WAN quality graph - peak pings typical for Conklin?

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › WAN quality graph - peak pings typical for Conklin?

rhy7s

623 posts

Ultimate Geek

#123506 9-Jul-2013 22:38

Just checking if this is typical for a Conklin (I assume we're on one) connection? Peak time congestion seems to be getting steadily worse here and there's no upgrade indicated on the Chorus maps. Bummer as they've upgraded areas further out from us in the rural hinterland. Vodafone RBI is apparently coming on some unknown schedule.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#852086 9-Jul-2013 23:15

There's no such thing as a typical peak time ping for a Conklin. Some don't experience congestion, some only experience it some nights, and some experience it every night.

From your screenshot, it looks like generally there's low use, but someone else is doing something periodic and contributing to congestion.,... The drop to essentially fine performance between the peaks indicates you're not getting consistent congestion over the evening.

That all said, yeah, it sucks when congestion occurs on those - those times seem high but there's virtually no packet loss so looks like there's a lot of buffering going on.

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.

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#853259 10-Jul-2013 12:29

Chorus are great like that.

Implement crap technology & never upgrade it.
Charge rural users a higher fee and never upgrade the cabinet or touch the lines.

Used to be stuck on an Alcatel 7300.

Worst years of my life.

0.3 - 1 Mbps down & 0.4-0.6 up. Great for you tube, gaming etc... even though modem sync at 8128 / 832.

NZ / AU Battlefield 4 Gaming Community
http://www.sonsofvalour.net/forums/forum.php

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#853262 10-Jul-2013 12:33

Sheesh guys - you have to remember that some of these places will literally NEVER turn a profit even with the equipment already in them.

Is it reasonable (for example) to expect ANYONE (except perhaps govt) to spend maybe $150k to upgrade something when the lifetime revenue wouldn't even approach that? Let alone lifetime profit?

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.

rhy7s

623 posts

Ultimate Geek

#853339 10-Jul-2013 14:29

Maybe there's something that's popular on demand at those times.

Re: the cost argument. I suppose it will be considered infrastructure at some point, our roads out here certainly wouldn't be making a profit, let alone breaking even on rates collected but the whole network is more valuable with the last mile available. The same thing with public transport, if you keep pulling back from the routes that don't turn a profit, you lose the network of networks in the lost connections. Whether universal participation on the net is to be valued is probably an ideological point at the moment, but with UFB on one end and plenty of places around here still on dialup), there does seem to be a mirror of other social disparities developing.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#853344 10-Jul-2013 14:42

rhy7s: Maybe there's something that's popular on demand at those times.

Re: the cost argument. I suppose it will be considered infrastructure at some point, our roads out here certainly wouldn't be making a profit, let alone breaking even on rates collected but the whole network is more valuable with the last mile available. The same thing with public transport, if you keep pulling back from the routes that don't turn a profit, you lose the network of networks in the lost connections. Whether universal participation on the net is to be valued is probably an ideological point at the moment, but with UFB on one end and plenty of places around here still on dialup), there does seem to be a mirror of other social disparities developing.

I agree there's a good analogy with roads in sparsely populated areas... But who funds the roads? Not a profit making entity :-)

If the roads were built and maintained by a private profit focused company you could bet they wouldn't build a road for 2 people 50km away from anyone else...

RBI is to some extent the govt funded side of non-economic broadband provisioning, recognising that there are a lot of customers that make no economic sense to service. However EVEN THEN, there are isolated pockets of people where even a taxpayer funded build program can't justify investment.

At some stage, there has to be some personal responsibility around what to expect based on where you live. I know if I chose to live in the middle of Fjordland miles away from any existing network, I WOULD NOT expect anyone to fund communications to my house except me.

Now, if I lived on a farm in mid Canterbury that has historically had POTS access, and may have a Conklin serving some level of ADSL, then it's less clear cut for sure - but I still wouldn't expect a provider to spend more money on me than I would EVER give back to them through service payments. I might expect the govt to help out in some fashion, but I'd never expect the same level of performance as urban users, or the same pricing. I think RBI is a generous scheme TBH...

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.

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#853442 10-Jul-2013 16:57

Talkiet: Sheesh guys - you have to remember that some of these places will literally NEVER turn a profit even with the equipment already in them.

Is it reasonable (for example) to expect ANYONE (except perhaps govt) to spend maybe $150k to upgrade something when the lifetime revenue wouldn't even approach that? Let alone lifetime profit?

Cheers - N

That is a fantastic excuse.

Even better proves why Telecom should not have been sold off, as it was paid for by the tax payer and hence should have the tax payers best interests at heart, rather than just profit...

At the least, I think it is reasonable to provide sufficient backhaul to enable a decent ADSL1 speed.

I was not on a conklin by the way, just to put that out there.

Even more to argue the point. In my case there were new subdivisions going in, some already gone in and all the ADSL ports were taken.
The cabinet was simply oversubscribed, and others were on the waiting list, yet it still was not going to be upgraded.

A few years ago, 6 Mbps was easily obtained, but rapidly decreased after 2009.

If the age old infrastructure is not going to provide a profit, then the cost of line rental should be put down to match the performance and quality for the price.

Perhaps my argument is not fair, but unless you have actually been stuck on one of these things (anything ADSL1) then you have no idea of the crap performance they are delivering these days, and just how infuriating this is.

I am not talking about keeping up with UFB in terms of throughput, but actually talking about speed degradation.

NZ / AU Battlefield 4 Gaming Community
http://www.sonsofvalour.net/forums/forum.php

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#853446 10-Jul-2013 17:06

NZCrusader: [snip]

Most of what you talk about is historical (nothing can be done about it now) or relates to Chorus, not Telecom.

I'm not disputing any of your facts - just suggesting that economics drive rational behaviour. As TELECOM, we would dearly love Chorus to upgrade a bunch of backhaul from the Conklins and some of the ASAMs, but there's no business case for it in most instances. Chorus will get only the same regulated price from the RSPs per customer.

If I was in one of those zones I'd probably be really upset by this but I hope I'd be able to still see the logic behind it.

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.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#855281 14-Jul-2013 14:45

NZCrusader:
Talkiet: Sheesh guys - you have to remember that some of these places will literally NEVER turn a profit even with the equipment already in them.

Is it reasonable (for example) to expect ANYONE (except perhaps govt) to spend maybe $150k to upgrade something when the lifetime revenue wouldn't even approach that? Let alone lifetime profit?

Cheers - N

That is a fantastic excuse.

Even better proves why Telecom should not have been sold off, as it was paid for by the tax payer and hence should have the tax payers best interests at heart, rather than just profit...

At the least, I think it is reasonable to provide sufficient backhaul to enable a decent ADSL1 speed.

You are mixing your politics with commercial reality. Are you aware what sort of broadband the SOE had managed to deliver? They weren't even interested in it and if still an SOE would likely be providing it as a public service equivalent to the horrible Auckland bus services. If you want decent speeds there has to be a profit incentive for both infrastructure and service providers to actually provide it, along with competition between providers. Otherwise you rely on politicians to demand better performance around election time — hasn't helped much with bus services anyway.

Having said that, its really hard to see the point of investing in infrastructure thats not up to the task. Surely the E2 links can be bridged to a bonded SHDSL backbone allowing the Conklin cabinets to run several dslam's with fewer subscribers per dslam. There must be old ones coming out that could go into existing cabinets.

Time to find a new industry!

LennonNZ

2459 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#855334 14-Jul-2013 16:20

Does anyone know how the bandwidth allocation is done on the Conklins?

For example Y people sharing N*2 Mbps where N = 1..4

If everyone is using it do they get N*2/Y Mbps speed

So if a customer has say 2 ADSL connections multilinked will someone get higher speeds?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#855360 14-Jul-2013 16:46

NZCrusader:
Talkiet: Sheesh guys - you have to remember that some of these places will literally NEVER turn a profit even with the equipment already in them.

Is it reasonable (for example) to expect ANYONE (except perhaps govt) to spend maybe $150k to upgrade something when the lifetime revenue wouldn't even approach that? Let alone lifetime profit?

Cheers - N

That is a fantastic excuse.

Even better proves why Telecom should not have been sold off, as it was paid for by the tax payer and hence should have the tax payers best interests at heart, rather than just profit...

At the least, I think it is reasonable to provide sufficient backhaul to enable a decent ADSL1 speed.

.....

Perhaps my argument is not fair, but unless you have actually been stuck on one of these things (anything ADSL1) then you have no idea of the crap performance they are delivering these days, and just how infuriating this is.

I am not talking about keeping up with UFB in terms of throughput, but actually talking about speed degradation.

Providing additional backhauk to the Conklin's is typically impossible. They're not only limited to 4 x E1's for backaul, but getting more backhaul to these places using anything but E1's isn't possible.

Many people on here to appreciate how poor the performance is, but at the end of the day while you probably won't agree with my statement, the real world reality is you should be grateful you actually have broadband.

The vast majority of Conklin users are going to be upgraded to RBI cabinets or be within a wireless RBI area within the next couple of years. Many people will need to realise that fixed line won't be their solution going forward, and that wireless is.

I know people involved in the initial decision to deploy Conklin's who now have some regrets that they ever deployed them, because they're a solution that's now unsuitable for the task, but replacing many of them is impossible.

People in some areas are going to need to look outside the sqaure if connectivity is important going forward, initiatives such as community wireless solutions funded by those people who actually want a better product. There is also no reason why you couldn't approach a partner such as an ISP and buy your own DSLAM and backhaul and use the existing Chorus copper to your home, a scenario that is already occuring.

At the end of the day many people in rural areas want to pay the same price as a metro customer, but have to accept that this simply can't continue going forward, and hopefully the TSO changes address this.

rhy7s

623 posts

Ultimate Geek

#863315 22-Jul-2013 01:34

Have had a bit more time to have a look at the connection in off peak. It seems that pings just go up hugely with any traffic. Here's a current speed test:

And here's running a ping during a speedtest

PING 222.153.64.1 (222.153.64.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=126 time=5815 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=126 time=6150 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=3 ttl=126 time=6149 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=4 ttl=126 time=6202 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=5 ttl=126 time=6296 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=6 ttl=126 time=6544 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=7 ttl=126 time=8826 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=8 ttl=126 time=9582 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=9 ttl=126 time=9840 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=10 ttl=126 time=10165 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=11 ttl=126 time=10089 ms
...
--- 222.153.64.1 ping statistics ---
82 packets transmitted, 68 received, 17% packet loss, time 81021ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 16.001/7555.474/10165.555/2515.112 ms, pipe 11

If I start another speedtest they'll both truck along OK but browsing goes out the window with the high pings.

I normally am behind pfSense with a Draytek Vigor 120 as a bridge, but I've just tried taking the V120 out of bridge mode and connecting directly with the same result.

Does anyone else on a Conklin get this behaviour?

My normal ping without other traffic is:

PING 222.153.64.1 (222.153.64.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=126 time=17.0 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=126 time=18.9 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=3 ttl=126 time=20.2 ms
...
--- 222.153.64.1 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9011ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 16.933/20.692/36.522/5.510 ms

Edit: And here's pings downloading LibreOffice in DownThemAll with speed restricted to 5kB/s

PING 222.153.64.1 (222.153.64.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=126 time=2932 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=126 time=2481 ms
64 bytes from 222.153.64.1: icmp_req=3 ttl=126 time=2991 ms
...
--- 222.153.64.1 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2481.893/3385.462/3977.418/450.998 ms, pipe 4

I think I'll grab a router I can run Gargoyle on to try out Active Congestion Control to see if that can keep things in check with the variable peak speed we've got.