dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1576
share rss forum feed

mikewr

join:2010-01-24
Aumsville, OR

Slow service in Oregon for the last week (17Oct2010)

Once again, speed is slow to unusable in the Aumsville, Oregon area. This time it is affecting the picture on our cable also. Picture pixilates and the audio drops out for several seconds (2 to 5 sec.). We have has service for nearly a year and only after they switched their peering from a 76.14 to a 204.195 did I see any improvement. Now things are slow again. I don't download major volumes so I am not caught up on the 3Gig cap issue. We have the 18Meg package with TV and I DO get good speed, but only in the late morning hours, 4am to noon.
Any thoughts?


NoBS6

join:2004-01-05
Stayton, OR

Just wondering if your speed has improved. Heard they upgraded the equipment in Aumsville. Stayton is on the books, but no word yet...


mikewr

join:2010-01-24
Aumsville, OR

Yes, somewhat. I reduced our package to 6 meg, because we rarely saw the 18 except in the early morning hours so that saved quite a bit. The wife has said the audio drop out on the cable TV has improved too. I am logging service and will continue to monitor the situation. Thanks for asking...


NoBS6

join:2004-01-05
Stayton, OR

One of the service techs mentioned Aumsville got updated, guess I could have miss heard...

CS called me back about my satisfaction of the service call last week, poor guy got an ear full, feel bad for him.

You know it's bad when ad free tech sites load slooow.
Please post your speeds from peak hours if you get a chance.


mikewr

join:2010-01-24
Aumsville, OR

NoBS,
I started keeping a log some time back, unfortunately I have been lackadaisical in my approach since mid December. However prior to that I saw severe slow downs near 8 in the evening, not the only time mind you, just peak periods of low bandwidth. I have it in an excel spreadsheet and started to graph it but have not done that yet. I see burst speeds in excess of 20 megs during low usage and lows of under one meg during periods of high usage. This is a text book demonstration of overselling bandwidth. My background is in IT and hold a degree in it, also a BS-OM in Operations, so I am somewhat familiar with the "business".
In my experience Wave's front line employees are great to work with, and uniquely some have gave me access to usage charts of the physical plant. My conclusions, after additional research, appear to be right, they have oversold what bandwidth they have available. This is not necessarily an evil thing and certainly not unusual in this business. Some years back an unnamed ISP in Salem Oregon sold 2500 users access to only 100 dialup lines. [In the interesting facts department, years ago a national company called Netcom.com guaranteed users no busy signals. They simply booted the oldest login making room for the next dial up user. Pretty cheesy but that way they could advertise a guarantee of no busy signals.] This of course was years ago and today's broadband operates quite differently. Now days one big hurdle is pipe, or the size of the connection the provider has to the internet. Local infrastructure is important also and I would not rule out bandwidth issues in this area also. Wave's costs of doing business include local maintenance and "Their" bandwidth fee structure, which is or at least used to be based on user base size. For example if two ISP's have equal user base, this is somewhat simplified but I'll use Sprint and Level 3 in this example. If they are equal in size their "public peering" (or whatever they call it today) arrangement is free, in other words they don't charge each other to attach to the others network. Now in Wave's situation they are substantially smaller compared to the likes of UUNET (if their still around) for example so they must pay to play so to speak. It all boils down to math, Income - expense = profit. Charge the users more, reduce overhead costs, then pocket the money. Of course that is a naive view but the math is the same. They try to maximize income, while lowering costs, or charge us what the market will bear, then keep infrastructure investments to a minimum. Adding to this is a big problem, it is a time/usage function. During times of low demand there is a huge glut of bandwidth, and likewise during periods of peak demand bandwidth sucks, pardon my French. This is true Internet wide. I do believe Wave could do a lot regarding management functions, there seems to be a disconnect at times. Upper level management should take a more active role in what the frontline employees are doing and support their decisions. After all no one knows more about the business then the folks out yanking the wires.
Sheesh... I just realized I've written far more then I should have, and more then you asked for. I apologize for this. I will wrap this up with a fun graphic I found some time back. Here is a good look at the Internet: I really like the photo which visually shows the "backbone" of the internet. The first thing which is apparent is there really is NO central backbone.
Regards,
~Michael


NoBS6

join:2004-01-05
Stayton, OR

1 edit

Thanks for sharing your knowledge Michael.
I've only been with Willamette/Wave Broadband for 5 years, yet I know they spent a lot resources on new cable & fiber in our community. At least they are investing back into the infrastructure.

I even agree with the daily & monthly caps, but as I heard from the service tech, they have some old equipment that needs replacing.

Sad to say that it might be late this year before Fiber To The Home makes it out to my home. Always like the service from the local Phone Co Op.

Take care,
Robert