«

Topic says it all..

On 4/12/2011 8:31 p.m., EMB threw some characters down the intarwebs:
> On 4/12/2011 2:16 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
>> Topic says it all..
>
> And you're surprised enough to bother posting about this quite why? Lack
> of international bandwidth, especially on the part of Telstraclear isn't
> exactly a surprise!

I haven't really had a problem with them in that regard, I've leeched
Linux isos via torrents or direct downloads several times recently, and
every time I've had sustained line speed transfers.

In article <jbf7k2$33n$>, EMB <> wrote:

> On 4/12/2011 2:16 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
> > Topic says it all..
>
> And you're surprised enough to bother posting about this quite why?
> Lack of international bandwidth, especially on the part of Telstraclear
> isn't exactly a surprise!

The real problem is that TelstraClear doesn't have its own international
bandwidth ... it uses the same single cable connection to the outside
world as every other ISP in the country thanks to Telecom's current
on-going infrastructure monopoly, one that's only increasing thanks to
Government giving them the contract for much of the fibre roll-out as
well.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:20:47 +1300, (Your Name)
wrote:

>In article <jbf7k2$33n$>, EMB <> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2011 2:16 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
>> > Topic says it all..
>>
>> And you're surprised enough to bother posting about this quite why?
>> Lack of international bandwidth, especially on the part of Telstraclear
>> isn't exactly a surprise!
>
>The real problem is that TelstraClear doesn't have its own international
>bandwidth ... it uses the same single cable connection to the outside
>world as every other ISP in the country thanks to Telecom's current
>on-going infrastructure monopoly, one that's only increasing thanks to
>Government giving them the contract for much of the fibre roll-out as
>well.

My understanding is that the Southern Cross fibre is not at capacity.
ISPs buy fixed bandwidth on that cable, and Southern Cross only sell
fixed bandwidth. So there is no contention between the various ISPs.
So any slowdown on international bandwidth is the ISPs fault, not the
cable. The reason that ISPs do not buy enough bandwidth is the cost -
until there is a competitor cable (coming, according to news reports),
Southern Cross are charging much more than most international cables
do now, so ISPs buy as little bandwidth as they can get away with.

In article <>, Stephen
Worthington <_numbers> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:20:47 +1300, (Your Name)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <jbf7k2$33n$>, EMB <> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/12/2011 2:16 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
> >> > Topic says it all..
> >>
> >> And you're surprised enough to bother posting about this quite why?
> >> Lack of international bandwidth, especially on the part of Telstraclear
> >> isn't exactly a surprise!
> >
> >The real problem is that TelstraClear doesn't have its own international
> >bandwidth ... it uses the same single cable connection to the outside
> >world as every other ISP in the country thanks to Telecom's current
> >on-going infrastructure monopoly, one that's only increasing thanks to
> >Government giving them the contract for much of the fibre roll-out as
> >well.
>
> My understanding is that the Southern Cross fibre is not at capacity.
> ISPs buy fixed bandwidth on that cable, and Southern Cross only sell
> fixed bandwidth. So there is no contention between the various ISPs.
> So any slowdown on international bandwidth is the ISPs fault, not the
> cable.

True, but that data coming through the single cable than does also have to
travel through Telecom's local infrastructure, which simply can't cope
thanks to decades of greedy managers filling their own pockets instead of
spending money on keeping it upgraded.



> The reason that ISPs do not buy enough bandwidth is the cost -
> until there is a competitor cable (coming, according to news reports),
> Southern Cross are charging much more than most international cables
> do now, so ISPs buy as little bandwidth as they can get away with.

There is one competitor cable that has backers and as far as I understand
it that cable project is almost ready to start work.

There is also a second competitior's project, but I don't know how far
along that one is or if it is even still being planned.

As well as the monopolistic cost, there's the problem that having a single
cable being idiotic. If tha ONE cable has a problem, the entire country
has no Internet. It's the same as Auckland's electricity supply, which
despite two major problems over the last few years is apparently STILL
supplied by only one cable. It's also the same idiocy that has the plans
for a new Auckland Harbour bridge / tunnel that connects to the same
clogged, badly designed motorway either side of the existing bridge (and
the bridge itself is rarely causing the problem).

On 5/12/2011 1:38 p.m., Stephen Worthington wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:20:47 +1300, (Your Name)
> wrote:
>
>> In article<jbf7k2$33n$>, EMB<> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2011 2:16 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
>>>> Topic says it all..
>>>
>>> And you're surprised enough to bother posting about this quite why?
>>> Lack of international bandwidth, especially on the part of Telstraclear
>>> isn't exactly a surprise!
>>
>> The real problem is that TelstraClear doesn't have its own international
>> bandwidth ... it uses the same single cable connection to the outside
>> world as every other ISP in the country thanks to Telecom's current
>> on-going infrastructure monopoly, one that's only increasing thanks to
>> Government giving them the contract for much of the fibre roll-out as
>> well.
>
> My understanding is that the Southern Cross fibre is not at capacity.
> ISPs buy fixed bandwidth on that cable, and Southern Cross only sell
> fixed bandwidth. So there is no contention between the various ISPs.
> So any slowdown on international bandwidth is the ISPs fault, not the
> cable. The reason that ISPs do not buy enough bandwidth is the cost -
> until there is a competitor cable (coming, according to news reports),
> Southern Cross are charging much more than most international cables
> do now, so ISPs buy as little bandwidth as they can get away with.

TelstraClear buys its wholesale international connectivity from Verizon,
not Telecom.
I am skeptical of your claim that Southern Cross charges much more than
most international cables since it is in direct competition with them
over much of its route. I have heard ISP chaps say that Auckland
Wellington can cost more than Auckland LA.

On 5/12/2011 2:27 p.m., Your Name wrote:

>
> True, but that data coming through the single cable than does also have to
> travel through Telecom's local infrastructure, which simply can't cope
> thanks to decades of greedy managers filling their own pockets instead of
> spending money on keeping it upgraded.
>
>
>
>> The reason that ISPs do not buy enough bandwidth is the cost -
>> until there is a competitor cable (coming, according to news reports),
>> Southern Cross are charging much more than most international cables
>> do now, so ISPs buy as little bandwidth as they can get away with.
>
> There is one competitor cable that has backers and as far as I understand
> it that cable project is almost ready to start work.
>
> There is also a second competitior's project, but I don't know how far
> along that one is or if it is even still being planned.
>
> As well as the monopolistic cost, there's the problem that having a single
> cable being idiotic. If tha ONE cable has a problem, the entire country
> has no Internet.


Whatever utter garbage you want to delude yourself with. :-\

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:38:26 +1300, Stephen Worthington
<_numbers> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:20:47 +1300, (Your Name)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <jbf7k2$33n$>, EMB <> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2011 2:16 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
>>> > Topic says it all..
>>>
>>> And you're surprised enough to bother posting about this quite why?
>>> Lack of international bandwidth, especially on the part of Telstraclear
>>> isn't exactly a surprise!
>>
>>The real problem is that TelstraClear doesn't have its own international
>>bandwidth ... it uses the same single cable connection to the outside
>>world as every other ISP in the country thanks to Telecom's current
>>on-going infrastructure monopoly, one that's only increasing thanks to
>>Government giving them the contract for much of the fibre roll-out as
>>well.
>
>My understanding is that the Southern Cross fibre is not at capacity.
>ISPs buy fixed bandwidth on that cable, and Southern Cross only sell
>fixed bandwidth. So there is no contention between the various ISPs.
>So any slowdown on international bandwidth is the ISPs fault, not the
>cable. The reason that ISPs do not buy enough bandwidth is the cost -
>until there is a competitor cable (coming, according to news reports),
>Southern Cross are charging much more than most international cables
>do now, so ISPs buy as little bandwidth as they can get away with.



A OECD Internet Comps expert that was over here recently stated that the
so called Southern Cross cost were a total rip of and just a Big Con so
they can charge very high prices here..


I think he quoted a ISP's in France charging some $40 ? uncapped and 26
TV channels.

I think I have the MP3 sound track taken off Radio NZ..

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:27:05 +1300, (Your Name)
wrote:

>In article <>, Stephen
>Worthington <_numbers> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:20:47 +1300, (Your Name)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <jbf7k2$33n$>, EMB <> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 4/12/2011 2:16 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
>> >> > Topic says it all..
>> >>
>> >> And you're surprised enough to bother posting about this quite why?
>> >> Lack of international bandwidth, especially on the part of Telstraclear
>> >> isn't exactly a surprise!
>> >
>> >The real problem is that TelstraClear doesn't have its own international
>> >bandwidth ... it uses the same single cable connection to the outside
>> >world as every other ISP in the country thanks to Telecom's current
>> >on-going infrastructure monopoly, one that's only increasing thanks to
>> >Government giving them the contract for much of the fibre roll-out as
>> >well.
>>
>> My understanding is that the Southern Cross fibre is not at capacity.
>> ISPs buy fixed bandwidth on that cable, and Southern Cross only sell
>> fixed bandwidth. So there is no contention between the various ISPs.
>> So any slowdown on international bandwidth is the ISPs fault, not the
>> cable.
>
>True, but that data coming through the single cable than does also have to
>travel through Telecom's local infrastructure, which simply can't cope
>thanks to decades of greedy managers filling their own pockets instead of
>spending money on keeping it upgraded.
>
>
>
>> The reason that ISPs do not buy enough bandwidth is the cost -
>> until there is a competitor cable (coming, according to news reports),
>> Southern Cross are charging much more than most international cables
>> do now, so ISPs buy as little bandwidth as they can get away with.
>
>There is one competitor cable that has backers and as far as I understand
>it that cable project is almost ready to start work.
>
>There is also a second competitior's project, but I don't know how far
>along that one is or if it is even still being planned.
>
>As well as the monopolistic cost, there's the problem that having a single
>cable being idiotic. If tha ONE cable has a problem, the entire country
>has no Internet. It's the same as Auckland's electricity supply, which
>despite two major problems over the last few years is apparently STILL
>supplied by only one cable. It's also the same idiocy that has the plans
>for a new Auckland Harbour bridge / tunnel that connects to the same
>clogged, badly designed motorway either side of the existing bridge (and
>the bridge itself is rarely causing the problem).



This is all Total bull **** to cover the riff prices here, Kiwis are so
easily conned.


Just look at the price of Milk, dearest in the Western world.

In article <>, Mutlley <> wrote:
(snip)
>
>You do have this bee in your bonnet about Telecom don't you..

Well, to be fair, they have repeatedly shown themselves to be scum.