Waiheke broadband

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Waiheke broadband

izomezzo

39 posts

Geek

#89926 11-Sep-2011 16:58

Hello,

I posted a while back about broadband in Waiheke. I've been here a few weeks and just attempted gaming. So far, it's almost playable but seems to suffer from lag spikes which makes things pretty frustrating with frequent rubber banding. Since I live in Omiha I won't be getting cabinetisation. So I wondered if there are alternatives for low latency connections?

I see Ynet advertises low latency wireless, I would've thought that wireless would have lousy latency. I can't see what other alternatives there are though. And the downside that they need to plonk a dish on the roof (there's already a sky dish and I don't know how the landlord will feel about another one...).

At this point I might just leave it, it's probably not worth it. What do you guys think?

Izo

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#519607 11-Sep-2011 17:03

Wireless latency will typically always be vastly superior to DSL.

izomezzo

39 posts

Geek

#519613 11-Sep-2011 17:23

Really? I see, my friend told me his friend has a microwave connection and the latency is pretty bad. I don't know what the difference would be between that an "normal" wifi, if any. Also looks like the YNet receiver is actually quite small, much smaller than a sky dish. Maybe worth investigating then. They're also a lot cheaper than Telecom...

Izo

Ragnor

8223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#519718 11-Sep-2011 22:45

sbiddle: Wireless latency will typically always be vastly superior to DSL.

I think he meant vastly higher aka worse, rather than "superior"

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#519728 11-Sep-2011 23:15

Bidddle are you drinking?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#519748 12-Sep-2011 06:19

Ragnor:
sbiddle: Wireless latency will typically always be vastly superior to DSL.

I think he meant vastly higher aka worse, rather than "superior"

No I meant a lot better. Depending on the type of wirelless connection you're only looking at a few ms per hop. If you were an ISP offering wireless sevices on Waiheke and had fibre or DMR backhaul to the city there would be no reason why pings wouldn't be in the 5 ms range to Sky Tower.

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#519783 12-Sep-2011 09:06

Speedtest on the left of my sig is wireless at my desk.
Speedtest on the right of my sig is ADSL at my home.

You can get poor latency on any networking technology if it is done wrong.

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#519785 12-Sep-2011 09:16

Point to multipoint wireless systems that smaller WISPs typically deploy have very low latency compared to DSL.

Cyril

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.

Ragnor

8223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#519854 12-Sep-2011 11:21

cyril7: Point to multipoint wireless systems that smaller WISPs typically deploy have very low latency compared to DSL.

Cyril

Hmm I guess I was thinking more of Compass and NZ Wireless which iirc where much higher than the 16ms I get on ADSL to the first hop.

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#519864 12-Sep-2011 11:32

As Steve mentioned above and from my experience 5mS to the core on even 2-3hop WISP systems is typical.

Cyril

Beccara

1469 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#519874 12-Sep-2011 11:49

Ragnor:
cyril7: Point to multipoint wireless systems that smaller WISPs typically deploy have very low latency compared to DSL.

Cyril

Hmm I guess I was thinking more of Compass and NZ Wireless which iirc where much higher than the 16ms I get on ADSL to the first hop.

You remeber wrong, When I worked for NZW the first hop was normally under 10ms and infact alot of the time under 5ms. A budget of 16ms would get a cilent within 1-3km of the AP to the other side of a WiX connection, Of course any connections running over a large body of water would alter this but for the most part clients were over land to the AP and fairly close.

This is from 2006 onwards, I'm not sure how bad things were back in the day but I doubt they would have been higher than DSL back in the day aswell

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#519878 12-Sep-2011 11:54

sbiddle: Wireless latency will typically always be vastly superior to DSL.

+1

Steve is right. I've spent a decade reading about how wireless is blar blar, so I finally set up my own network to prove right from wrong... we get better performance from the wireless than both ADSL and HFC cable.

I know it 'should' be the other way around, but it's not.

Even in heavy snow, our wireless stayed up while the DSL services in the area fell over.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#519882 12-Sep-2011 11:58

You remeber wrong, When I worked for NZW the first hop was normally under 10ms and infact alot of the time under 5ms.

For older 802.11 based gear that would be right, newer gear with Time slot management is a lot shorter.

Cyril

izomezzo

39 posts

Geek

#519928 12-Sep-2011 13:22

Thanks guys, this sounds promising. Gives me a few questions to ask them when enquiring about it as well.