Complaining that you’re not getting the speed you’re paying for is like complaining that Honda ripped you off when they sold you a car that can do 150, but the traffic on the highway is slowing you down to 80.
If the traffic is slowing you down, not much that can be done about it. If it’s Citywest limiting the number of cars allowed on the road, then there is something to complain about.
I don’t know about twice as fast, but when I’m in the Lower Mainland, and on the road in places serviced by Telus/Shaw, the connections seem faster. It may be, though, that they are just more consistent. To use the driving analogy, the Rupert internet highway seems crowded and slow at times, compared to elsewhere, especially in the evenings.
But if Honda advertised that on “Honda Roads” Honda guarantees that you would get at least 125 kph and you only get a maximum of 80 kph but you have payed for 200 kph when you bought the car.
I find it very argumentative given CityWest’s history to argue about the “theoretical” limits and situations where one person may be getting the bandwidth they should. Of course the bandwidth is limited by line noise, attenuation and protocol overhead but to imply that the a/dsl in Rupert cannot, at it’s best of times transfer faster than 500 Kbps is not true. In 2005, with a subscription to FilePlanet I would consistently download at 1.4 to 1.7 Mbps with the worst speed rounding out at 900Kbps. A logical assumption is that as time passes any upgrades put in place should provide the same or better service. My perspective is that as time passes CityWest lowers and lowers the bandwidth Joe Schmoe can get so they can get another a/dsl subscriber paying another bill - a bit inflammatory I will admit, but it is based on outsider assumptions from long-time experience.
As for the speedtest, I have my own biased thoughts on it. They can throttle ports and my paranoia says they have no throttles on speedtest sites…but that is a completely unfounded assumption. I do know, I never see real speed anymore.
MeepMeep, what type of connection do you have, and what kind of speed do you get?
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627643019.png
… all I know is that I tried to patch Aion last night, and was getting a whopping 7kb/s… thats a new low… actually I think that’s on par with my speeds back in '99…
Home and work I’ve always had full a/dsl. But I’ve used, maintained and worked at length with the entire range of lite/mid/full a/dsl service drops in Rupert. Don’t even get me started on the lite service gah. :-D
Using Speedtest.net I get what everyone else does, 1.71Mb/s Down 256Kbps up (should be closer to 512Kbps). Real-world application of the throughput on these lines is closer 300Kbps Down and 50Kbps Up. Far from what we pay for. I don’t care too much about ping response times, I’ve made due for years with 130+ ms ping, as long as I get throughput I am happy but, as you can tell, that isn’t there either. 
Speedtest to Citywest’s own server
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627656954.png
Speedtest to Vancouver
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627657845.png
Shouldn’t it be the opposite? How is traffic slower to Prince Rupert than to Vancouver?
More info, from the beta pingtest.net
http://www.pingtest.net/result/3860753.png
I think some of this could just be attributed to normal internet congestion. Citywest can really only dictate what happens as far as Terrace. Everything else depends on the series of tubes (it’s not a truck). In this last case it’s a series of tubes to Washington state.
Something is very wrong… something is amiss…
Bah!
I want my fast speeds back… or at least fast enough that I can do something.
Just now:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627736681.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627739745.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627740571.png
Almost the same, no matter what server I picked. When I do a test during peak times at night… I do not get those numbers.
In-Town CityWest SpeedTest
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627762259.png
Business Line - Mid-Range A/DSL
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627764445.png
Home Line - Full A/DSL
Vancouver Speedtest
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627766369.png
Business Line - Mid-Range A/DSL
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627767323.png
Home Line - Full A/DSL
Mine,
Crazy!
One of the options in the poll does not allow for litigation. If I sign up for a service, and that service is not up to the contract made between the two parties, it would appear that a litigious fight would be a venue to entertain and an order sought for restitution for LOSS OF SERVICE would be the way to go. If anything, Citywest’s legal bill would rise and you would be stuck with the same slow service until such time as competition comes to town.
First off let’s look at City West from this view.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627614964.png
No problems here with bandwidth.
I believe there are three different users that they are concerned about.
7:00AM – 5:00PM for type 1 Business
5:00PM – 12:00AM for type 2 Evening user
12:00AM- 7:00AM for type 3 Mega Down loader
Just my opinion is the way they can keep the pipe moving for all just at the critical times we need each application.
So if you paid for 2Mb service or 15Mb service it should work when your application needs it the most and by shaping this traffic by throttling applications during different times can help everyone. Unless of course your time schedule is different. 
Oooh I want that kind of Internet!
With no cap.
And a free Dell computer.
And no contract.
And I’d even pay $12, $15 a month.
I’m the customer and I’m always right SO GIVE IT TO ME.
Or I’ll SUE. I do get a free lawyer too, right?
[quote=“katray”]
First off let’s look at City West from this view.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/627614964.png
No problems here with bandwidth.
I believe there are three different users that they are concerned about.[/quote]
-I agree.
Exactly. And you’ve just illustrated the problem. Quite well I might add.
Explanation: If Citywest has not grossly oversold its bandwidth and, syncing the A/DSL modem with the DS3 card at prescribed rates is accurate and, users are not allowed to consume higher than prescribed throughput rates due to service constraints, correct me if I am wrong but: there shouldn’t be a problem with bandwidth.
So, in my opinion, either:
Keeping the pipe open so that application traffic can flow is one thing but further degrading service quality under false guises and disinformation (just an assumption) should really set off some flags for those persons paying through the nose to maintain a mid-to-low range A/DSL connection (in comparison to large companies down south).
Rumour has it there is a petition to sign at Naomi’s Deli (across from the Source) in the Rupert Square Mall against the throttling for all those who would like to sign it.
[quote=“MeepMeepZoom”]4. Folks like katray have been alotted much more bandwidth than is rightfully due (employee perks) and the public is losing bandwidth.
[/quote]
No perks this is what is required for our business and we pay for it.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/628125985.png
This is what is required for my home and I pay for it and have been for the past 10 years. Yes it should be some what better and it was 10 years ago. I just feel that the applications that at the time this speed test was taken is due to the #3 heavy downloaders that could be doing there down loading at night. Maybe I am wrong just my thoughts.
[quote=“katray”]
They I believe want to shape this traffic so these 3 types of users don’t get in each other’s face.[/quote]
I have to respectfully disagree. If they were shaping based on application (port, packet type, etc) in the past, they don’t do it today.
The announcement, FAQ, and the information quoted in the Daily News all clearly state that they will be making throttling decisions based on the amount of bandwidth used, not the type of bandwidth used.
"Where some carriers are focusing on applications and limiting peer to peer traffic for instance, CityWest will not be managing by application, but rather by the user. We feel that our user-approach is completely non-discriminatory in nature and ensures fair and equal access for all customers regardless of the applications they run. "
and
“In the past we have used traffic management on the network but that equipment is no longer in use.”
and
"During periods of congestion the heaviest users of bandwidth at that point in time will be affected. Network management will limit the bandwidth allocated to those users until the congestion period has ended. "
How about putting online?
Hey Katray, how much does the 15megabit cost per month?
iPhone tethered:
Wow. The Navigata pipe? Government Court House T1? If not, that’s quasi-proven double-standard #1.
I was informed multiple times businesses cannot pay for more bandwidth, no matter the business need nor payment to Citywest. Obviously, service contracts for large dollar amounts are viable, so they exist. But really, I am not interested in how much you pay for your 15Mbit, I pay for my 2Mbit, and don’t get it. Neither of us should be throttled for each other’s bandwidth usages in a sound data transmission strategy.
A simple price reduction and admittance to purposefully throttling bandwidth due to their own lack of purchasing power with Telus would suffice to make an ugly issue like this, a little easier to digest for Rupertites, I think.
[quote]Quote from: MeepMeepZoom on Today at 10:29:17 pm
Rumour has it there is a petition to sign at Naomi’s Deli (across from the Source) in the Rupert Square Mall against the throttling for all those who would like to sign it.
How about putting online? [/quote]
A good idea, but I was under the impression internet petitions weren’t creditable? 
I might be wrong about that.