How hard would it be for Jetstart ISPs to...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Evil Bastard, Sep 15, 2003.

  1. Evil Bastard

    Evil Bastard Guest

    How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    international traffic?

    It'd be great to surf/download/etc within NZ at full speed.
     
    Evil Bastard, Sep 15, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Evil Bastard

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Evil Bastard" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:pan.2003.09.15.00.06.30.240482@127.0.0.1...
    > How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    > remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    > international traffic?
    >
    > It'd be great to surf/download/etc within NZ at full speed.


    Where would all the extra money be for Telecon by doing that?

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Sep 15, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Evil Bastard

    max Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:06:30 +1200, Evil Bastard
    <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:

    >How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    >remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    >international traffic?
    >
    >It'd be great to surf/download/etc within NZ at full speed.
    >


    They did used to do this, and it was on this page
    http://www.xtra.co.nz/products/0,,5803,00.html, because I bookmarked
    it, but they seem to have changed the goalposts again.
     
    max, Sep 15, 2003
    #3
  4. Evil Bastard

    steve Guest

    Evil Bastard wrote:
    > How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    > remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    > international traffic?
    >
    > It'd be great to surf/download/etc within NZ at full speed.


    Telecom bill the traffic, don't they, through the phone bill?
     
    steve, Sep 15, 2003
    #4
  5. On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:41:06 +1200, max <>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:06:30 +1200, Evil Bastard
    ><postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
    >
    >>How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    >>remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    >>international traffic?
    >>
    >>It'd be great to surf/download/etc within NZ at full speed.
    >>

    >
    >They did used to do this, and it was on this page
    >http://www.xtra.co.nz/products/0,,5803,00.html, because I bookmarked
    >it, but they seem to have changed the goalposts again.


    As far as I'm aware, they still don't count local traffic against your
    5GB cap on Xtra's JetStream Starter offering.

    --
    you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
     
    Bruce Simpson, Sep 15, 2003
    #5
  6. Evil Bastard

    m00se Guest

    Evil Bastard wrote:
    > How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    > remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    > international traffic?
    >

    Telecom side, dont know.


    ISP side, Harder than most people realise.

    In the case of an ISP taking a single feed for both national and
    international connectivity, bordering on impossible to do with any real
    accuracy.


    > It'd be great to surf/download/etc within NZ at full speed.
    >
    >
     
    m00se, Sep 15, 2003
    #6
  7. Evil Bastard

    Evil Bastard Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:59:31 +1200, m00se wrote:

    > Evil Bastard wrote:
    >> How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    >> remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    >> international traffic?
    >>

    > Telecom side, dont know.
    >
    >
    > ISP side, Harder than most people realise.
    >
    > In the case of an ISP taking a single feed for both national and
    > international connectivity, bordering on impossible to do with any real
    > accuracy.


    What about tracerouting the peer, and determining its country of location?
     
    Evil Bastard, Sep 15, 2003
    #7
  8. Evil Bastard

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Evil Bastard" wrote
    > > ISP side, Harder than most people realise.
    > >
    > > In the case of an ISP taking a single feed for both national and
    > > international connectivity, bordering on impossible to do with any real
    > > accuracy.

    >
    > What about tracerouting the peer, and determining its country of location?


    For each connection, and each request... surely that would generate a large
    amount of traffic...
     
    T.N.O., Sep 15, 2003
    #8
  9. Evil Bastard

    Rider Guest

    "Bruce Simpson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:41:06 +1200, max <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:06:30 +1200, Evil Bastard
    > ><postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
    > >
    > >>How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    > >>remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    > >>international traffic?
    > >>
    > >>It'd be great to surf/download/etc within NZ at full speed.
    > >>

    > >
    > >They did used to do this, and it was on this page
    > >http://www.xtra.co.nz/products/0,,5803,00.html, because I bookmarked
    > >it, but they seem to have changed the goalposts again.

    >
    > As far as I'm aware, they still don't count local traffic against your
    > 5GB cap on Xtra's JetStream Starter offering.


    Not the data cap, he means the speed cap so instead of 128kb you get full
    rate adsl for local traffic. Sane as they do if you logon to jetstream games
    using the logon provided.
     
    Rider, Sep 15, 2003
    #9
  10. Evil Bastard

    AD. Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:06:30 +1200, Evil Bastard wrote:

    > How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    > remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    > international traffic?


    Paradise already has differential charging for National/International
    traffic on Jetstart, so it should be possible. How 'hard' it is though, I
    wouldn't know.

    My work has a Citylink connection and our ISP (DTS) has free national
    traffic.

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 15, 2003
    #10
  11. Provided you have an international and national link, measuring traffic
    across each is trivial. This information is easily associated with the user
    by IP address, which is recorded in every single packet going through the
    systems. Simply record which interface each packet goes through.

    This is where it gets difficult. Because IP addresses on JetStart are
    dynamic, and because this IP is assigned to the user by Telecom from a pool
    provided by the ISP, the ISP doesn't actually have a reliable way to know
    who is assigned an IP at any given time.

    The Other Guy

    "AD." <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:06:30 +1200, Evil Bastard wrote:
    >
    > > How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    > > remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    > > international traffic?

    >
    > Paradise already has differential charging for National/International
    > traffic on Jetstart, so it should be possible. How 'hard' it is though, I
    > wouldn't know.
    >
    > My work has a Citylink connection and our ISP (DTS) has free national
    > traffic.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Anton
     
    The Other Guy, Sep 15, 2003
    #11
  12. Evil Bastard

    AD. Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:51:25 +1200, The Other Guy wrote:

    > Provided you have an international and national link, measuring traffic
    > across each is trivial. This information is easily associated with the user
    > by IP address, which is recorded in every single packet going through the
    > systems. Simply record which interface each packet goes through.
    >
    > This is where it gets difficult. Because IP addresses on JetStart are
    > dynamic, and because this IP is assigned to the user by Telecom from a pool
    > provided by the ISP, the ISP doesn't actually have a reliable way to know
    > who is assigned an IP at any given time.


    My assumptions may be off here, but wouldn't that make _any_ traffic
    accounting by the ISP difficult? Or do they rely on Telecom doing
    accounting for them?

    I'm assuming the original poster was correct in implying the ISP was
    responsible for the data caps. My last DSL experience was a few years ago
    before Jetstart - I seem to recall Jetstart is structured differently than
    the old Jetstream ie more ISP involvement.

    Corrections welcome :)

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 15, 2003
    #12
  13. Evil Bastard

    madknoxie Guest

    > Evil Bastard wrote:
    > > How hard would it be for Telecom and the Jetstart ISPs to
    > > remove the bandwidth cap for national traffic, but keep it for
    > > international traffic?



    I remember about 20 months ago when Jetstart was a wee bit flakey at
    times. One particular time, I had full ADSL nationally, and normal
    Jetstart speeds internationally. So I'm guessing its possible...


    --
    madknoxie
    $35 .nz domain names: http://www.ivision.co.nz/
     
    madknoxie, Sep 15, 2003
    #13
  14. Evil Bastard

    bt Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:59:31 +1200, m00se <>
    wrote:

    >Telecom side, dont know.
    >
    >
    >ISP side, Harder than most people realise.
    >
    >In the case of an ISP taking a single feed for both national and
    >international connectivity, bordering on impossible to do with any real
    >accuracy.


    Some ISP's charge against your GB allowance only when it's
    international - Orcon for instance - so they seem able to
    differentiate for traffic.

    Surely it'd be just as simple for bandwidth - full ADSL inside NZ, and
    traffic shaped down to 128kbit international ?

    All academic anyhow - until Telecom is divested of it's monopoly on
    the local loop, they will ream and gouge us forever. It is their
    nature, just as it is the nature of a hydatid tape worm to suck the
    health from it's host. They will not endanger their yaught money
    gained from the exploitative leased line business by employing a fair
    DSL deal unless forced to.

    If the government were worth their $50 undies and $20k taxi junkets,
    they'd put a few regulations in place to the effect of the above. Like
    any government trying to foster robust competition in a market.

    I'd have the local loop owned by local Councils in a non-profit way.


    Brendan (Avatar)

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

    Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

    Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
    My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
     
    bt, Sep 16, 2003
    #14
  15. Evil Bastard

    bt Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:25:55 +1200, Col^ <> wrote:

    >>This is where it gets difficult. Because IP addresses on JetStart are
    >>dynamic, and because this IP is assigned to the user by Telecom from a pool
    >>provided by the ISP, the ISP doesn't actually have a reliable way to know
    >>who is assigned an IP at any given time.

    >
    >Paradise do a pretty good job of listing National and International traffic on
    >their Jetstart accounts . How difficult is that.


    I understand it's all accounted for with records sent to them BY
    Telecom, after the fact.

    Given the delay between this update and the user's activities, it
    might be possible for the user to get full speed adsl internationally
    but only be charged at the 128kbit rate - as it's not his fault.
    Telecom says "can't have that!".

    This may be one reason they do not do it - it'd mean re-organising
    their accounting system with the ISP's. Boohoo. It's a problem of
    their own making.

    If they kept their nose out of it and gave more control of the dsl
    connection TO the ISP, the ISP could do it all.

    But if they did that, the ISP might compete with them. Telecom says
    "can't have that!", and so we have what we have now: fat cats get
    bigger yaughts, politubbies get bigger tax takes to pay for bigger
    junkets.


    Brendan (Avatar)

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

    Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

    Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
    My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
     
    bt, Sep 16, 2003
    #15
  16. Evil Bastard

    Jay Guest

    bt wrote:

    > Surely it'd be just as simple for bandwidth - full ADSL inside NZ, and
    > traffic shaped down to 128kbit international ?
    >


    Why such a penalty for international traffic?
    Why not the same speed and cost regardless?
    The Southern Cross has been paid off, so the only costs are
    ongoing maintenance. No different from local traffic.
     
    Jay, Sep 16, 2003
    #16
  17. Evil Bastard

    bt Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:10:47 +1000, Jay <> wrote:

    >bt wrote:
    >
    >> Surely it'd be just as simple for bandwidth - full ADSL inside NZ, and
    >> traffic shaped down to 128kbit international ?
    >>

    >
    >Why such a penalty for international traffic?
    >Why not the same speed and cost regardless?
    >The Southern Cross has been paid off, so the only costs are
    >ongoing maintenance. No different from local traffic.


    Preeching to the quior Jay. I agree.

    The point being made was that the usual excuse - international
    bandwidth is 'soooooo deeeear' - by Telecon doesn't wash for national
    circuts.


    Brendan (Avatar)

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

    Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

    Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
    My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
     
    bt, Sep 17, 2003
    #17
  18. Evil Bastard

    Ian Boag Guest


    >All academic anyhow - until Telecom is divested of it's monopoly on
    >the local loop, they will ream and gouge us forever. It is their


    Yep. We need to take the local loop off them.

    Too bad the govt sold them the wires.

    Too bad they own them.

    They're a bunch of thieves who don't deserve any property rights
    protection.


    >nature, just as it is the nature of a hydatid tape worm to suck the
    >health from it's host. They will not endanger their yaught money
     
    Ian Boag, Sep 18, 2003
    #18
  19. Evil Bastard

    bt Guest

    On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:35:19 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
    <> wrote:

    >> The point being made was that the usual excuse - international
    >> bandwidth is 'soooooo deeeear' - by Telecon doesn't wash for national
    >> circuts.

    >
    >Even more so when international circuits cost substantially less than
    >national ones.
    >


    Shit we are ripped off here!

    Does anyone have some dirt on the politubbies so we can get Telecom to
    play nicely ?


    Brendan (Avatar)

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

    Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

    Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
    My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
     
    bt, Sep 18, 2003
    #19
  20. Evil Bastard

    bt Guest

    On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:29:31 GMT, (Ian Boag) wrote:

    >>All academic anyhow - until Telecom is divested of it's monopoly on
    >>the local loop, they will ream and gouge us forever. It is their

    >
    >Yep. We need to take the local loop off them.


    Would be good.

    >Too bad the govt sold them the wires.


    Which was extremelu foolish of them.

    However, it's not beyond the government to undo such an act, one way
    or another.

    The government may 'seize' private citizens property when the greater
    good mandates it. Telecom cannot expect more rights that does a
    private citizen.

    And I suggest the manifest poor performance of Telecom in the Local
    Loop - both price wise and product wise - is a clear indication that
    pressure needs to be applied.

    It's what we pay the politubbies for, after all.

    >Too bad they own them.


    That can be un-done.

    >They're a bunch of thieves


    Racketeers is more accurate.

    >who don't deserve any property rights protection.


    I was thinking more along the lines of either:

    1. Compulsory sale under the various provisions of the commerce act,
    fair trading act, etc, and in the interests of competition in the
    'local loop' market.

    or

    2. Regulate them to a simular effect. E.g. they must open the local
    loop to competitors at a price that can be proven to be fair.


    Interesting that you do not feel that a market does not benefit from
    competition. Usually this sentiment is most heard from protectionist
    states like the USA or totalitarian states like North Korea. You
    should take some time to explain to us all how your 'suppressed
    competition capitalism' system works.


    Brendan (Avatar)

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

    Check out my cool Water Cooling Project! http://www.computerman.orcon.net.nz/WaterCooling1.html

    Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE.
    My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
     
    bt, Sep 18, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nick
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    803
    Craig Whitmore
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Peter
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    958
  3. Alastair Johnson

    Re: 4 questions about Maxnet Jetstart ADSL

    Alastair Johnson, Jul 9, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    736
    Peter
    Jul 12, 2003
  4. tim

    jetstart ISP's

    tim, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    343
    Mainlander
    Sep 2, 2003
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    981
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page