Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Big three *Australian* ISPs say peer-to-peer OK

Reply
Thread Tools

Big three *Australian* ISPs say peer-to-peer OK

 
 
A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:59:10 +1300, The Other Guy wrote:

>>> It ****es me off that I can't get Internet access that isn't rate
>>> limited without paying for dedicated bandwidth, especially when you
>>> consider that I am a fairly low-volume customer (around 5GB per month).

>>
>> Is dedicated bandwidth expensive to get?
>>
>> Or is it just that it would be total overkill for what you'd use?

>
> Dedicated bandwidth is both expensive, and overkill for what I'd use.
> From what I've read, Telecom provides only 24Kbs^-1 per user on their
> UBS plans. My current plan offers a maximum of 256kbs^-1, which means I
> can only get the maximum speed when there is excess capacity. Fair enough.
> BUT, the catch is, if I attempt to use my bandwidth for P2P or other
> non-standard protocols, other users will be given more bandwidth than I
> will be.
>
> All I am asking for is fairness, and INTERNET access, not some
> watered-down HTTP/E-mail solution.


I agree with you.

I would say that everything less than full-speed, uncapped, flat-rate,
affordable DSL should not be considered to be a good quality broadband
service.


A Nice Cup of Tea

--
A: because it messes up threading
Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:30:56 +1300, Tony wrote:
>
>>> So - why has it been so necessary to shape P2P traffic in NZ?

>> Beacuse ISP's in NZ can barely survive as it is ....

>
> Rubbish!
>
> Somebody, somewhere within NZ is absolutely creaming themselves over all
> the profits they're making.
>


Righto, seeing as you think you can comment, go ask the Southern Cross
people how much a "protected" (redundant loop) stm1 (155Mb/s) link to LA
will cost. When you have that information, get out your calculator and
get back to us. Don't forget to add plenty of capex and maintenance into
your budget. PS, yes I know the answers but seeing as you think you can
comment you go check it out !



> The Southern Cross Cable has already been completely paid for, hasn't it?
>
> Data in the USA is very cheap. There is no good reason why a similar
> environment cannot exist here now that the SCC is in the black.
>
>
> A Nice Cup of Tea
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
> The Southern Cross Cable has already been completely paid for, hasn't it?
>
> Data in the USA is very cheap. There is no good reason why a similar
> environment cannot exist here now that the SCC is in the black.


I don't recall reading that the Southern cross network project was a
non-profit or charitable undertaking ? And I don't recall any government
money going into the hundreds of millions of dollars that it cost to put
the network in. Why should a commercial operation have to stop making a
profit just because ONE (the fiber, the equipment that connects to it
needs to be constantly updated) of it's assets may be now "sunk cost" ?
To be nice to you so you can download unrestricted illegal movies and porn ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
Tony wrote:
>> The Southern Cross Cable has already been completely paid for,
>> hasn't it? Data in the USA is very cheap. There is no good reason why a
>> similar
>> environment cannot exist here now that the SCC is in the black.

>
> I don't recall reading that the Southern cross network project was a
> non-profit or charitable undertaking ? And I don't recall any
> government money going into the hundreds of millions of dollars that
> it cost to put the network in. Why should a commercial operation have
> to stop making a profit just because ONE (the fiber, the equipment
> that connects to it needs to be constantly updated) of it's assets may be
> now "sunk cost"
> ? To be nice to you so you can download unrestricted illegal movies and
> porn ?


Right up until that last line you had a (seemingly) very valid post. Shame
you felt compelled to make a personal attack to finish, it sorta detracts
from the "facts". If you have your facts right there's no need for
nastiness, let the figures do the talking.
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:38:56 +1300, Tony wrote:

> Righto, seeing as you think you can comment, go ask the Southern Cross
> people how much a "protected" (redundant loop) stm1 (155Mb/s) link to LA
> will cost.


Who owns the Southern Cross cable? Telecom??


A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Free software on every PC on every desk.

 
Reply With Quote
 
A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:44:49 +1300, Tony wrote:

>> The Southern Cross Cable has already been completely paid for, hasn't
>> it?
>>
>> Data in the USA is very cheap. There is no good reason why a similar
>> environment cannot exist here now that the SCC is in the black.

>
> I don't recall reading that the Southern cross network project was a
> non-profit or charitable undertaking ? And I don't recall any government
> money going into the hundreds of millions of dollars that it cost to put
> the network in. Why should a commercial operation have to stop making a
> profit just because ONE (the fiber, the equipment that connects to it
> needs to be constantly updated) of it's assets may be now "sunk cost" ? To
> be nice to you so you can download unrestricted illegal movies and porn ?


Why are you implying that I am wanting to "download unrestricted illegal
movies and porn"? I never said that.

Why are you making it personal? Can't you address the subject rather than
attacking somebody?

I was commenting on the unreasonably high and expensive data costs that
end users have to pay here in NZ, and then pointing out that somebody
somewhere in the data-transmission infrastructure is positively raking in
the cash.

Classic example, IMHO, of no reason for them to provide a service at a
reasonable price, and so they extort what they like.

Why else would a genuine full-speed uncapped, unrestructed, DSL link
continue to be hideously expensive?


A Nice Cup of Tea

--
"I like the boys who do. I respect the boys who don't. I hate the boys who
say they do but then say they don't. But most of all, and I think this
is right, I like those who say they don't, but look like they really might."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
>
> Right up until that last line you had a (seemingly) very valid post. Shame
> you felt compelled to make a personal attack to finish, it sorta detracts
> from the "facts". If you have your facts right there's no need for
> nastiness, let the figures do the talking.


I apologise, that comment was uncalled for.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006

>
> Who owns the Southern Cross cable? Telecom??
>
>

They own 50%, There actually is almost reasonable competition in
International bandwidth now. The problem is there is not reasionable
competition in the local loop. If you don't rate limit the people who
use peer to peer then they will use MOST of the bandwidth available.
This means that everyone else get's even less of the 24kb/s (maximum)
that Telecom allocates on it's ATM backbone and other services such as
http/SMTP can become unusable.

The issue is NOT Southern Cross, it is Telecom's overloaded last decade
ATM backbone within this country.
 
Reply With Quote
 
shannon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
Tony wrote:
>
>>
>> Who owns the Southern Cross cable? Telecom??
>>
>>

> They own 50%, There actually is almost reasonable competition in
> International bandwidth now. The problem is there is not reasionable
> competition in the local loop. If you don't rate limit the people who
> use peer to peer then they will use MOST of the bandwidth available.
> This means that everyone else get's even less of the 24kb/s (maximum)
> that Telecom allocates on it's ATM backbone and other services such as
> http/SMTP can become unusable.
>
> The issue is NOT Southern Cross, it is Telecom's overloaded last decade
> ATM backbone within this country.


So what is the current best solution to that ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
>> The issue is NOT Southern Cross, it is Telecom's overloaded last
>> decade ATM backbone within this country.

>
> So what is the current best solution to that ?


Telecom needs to get moving and migrate the DSL network to their new IP
backbone, or at least change their profit expectations for the ATM network.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Three Mobile --> Skype on three (Non-three [Symbian - Nokia] handsets) Harry Stottle UK VOIP 0 01-05-2010 08:59 AM
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net 0 12-26-2008 09:29 AM
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net Web Controls 0 12-26-2008 06:11 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Python 0 12-24-2008 07:35 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Ruby 0 12-24-2008 05:07 AM



Advertisments