Unleashed havoc

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Unleashed havoc

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

9 posts

Wannabe Geek

#50926 3-Nov-2006 14:26

joshnz: i called xtra to day to ask why iam in only getting 2150kbs. They told me lots of people chnging to go large plan its gonna take about 1 to 2 months to get the speed as your line allows.

So in the meantime, we continue to be charged the same rates for a slower service than we had previously. Telecom are still advertising their 'Jetstream has been unleashed' ads, which I personally find very misleading. I wonder if I change to one of the other plans whenther the speed will go back to what it was as its nearly as bad as my old dialup.

In regards to Telecoms infrastructure, you would expect them to be investing in their network and technology. If they don't, then somebody else will and take Telecoms customers with it.

bradstewart

4335 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#50929 3-Nov-2006 14:45

Grant17: It is now time to give other players an opportunity as has been done in nearly all other Western countries (Mexico excluded). Time will tell whether that strategy is the right one, but to continue with the status quo is not an option if we want to remain a First-world country.

So now our status as a first world country depends on the quality of our broadband. Thats bullshit and [comment removed] If you looked at the things that really mattered you would know that we lost first world status a long time ago. Have you seen the amount violent crimes committed recently?

freitasm: It's like Microsoft and Apple. Apple can have a proprietary system, with a proprietary DRM platform and closed hardware. But no one complains about them, do they?

That's because Microsoft or Apple are not the only games in town. There ARE other alternatives. But imagine if Apple OWNED all the copper lines into our homes as Telecom does. And that Apple wouldn't let you connect any other non-Apple devices at the exchange to provide a better service.

Then I think we would start to see some complaining don't you?

Well that proves you completely missed the point... When Microsoft and Apple do the same thing with regards to DRM and closed source etc people only complain about MS when Apple are just as 'guilty' of said practices. Have you noticed that Apple won't let you use anything but iTunes to connect to an iPod..

[Self edit: deluded comment withdrawn without reservation]

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#50932 3-Nov-2006 14:58

bradstewart: If you looked at the things that really mattered you would know that we lost first world status a long time ago. Have you seen the amount violent crimes committed recently?

If you look at the per capita amount of violent crimes committed, I think you'll see that the US is far higher than here. They certainly have a much higher per capita prison population. And yet nobody can say that the US is not a first-world country...

bradstewart: Well that proves you completely missed the point... When Microsoft and Apple do the same thing with regards to DRM and closed source etc people only complain about MS when Apple are just as 'guilty' of said practices. Have you noticed that Apple won't let you use anything but iTunes to connect to an iPod..

Yes, but... but... but...

Apple and Microsoft don't have a monopoly on your access to something as basic as telecommunications though do they?

In the sphere of Apple's iTunes, there ARE other games in town e.g. Digirama / CokeTunes / Free MP3 download sites offering the music of up and coming bands, OR you could just buy the CD!

In the sphere of Operating Systems, you can use Linux.

How can you equate access to Music or Operating System Software with something so basic and fundamental to ANY country as Telecommunications and the Internet?

I think it's you who is missing the point Brad!

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#50937 3-Nov-2006 15:37

To all users: Please stay on topic, and discuss the issues at hand.

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#50938 3-Nov-2006 15:50

This is being hashed out in other threads as well.

Where does it say you will get 7.6Mbps?

No one is offering that.

Go look at ihugs homepage, it says 7.6 mbit in the macromedia flash display.

Its just 'unconstrained now', with a lot of people chewing through large amounts of bandwidth, currently making it horrible for everyone.

Its noted here that around 10 - 20% of bandwidth is eaten by TCP.

Interesting, my dsl connecting at 4200kbit - 20% = 3.3mbit which is my top speed.
To be honest I never took note of what it said it was connecting at until after things went unconstrained.

Once you are a km or so away from the exchange, that will eat up some connection speed. Old or faulty wiring may eat even more. So 3 - 5 Mbps should probably be considered okay.

I know, but are people close to exchanges getting speeds much above 3,5mbit? even off peak?
That's what I was trying to establish, if anyone is really seeing the new speeds.

I regularly get speeds up to 6.4Mbps, and sometimes down to 1.5Mbps but i am very close to an exchange (about 500 meters id say).

What kind of times?
Ever during the day?

Continue on this thread please

(Please PM me if you have sufficient reason to have a new thread going on the same topic, im open to ideas)

Well I was hoping everyone would post pretty much just their speed one after another, not chat about it which I believe this thread is about.

cokemaster

Exited
4929 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#50939 3-Nov-2006 15:53

If Ihug advertises 7.6mbps.... thats their problem. I suspect that it will have 'up to' on that same advert as well.

Can you point out where Telecom or Xtra says that?

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#50940 3-Nov-2006 16:04

cokemaster: If Ihug advertises 7.6mbps.... thats their problem. I suspect that it will have 'up to' on that same advert as well.

Can you point out where Telecom or Xtra says that?

Couldn't you have just visited www.ihug.co.nz and seen for yourself?

It says '7.6mbit broadband plans'

But regardless if you call something unconstrained or 7.6mbit you must not have a network that is so congested no one could ever hope of realistically attaning a speed even close.

Now from what tonyhuges has said it isn't that bad, but that's what I'm trying to establish.

So what's your speed?

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.

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#50941 3-Nov-2006 16:12

antigrav: So what's your speed?

I tried to post this in your new thread before, Antigrav, but the moderator locked it.

Personally I thought a new thread just dealing with reported/experienced speeds was a good idea because this one has kind of wandered onto quite a broad range of issues... Anyway, I digress:

This just goes to show what can be achieved with a good clean line outside of peak times:

As reported by Modem

Downstream Speed: 7616 kbps
Upstream Speed: 704 kbps

NZDSL Speedtest

Download Speed: 5464 kbps (683 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 499 kbps (62.4 KB/sec transfer rate)

These are the best results I've seen since the Full-speed JetStream plans were canned last year.

ISP is Paradise Net, exchange is Avondale.

All in all, not too shabby

cokemaster

Exited
4929 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#50942 3-Nov-2006 16:12

Ihug uses Telecom connections/wholesale/resale/whatever.... thus if they advertise 7.6mbps connections - that is their problem, not Telecoms.

And as for the unconstrained speeds thats what they are.... unconstrained.

Have you checked your internet providers terms and conditions recently? Do they promise a minimum speed?

There are a lot of factors that people are failing to take into account before jumping on the 'its Telecoms fault' bandwagon. Hence why there is the fair usage policies to try and reduce load on the network by the heavy downloaders whom download during peak times.

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#50964 3-Nov-2006 18:21

I beg to differ.

If Telecom releases plans that it no longer constrains by one means but does by another (laughibly terrible backhaul) then it's not really unconstrained.
It all depends of just how bad it is and I'll grant you that's but a black and white thing.

Well they provide 30kbps, or is it 24kbps, or is it 30kbps but once you take TCP overhead into account it's 24kbps?

Either way that is pretty sad if lots of people have connections that can ideally do 7.6mbit, it would be 316 times oversold.
Now because Telecom built their exchanges too far from peoples houses ;) not everyone can get 7.6mbit so I'll follow 10layers.com's conservative estimate of 4mbit on average per customer for the average maximum speed.

That's 166 times oversold, now sure it's standard practice to have a high contention ratio but I think it's normally closer to 50:1 and at 256kbit it was around 11:1 with Telecom.

cokemaster

Exited
4929 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#50966 3-Nov-2006 18:29

Contention rates and backhaul capacity is another can of worms.

However they [telecom] have lifted the artifical line speed limitations... which is what they said they were doing.

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

juha

1317 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#50967 3-Nov-2006 18:33

Wholesale providers will have an option of dimensioning on the ATM handover to the ISP in three steps: 16, 24 and 32 kbps. The default is currently 24kbps per customer.

That handover circuit is, I understand an ATM STM-1 (155Mbps, and depending on cell tax, around 125Mbps IP bandwidth) or an STM-4 which is four times as fast.

This is for CUBS and RUBS only, or Telecom's L2TP DSL. I have no idea what the equivalent measure is for Xtra.

Juha

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#50988 4-Nov-2006 07:50

The topic of this thread says it all: "Unleashed havoc".

The following statement from Telecom's own web site explains why we are in this mess:

"Based on Telecom's current expectations for the next twelve months, the target dividend payout ratio for the financial year ended 30 June 2007 will be 75% of net earnings"

Full statement at:
http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,8748,200695-200141,00.html?nv=tpd

75% of net earnings to be paid out to shareholders, HELLO!!!

It's no wonder the backhaul to exchanges is seriously lacking with this kind of underinvestment.

Any serious growth-minded business would be looking at paying out well under 50% of profits in dividends and reinvesting the rest to GROW THE BUSINESS!!!

If you look at other technology businesses, they pay out maybe 10 or 20% of profits in dividends, or even take a holiday from paying out dividends at all while restructuring or significant new investment is required. If Telecom adopted such a policy, it would be in the long-term interests of all shareholders and New Zealand, rather than the current policy which milks out 75% (or until recently 85%) of the profits as a short-term unsustainable windfall for shareholders.

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#50990 4-Nov-2006 08:25

Grant17: 75% of net earnings to be paid out to shareholders, HELLO!!!

Telecom invests a lot of money in its networks on an ongoing basis. Why shouldnt a company who is still going to experience good growth, despite a regulatory environment, take the opportunity to reward the patience and commitment of its shareholders, who have watched the share price plummet?

Are you saying they should not be allowed to do that?

Mr Chips is paying out in December, despite exchange rates putting pressure on them, they they are still experiencing growth. Perhaps someone should go and demand from them that they invest in their infrastructure to deliver more chips in NZ?

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#50999 4-Nov-2006 10:23

tonyhughes:
Grant17: 75% of net earnings to be paid out to shareholders, HELLO!!!

Telecom invests a lot of money in its networks on an ongoing basis.

Yes, I'm sure it does, but what is your definition of 'a lot'?
I am sure that if you asked me if I thought that whatever Telecom's yearly expenditure on upgrading it's networks is, is 'a lot' of money without any context I would agree no doubt.

However 75% of net profits and 85% of net profits being given in divedends clearly show that the percentage of what they make that goes into improving the quality of it's network which by the governments definition is woeful is er woeful.
That means that at absolurte most 25% of it's net profit goes into creating that next gen network which I guess explains why we don't have a next gen network, why the backhaul is so tiny, why ADSL2+ has not been seen yet etc...

That's why Grant mentioned that normally tech firms with pressing upgrades to do give no dividens because if you are really investing 'a lot' then you can't possibly give most of your money away.

Why shouldnt a company who is still going to experience good growth, despite a regulatory environment, take the opportunity to reward the patience and commitment of its shareholders, who have watched the share price plummet?

Because if instead of rewarding it's shareholders so much it actually put some money into building a better network there cwould have been no regulatoion, that only happened because it was clear Telecom were just stringing them along with promises of their NGI.

And now it should happen because now Telecom no longer has the copper to it's self, and as fibre are the next step and because Telstra are thinking of building a new international fibre cable there is every chance that Telecom will go down, if it doesn't invest now and build fttp or do something useful network wise faster than everyone else it is doomed.

Are you saying they should not be allowed to do that?

Well I'm not, I hope they do die, good riddance.

Mr Chips is paying out in December, despite exchange rates putting pressure on them, they they are still experiencing growth. Perhaps someone should go and demand from them that they invest in their infrastructure to deliver more chips in NZ?

Oh, well I can see your right now you put it like that!

Let's do some math, SCC cost $1.3 billion divided by population of OZ 20mil and NZ 4 mil is $54.16.
So for $4 more than my current broadband plan costs in one month from each person in NZ and AU we could have a brand spanking new better SCC built.

Yeah, it's the international connectivity that's the problem, what crap.
The SCC has paid for it's self, not sure how long after it was built it did that, and guess what, it has BW to spare.
I guess we are saving money by not fully utilizing it eh?

Maybe it's the 'New Zealand' at the end of Telecom's name that makes you all defend it, maybe you think your being patriotic when you appoligise for it.
Will I think you missed it's middle name, 'Isf*cking'

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5