>
> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 16:40 +1300, Craig Whitmore wrote:
>
> > As far as I know customers on the 192k upstream where going to stay on
> this
> > speed and only new plans (from a certain date where going to be on 128k)
> > on Jetstream. The ISP has no control on the throttling of the speed.
> (this
> > is something telecom does - it does not even touch the ISP's network).
> Maybe
> > during some change around on Telecom's end your 192K upload was changed
> to
> > 128K.
>
>
>
> You are correct in thinking that customers on those plans were to stay
> with the slightly higher upstream.
>
> You are incorrect in the assumption however that the ISP has no control
> over the upstream rate. The ISP's are definitely the ones rate limiting
> the upstream in my case, and it does "TOUCH" the isp's network as it
> uses the ISP's routes...
Sorry, but Craig is right. Because you are on a FastIP Direct line, your
traffic never crosses the Orcon network. Orcon simply provides
authentication services; there is no way Orcon can ratelimit or throttle
your connection, upstream or down.
>
> Telecom are not, and HAVE not throttled the connection, both the modem
> and the dslam are reporting the 320kps rate. I have talked to an Orcon
> rep two weeks ago that confirmed that it was orcon that switched all
> customers over and rate limited them months ago... to 160kps
> upstream.... I could be wrong in trusting the conversations I've had
> with Telecom and Orcon. But this seems the only logical explanation. The
> isp's are fiddling and NOT telecom.
The speed as reported by your modem is simply the size of the PVC connecting
back to the local DSLAM. DSL lines are throttled in two places: first, by
the size of this PVC, and second by the profile applied to your line on the
aggregating B-RAS. It's entirely possible for your DSL line speed to be set
to 320 while a 128k traffic shaper is applied to the upstream on your PPPoA
session.
>
> BTW I let telecom know about the upstream rate limiting last week, and
> they did some tests on my line etc.
In my experience, front-line Telecom staff "running some tests" does not
extend to investigating the qos profiles applied to a line.
> Also ORCON have been switching off Jetstream partnering program
> connections purposely for the last 4 months to force the customers to
> ring and to change to UBS. This is NOT good practice, I have also had
> this confirmed with reps at Orcon in the last week. As some Muppet did
> it to my Connection after I rang about a seperate issue the night
> before. I was without internet for half a day and had to wait for the
> orcon helpdesk to come in in the morning. I spent 12-2am on the phone
> with jetstream trying to establish with the nightshift if it was their
> issue or not... eventually we gave up thinking it was a router dieing...
> But it ending up being my first assumption that ORCON had turned the
> account off....
>
Accounts were disabled in an effort to get people into action to shift to an
alternative that is not going to stop working in two weeks time. There has
been a concerted effort to make people aware of the impending withdrawal of
the JPP service, but there are still a small number of users who have made
no action to change. This way you get a temporarily reversible taste of
what's coming, and some time to consider your options and make a decision.
If you don't change services (whether to UBS, WSB, or some other
alternative), then your line will stop working, soon, permanently. That's a
Telecom decision, and sadly no amount of complaining will make any
difference.
Cheers,
Thomas
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> Joel W
>
> --
> This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
> see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
> and various documents.
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@lists.unixathome.org
> with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message
>
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@lists.unixathome.org
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message
Received on Sat Oct 22 17:56:12 2005