Telstra never throttled DSL1???
Marts
Rod Speed claimed that I was lying when I said that Telstra used to limit its
DSL1 speeds.
Below is an article from the SMH which would seem to support what I was saying.
RS (now there's an appropriate set of initials for this guy) said that it was up
to me to do the proving.
While I argue that I don't have to do squat, I found this article while looking
for something else, so I thought that I'd post it up.
Now, if RS wants to argue the toss then I'll be glad to see where I'm wrong
here. ie. that Telstra never throttled DSL1 from 8 mbit/sec down to a max of
1.5mbit/sec.
Further, the standard for ADSL1 varies, but the minimum unthrottled upload speed
is around 1 mbit.
ADSL ANSI T1.413-1998 Issue 2 ADSL 8 Mbit/s 1.0 Mbit/s 1998
ITU G.992.1 ADSL (G.DMT) 12 Mbit/s 1.3 Mbit/s
ITU G.992.1 Annex A ADSL over POTS 12 Mbit/s 1.3 Mbit/s
ITU G.992.1 Annex B ADSL over ISDN 12 Mbit/s 1.8 Mbit/s 2005
ITU G.992.2 ADSL Lite (G.Lite) 1.5 Mbit/s 0.5 Mbit/s
(Source: Wikipedia)
But Telstra sees fit to limit this to a max of around 0.256 Mbit/s for 1.5 Mbit
services and 0.384 Mbit/s for the 8 meg service..
There are technical reasons for limiting the upload speeds, mainly cross talk
issues but this is usually for speeds max'ing out at 1.3Mbit, depending on the
service/standard.
Telstra, however, takes it a lot further. And for what reasons I know not why.
Perhaps RS may know, but I doubt it.
annily
> In another thread which has since been purged from my newsreader's message base
> Rod Speed claimed that I was lying when I said that Telstra used to limit its
> DSL1 speeds.
>
> Below is an article from the SMH which would seem to support what I was saying.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/wireless--broadband/telstra-turns-on-high-speed-network/2008/02/06/1202233888690.html
>
> RS (now there's an appropriate set of initials for this guy) said that it was up
> to me to do the proving.
>
> While I argue that I don't have to do squat, I found this article while looking
> for something else, so I thought that I'd post it up.
>
> Now, if RS wants to argue the toss then I'll be glad to see where I'm wrong
> here. ie. that Telstra never throttled DSL1 from 8 mbit/sec down to a max of
> 1.5mbit/sec.
>
How does the article support that Telstra throttled DSL1? In fact it says:
"In exchanges where no other competitors had installed equipment,
Telstra throttled the speeds to ADSL1 - with maximum connection speeds
of 8 megabits per second."
So in effect, they throttled what should have been ADSL2+ speeds to
ADSL1 8000 kbps.
That seems to me to be quite different from your assertion.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Rod Speed
> In another thread which has since been purged from my newsreader's message base
How convenient. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to use groups.google to find it.
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
> Rod Speed claimed that I was lying when I
> said that Telstra used to limit its DSL1 speeds.
I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
I JUST said that you were lying when you claimed that the
PRICE they were charging for DSL1 when it was still limited
speed wise was nothing like 'charged an absolute fortune for it'
$30 per month is nothing even remotely resembling an absolute fortune.
> Below is an article from the SMH which would seem to support what I was saying.
I never ever said that it wasnt initially capped speed wise.
> RS (now there's an appropriate set of initials for this guy)
> said that it was up to me to do the proving.
On the PRICE, you silly little pathological liar.
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
> While I argue that I don't have to do squat, I found this article
> while looking for something else, so I thought that I'd post it up.
> Now, if RS wants to argue the toss then I'll be glad to see where I'm
> wrong here. ie. that Telstra never throttled DSL1 from 8 mbit/sec
> down to a max of 1.5mbit/sec.
That clearly wasnt even being discussed, you silly little pathological liar.
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
> Further, the standard for ADSL1 varies, but the
> minimum unthrottled upload speed is around 1 mbit.
> ADSL ANSI T1.413-1998 Issue 2 ADSL 8 Mbit/s 1.0 Mbit/s 1998
> ITU G.992.1 ADSL (G.DMT) 12 Mbit/s 1.3
> Mbit/s
> ITU G.992.1 Annex A ADSL over POTS 12 Mbit/s 1.3 Mbit/s
> ITU G.992.1 Annex B ADSL over ISDN 12 Mbit/s 1.8 Mbit/s
> 2005
> ITU G.992.2 ADSL Lite (G.Lite) 1.5 Mbit/s
> 0.5 Mbit/s
> (Source: Wikipedia)
> But Telstra sees fit to limit this to a max of around 0.256 Mbit/s
> for 1.5 Mbit services and 0.384 Mbit/s for the 8 meg service..
> There are technical reasons for limiting the upload speeds, mainly cross talk issues
Have fun explaining how come some offered 512/512 etc.
> but this is usually for speeds max'ing out at 1.3Mbit, depending on the service/standard.
> Telstra, however, takes it a lot further. And for what reasons I know not why.
They did it so everyone they decided could have DSL
would be able to get the maximum speed Telstra offered.
They did later offer DSL to some while not even offering
1500, due to technical limitations with those services.
> Perhaps RS may know, but I doubt it.
Wota terminal fuckwit.
anm
> Marts wrote:
>> In another thread which has since been purged from my newsreader's
>> message base
>
> How convenient. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to use
> groups.google to find it.
> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
>
>> Rod Speed claimed that I was lying when I said that Telstra used to
>> limit its DSL1 speeds.
>
> I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
>
> I JUST said that you were lying when you claimed that the PRICE they
> were charging for DSL1 when it was still limited speed wise was nothing
> like 'charged an absolute fortune for it'
>
> $30 per month is nothing even remotely resembling an absolute fortune.
errr
sorry Rod
To some people, particularly retirees, $30 IS a lot!!
SG1
"Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THIS..@ozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:7prggp...@mid.individual.net...
>
> I'm a retiree. I agree, $30 is a lot, but it isn't an "absolute fortune"
> in the context used here.
What did Helstra charge when they did the throttle? That is relevant to the
arguement not what they charge now.
>
> --
> Dyna
>
> All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.
>
Acacia
IMHO it's not about the price but the value. For value you have to compare
plans and features, like shaping or excess charges, up and down speeds, how
the data allowance is allocated and etc.
http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/media/announcements_article.cfm?ObjectID=38597
10th November 2006
Telstra today delivered another important instalment in its "Plan for
Australia" as BigPond unveiled its upgraded national high-speed broadband
network, offering fixed-line ADSL speeds amongst the fastest in the world.
The unveiling also marked the 10th anniversary of the launch of BigPond in
November 1996.
BigPond's Group Managing Director, Mr Justin Milne, said BigPond High Speed
Broadband would deliver network speeds of either up to eight megabits per
second (Mbps) or up to 20Mbps from exchanges offering ADSL2+ services.
Because of regulatory constraints, the up to 20Mbps service would be limited
to exchanges where competitors are also offering those higher speeds.
"Telstra's commitment to delivering national high-speed broadband services
is demonstrated by how we are investing our money. Because we've invested
shareholder funds heavily in building out our high-speed network, we are now
able to offer BigPond customers, across Australia, higher speed ADSL
broadband services" Mr Milne said.
"Additionally, we have introduced new 1.5Mbps BigPond plans, which are up to
$30 per month cheaper. A customer on a 512kbps BigPond plan can elect to
switch to an equivalent 1.5Mbps BigPond plan at no extra charge and benefit
from a speed increase of around 300 per cent.
BigPond ADSL Pricing effective 10 November 2006
Access speed / MB Allowance: Preselect Price
256kbps/200MB: $29.95
256pbps / BigPond Liberty1: $59.95
1500 kbps / 400MB: $39.95
1500 kbps / BigPond Liberty1: $69.95
1500 kbps / 25GB: $99.95
High speed2 / 600MB: $59.95
High speed2 / BigPond Liberty1: $89.95
High speed2 / 25GB: $119.95
High speed2 / 60GB : $149.95
1. Shaped download limit of 12GB
2. Up to 8Mbps for ADSL1 and up to 20Mbps for ADSL2+
Marts
> How does the article support that Telstra throttled DSL1? In fact it says:
>
> "In exchanges where no other competitors had installed equipment,
> Telstra throttled the speeds to ADSL1 - with maximum connection speeds
> of 8 megabits per second."
>
> So in effect, they throttled what should have been ADSL2+ speeds to
> ADSL1 8000 kbps.
> That seems to me to be quite different from your assertion.
I read it differently. I also assumed that the reporter mangled it a bit, given
that I've not heard of any DSL2+ DSLAM being throttled that way.
Naturally that doesn't mean that Telstra hasn't done that. If it has, it still
supports what I'm saying in that Telstra chooses to limit its services for no
other reason than it can.
Marts
> Marts wrote:
> > In another thread which has since been purged from my newsreader's message base
>
> How convenient. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to use groups.google to find it.
> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
In that message I said this:
>>>>> But then Australians should expect to be treated like this.
>>>>> For years we suffered Telstra's tyranny as it not only
>>>>> restricted ADSL1, it charged an absolute fortune for it.
And you responded thus:
>>>> That is a bare faced lie.
So, what's a bare faced lie - that Telstra restricted DSL1 speeds from 8 megs to
a max of 1.5 megs or that it charged an absolute fortune for it?
And please note that I was talking in the past tense. If you're not sure what
that means, see if you can source an English Expression text book from the local
library - that is, if anyone in that shithole where you live can read, and
hence, have a need of a library.
> > Rod Speed claimed that I was lying when I
> > said that Telstra used to limit its DSL1 speeds.
> I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
Well, in the quoted text reproduced above which you took great delight in
finding for me, you did.
> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
>
> I JUST said that you were lying when you claimed that the
> PRICE they were charging for DSL1 when it was still limited
> speed wise was nothing like 'charged an absolute fortune for it'
Well, perhaps, if you can still hack it, go to night school, say, at your local
TAFE, and learn how to write clearly.
Or learn how to quote properly.
> $30 per month is nothing even remotely resembling an absolute fortune.
No. It's a more reasonable price, and it's starting to approach what other ISPs
charge.
But before then, and what I was talking about in the original post, Telstra
charged significantly more than its resellers such as Netspace, Internode and so
on did.
Even today its higher end plans are still significantly more than what other
ISPs have to offer, particularly the ADSL2+ plans.
> > There are technical reasons for limiting the upload speeds, mainly cross talk issues
>
> Have fun explaining how come some offered 512/512 etc.
That's symmetical DSL, which is usually only offered to businesses. Still only
half of what DSL1 can do upload-wise.
And it wasn't what I was talking about, anyway.
Now, FOAD, twat.
--
There are three signs of old age. The first is your loss of memory; the other two I forget.
Rod Speed
>> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
Pigs arse it is, the phone service costs that.
And every retiree I know with the exception of just
one chooses to spend more than that on their DSL.
And the one that doesnt has TWO fucking great 'mobile homes' and a normal house as well.
Rod Speed
> "Dyna Soar" <dynasoar..REMOVE..THIS..@ozdebate.com> wrote in message
> news:7prggp...@mid.individual.net...
>> anm wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:56:25 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
>>
>>>> I JUST said that you were lying when you claimed that the PRICE
>>>> they were charging for DSL1 when it was still limited speed wise
>>>> was nothing like 'charged an absolute fortune for it'
>>
>>>> $30 per month is nothing even remotely resembling an absolute
>>>> fortune.
>>
>>> errr
>>> sorry Rod
>>> To some people, particularly retirees, $30 IS a lot!!
>>
>> Talk about twisting what is said!
>>
>> I'm a retiree. I agree, $30 is a lot, but it isn't an "absolute
>> fortune" in the context used here.
>
> What did Helstra charge when they did the throttle?
$30 per month, for a while only $15 per month with the half price first year etc.
> That is relevant to the arguement not what they charge now.
The minimum charge hasnt changed significantly in years now.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Marts wrote:
>>> In another thread which has since been purged from my newsreader's message base
>> How convenient. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to use groups.google to find it.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
> In that message I said this:
>>>>>> But then Australians should expect to be treated like this.
>>>>>> For years we suffered Telstra's tyranny as it not only
>>>>>> restricted ADSL1, it charged an absolute fortune for it.
> And you responded thus:
>>>>> That is a bare faced lie.
> So, what's a bare faced lie
That last bit, 'it charged an absolute fortune for it'.
That should have been clear to even someone as stupid as you from
my next bit which JUST commented on that charge lie of yours.
> - that Telstra restricted DSL1 speeds from 8 megs to a max
> of 1.5 megs or that it charged an absolute fortune for it?
That last bit, 'it charged an absolute fortune for it'.
That should have been clear to even someone as stupid as you from
my next bit which JUST commented on that charge lie of yours.
> And please note that I was talking in the past tense.
They never ever did 'charge an absolute fortune'
for the lowest speed DSL1 they ever offered.
<reams of your puerile silly shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> Rod Speed claimed that I was lying when I
>>> said that Telstra used to limit its DSL1 speeds.
>> I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
> Well, in the quoted text reproduced above which you took great delight in finding for me, you did.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.computers/msg/8a4c59939f38950e?hl=en
>> I JUST said that you were lying when you claimed that the
>> PRICE they were charging for DSL1 when it was still limited
>> speed wise was nothing like 'charged an absolute fortune for it'
> Well, perhaps, if you can still hack it, go to night school,
> say, at your local TAFE, and learn how to write clearly.
Cant get any clear than that you silly little pathological liar.
> Or learn how to quote properly.
That quote is entirely proper, you silly little pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>> $30 per month is nothing even remotely resembling an absolute fortune.
> No. It's a more reasonable price, and it's starting to approach what other ISPs charge.
In fact with the cost of the lowest priced DSL1, it was in fact LOWER than the
other ISPs charged and they had to match that LOWER price that Telstra charged.
> But before then, and what I was talking about in the
> original post, Telstra charged significantly more than
> its resellers such as Netspace, Internode and so on did.
The price they charged for the lowest cost DSL1 was never
ever anything even remotely resembling anything like 'an absolute
fortune', you silly little pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
> Even today its higher end plans are still significantly more than
> what other ISPs have to offer, particularly the ADSL2+ plans.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to your stupid claim that the lowest
cost DSL1 was ever anything even remotely resembling anything like 'an
absolute fortune', you silly little pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>>> There are technical reasons for limiting the upload speeds, mainly cross talk issues
>> Have fun explaining how come some offered 512/512 etc.
> That's symmetical DSL, which is usually only offered to businesses.
Wrong, as always on that last.
> Still only half of what DSL1 can do upload-wise.
Wrong, as always.
> And it wasn't what I was talking about, anyway.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
> Now, FOAD, twat.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
Marts
> Talk about twisting what is said!
>
> I'm a retiree. I agree, $30 is a lot, but it isn't an "absolute fortune" in
> the context used here.
The context was Telstra's overall pricing plans which were, and still are,
expensive.
Perhaps "fortune" is hyperbole, but it's an expressive term to describe how
expensive Bigpond and Telstra services in general are, particularly compared to
the likes of Internode, Optus and so on.
Marts
> BigPond ADSL Pricing effective 10 November 2006
Are these prices still current? I just tried to get onto the BP website but I
keep getting errors.
> High speed2 / 25GB: $119.95
I am on an ADSL2+ 20/20 gig plan. Uploads not counted. It costs me $69.95/mth.
Marts
> To some people, particularly retirees, $30 IS a lot!!
While the actual amount, whether it be $40 or $30 isn't a lot of dough, what you
get for that amount of money is very little, hence my views about poor value for
money and hence the high price of getting next to nothing.
Then not to mention the cost of excess data that these plans attracted. While 30
or 40 bux may not sound like much, when you have a pair of brats who go apeshit
and download everything in sight and then their father is presented with a $500
bill that month for excess data charges, then yes, it does cost a fortune. [1]
Or well, did.
It isn't as bad these days, but it isn't a patch on what is available out there.
[1] when this happened, the mate swapped to a 1 gig plan for $70/mth with no
excess charges. This frustrated the crap out of his brats who quickly hit the
limit, then ran on dialup speeds for the next 20 odd days...
Rod Speed
> Dyna Soar wrote
>> Talk about twisting what is said!
>> I'm a retiree. I agree, $30 is a lot, but it isn't an "absolute fortune" in the context used here.
> The context was Telstra's overall pricing plans which were, and still are, expensive.
In fact Telstra drove down the lowest priced DSL to levels below
what their competitors were charging and they had to match those.
> Perhaps "fortune" is hyperbole,
No perhaps about it, $30/month is nothing even remotely resembling anything
like an absolute fortune. It is in fact what a basic phone service costs.
> but it's an expressive term to describe how expensive
> Bigpond and Telstra services in general are,
It is in fact a bare faced lie when its what a basic phone service costs.
> particularly compared to the likes of Internode, Optus and so on.
Another lie with the lowest cost DSL services.
Lu R
"Acacia" <g...@geemall.com> wrote in message
news:zO1_m.491518$ua.3...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
We're ALL getting throttled in comparison to the USA. NO caps on downloads
there. None of this BS we have to put up with. The price we pay for living
in God's country?
Frank Slootweg
[...]
> We're ALL getting throttled in comparison to the USA. NO caps on downloads
> there. None of this BS we have to put up with.
Neither here in Europe. The only caps which still exist, are on some
*mobile* (i.e. HSDPA/UMTS) broadband plans.
FWIW, I have to *downgrade* my broadband plan all the time, because
they make it faster for the same price, so I'm wasting money on a too
high plan. :-)
> The price we pay for living
> in God's country?
I would *gladly* swap with you! :-)
Rod Speed
Nope, there are still some unthrottled downloads here.
> NO caps on downloads there.
Still some with none here too.
> None of this BS we have to put up with.
Thats wrong too, some of their's are capped too.
> The price we pay for living in God's country?
Nope.
@com
Even an old prick like roddles could?!
Pump up the old bag..perhaps :)
Marts
> It is in fact a bare faced lie when its what a basic phone service costs.
Quit trying to twist things. I'm talking about Telstra's overall charges for its
products, whether it be internet, phone or mobile phone services.
annily
>
> We're ALL getting throttled in comparison to the USA. NO caps on downloads
> there.
To state what should be obvious, caps on downloads are not the same as
speed limiting (or "throttling"). The former works on a long-term basis
(usually a month), the latter on a much shorter term.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Dyna Soar wrote
>>>> Talk about twisting what is said!
>>>> I'm a retiree. I agree, $30 is a lot, but it isn't an "absolute fortune" in the context used here.
>>> The context was Telstra's overall pricing plans which were, and still are, expensive.
>> In fact Telstra drove down the lowest priced DSL to levels below
>> what their competitors were charging and they had to match those.
>>> Perhaps "fortune" is hyperbole,
>> No perhaps about it, $30/month is nothing even remotely resembling anything
>> like an absolute fortune. It is in fact what a basic phone service costs.
>>> but it's an expressive term to describe how expensive
>>> Bigpond and Telstra services in general are,
>> It is in fact a bare faced lie when its what a basic phone service costs.
> Quit trying to twist things.
I'm succeeding in rubbing your nose in your bare faced lies, actually.
> I'm talking about Telstra's overall charges for its products,
> whether it be internet, phone or mobile phone services.
That is another bare faced lie. Your original was clearly JUST about DSL1, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit
artist.