes really slow during the evening, then either XNet is shaping your connection (which they claim not to do other than QoS for VFX) or there is an issue with capacity at your exchange or the feed from your exchange to the rest of the network.

XNet does not lock you into a contract, so if it is not for you then you can easily move on. It is a bit frustrating that this thread is going on for so long. And locking it would not help either, another one will be started. Perhaps the next poll on the XNet web site should be "is our international bandwidth at night sufficient for your needs?", which will show how many people really gets affected.

You can never have enough Volvos!

pistolpower

139 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 165684 19-Sep-2008 17:13

Yep your right marrel. But the question is who's fault is it? What I am trying to say is that if the owners of the international fibre pipe are simply just charging to much for bandwidth then its not xnets fault. But if its just xnet not buying enough bandwidth cause the owners would rather have the divident instead, well then we know whos fault it would be.

Anyways i checked up on that file i downloaded at 700KBps yesterday and a quick trouce route tracked it down to callplus in new zealand so it wasnt international lol. Here is the tracert.

Tracing route to 119-224-143-10.callplus.net.nz [119.224.143.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2    40 ms    42 ms    40 ms ip-58-28-15-31.wxnz.net [58.28.15.31]
3    39 ms    39 ms    40 ms ip-58-28-13-83.wxnz.net [58.28.13.83]
4    42 ms    39 ms    40 ms ip-58-28-8-3.wxnz.net [58.28.8.3]
5    41 ms    43 ms    44 ms callplus1.ape.net.nz [192.203.154.46]
6    43 ms    40 ms    39 ms 119-224-143-10.callplus.net.nz [119.224.143.10]

Trace complete.

Anyways the speeds fine for me its just the data prices lol. Speeds not bad, pings not bad, supports good, connections good. So all in all theres not much to complain about which is probably why this threads so empty.

marmel

1492 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 42

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 165750 20-Sep-2008 01:37

My post wasn't really a xnet bash as such, just really stating the obvious.

When I was with xnet I enjoyed great vfx features, decent pricing and reasonable customer service.

If they could just sought out their international speed issues and vfx call quality (my experience only) I would be back like a shot.

I left 3-4 months ago and this ongoing thread regarding int bandwidth makes me think not much has changed despite the torrent plan.

Hopefully they will slowly grow their customer base to a point where they can afford to compete with telecom/vodafone on the bandwidth issue and let punters decide who has the best features/service for the price.

Until then for me they are a second tier provider servicing a niche maket.

Kyro

74 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 166426 23-Sep-2008 00:30

At 12:28 am: Shocking xnet speeds at 12:29

"broadband"

kiwiboi

122 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 166993 25-Sep-2008 10:56

I've had enough of this XNet speed problems. I've been with them for a few years now, but it seems that their service is just unacceptable lately. It's been almost 4 weeks that my speed slowed down, just like you guys, I can't stream YouTube videos anymore, download speeds dropped to 10kbps or lower sometimes. I'm now in the process of moving to a different ISP. Shame, XNet used to be the best around. Goodbye XNet.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9