Re: Telecom and Telstra attempt to restrict peering to each other - media coverage

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Steve, Jul 20, 2003.

  1. Steve

    Steve Guest

    Uncle StoatWarbler allegedly said:

    >
    > Someone was asking for the cite:
    >
    >

    http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/3C921196B858BF1ACC256D650009562A!opendocument
    >
    > Story is by Paul Brislen. The journo who approached me isn't him..
    >
    > WRT comments about anticompetitive behaviour, etc, it was made abundantly
    > obvious by Clear and Clearnet that their longterm veiw was that they only
    > wanted telco-owned ISPs in NZ.
    >
    > Claims of anticompetitive behaviour will simply be met with statements
    > that they're so big that they don't see themselves competing with the
    > minnows.


    Bullshit.

    They'll be wanting to charge by thge megabyte like they do in Australia.

    The Aussies envy us our free peering. Telstra charge something like 19
    cents / megabyte for traffic from other ISPs through what used to be
    AARNET's peering point.

    That 19 cents is 3 years old. They may have reduced it.....but we don't want
    that here.

    Yet another exmaple of large providers dictating to the market. When that
    happens, the market needs regulating.

    --
    Steve
    Steve, Jul 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve

    Jay Guest

    Steve wrote:

    > Uncle StoatWarbler allegedly said:
    >
    >>
    >> Someone was asking for the cite:
    >>
    >>

    >

    http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/UNID/3C921196B858BF1ACC256D650009562A!opendocument
    >>
    >> Story is by Paul Brislen. The journo who approached me isn't him..
    >>
    >> WRT comments about anticompetitive behaviour, etc, it was made abundantly
    >> obvious by Clear and Clearnet that their longterm veiw was that they only
    >> wanted telco-owned ISPs in NZ.
    >>
    >> Claims of anticompetitive behaviour will simply be met with statements
    >> that they're so big that they don't see themselves competing with the
    >> minnows.

    >
    > Bullshit.
    >
    > They'll be wanting to charge by thge megabyte like they do in Australia.
    >
    > The Aussies envy us our free peering.


    Bullshit.
    Broadband is about 10 times cheaper in Australia than in NZ.

    > Telstra charge something like 19
    > cents / megabyte for traffic from other ISPs through what used to be
    > AARNET's peering point.


    Nobody, except perhaps academia, uses AARNET.
    Your knowledge is obsolete.

    >
    > That 19 cents is 3 years old. They may have reduced it.....but we don't
    > want that here.


    No, you want (and have) broadband that costs 10 times more than in
    Australia. Of course, that is exactly what you want and it is exactly
    what you have got.

    >
    > Yet another exmaple of large providers dictating to the market. When that
    > happens, the market needs regulating.
    >


    But I thought you just said it was perfect and the envy of the world.
    Jay, Jul 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve

    T.N.O. Guest

    Re: Telecom and Telstra attempt to restrict peering to each other- media coverage

    Jay wrote:
    > But I thought you just said it was perfect and the envy of the world.
    >


    Broardband /= peering

    Our peering is a better model
    Our Broardband sucks, it's pretty simple :)
    T.N.O., Jul 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Steve

    Jay Guest

    T.N.O. wrote:

    > Jay wrote:
    >> But I thought you just said it was perfect and the envy of the world.
    >>

    >
    > Broardband /= peering


    You cannot divide broardband by peering.

    >
    > Our peering is a better model
    > Our Broardband sucks, it's pretty simple :)


    If your peering is so good how come your broadband is so expensive?
    And any other type of connectivity for that matter.
    I mean businesses in NZ are paying 10 times what they should be.

    Maybe your definition of good is not so good.
    Jay, Jul 20, 2003
    #4
  5. Steve

    T.N.O. Guest

    Re: Telecom and Telstra attempt to restrict peering to each other- media coverage

    Jay wrote:
    >>Broardband /= peering

    > You cannot divide broardband by peering.


    Sorry, I should have remembered that I was trying to communicate with an
    australian.
    Broardband does not equal Peering

    >>Our peering is a better model
    >>Our Broardband sucks, it's pretty simple :)

    >
    >
    > If your peering is so good how come your broadband is so expensive?


    They are not directly related.
    Most of the reason for our broardband being so expensive seems to be
    around the cost for international bandwidth, which is (for all intents
    and purposes) controlled by Telecom(Virtual Monopoly holder here)

    > And any other type of connectivity for that matter.
    > I mean businesses in NZ are paying 10 times what they should be.


    Start and ISP here, I'm sure you'll make a packet if you can provide
    broardband either 1280k for the same cost, or the 128k for $6

    Good luck.

    > Maybe your definition of good is not so good.


    What definition? I never used the word good or made any definition.
    T.N.O., Jul 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Steve

    Jay Guest

    T.N.O. wrote:

    > Jay wrote:
    >>>Broardband /= peering

    >> You cannot divide broardband by peering.

    >
    > Sorry, I should have remembered that I was trying to communicate with an
    > australian.
    > Broardband does not equal Peering


    Who said it does? But you cannot have broadband without peering.
    You can, however, have peering without broadband.

    >
    >>>Our peering is a better model
    >>>Our Broardband sucks, it's pretty simple :)

    >>
    >>
    >> If your peering is so good how come your broadband is so expensive?

    >
    > They are not directly related.


    But they are related. You cannot have broadband without peering
    of some sort.

    > Most of the reason for our broardband being so expensive seems to be
    > around the cost for international bandwidth, which is (for all intents
    > and purposes) controlled by Telecom(Virtual Monopoly holder here)


    Not true. Telstra charges $888 for 10GB of national traffic
    with their JetStream.

    >
    >> And any other type of connectivity for that matter.
    >> I mean businesses in NZ are paying 10 times what they should be.

    >
    > Start and ISP here, I'm sure you'll make a packet if you can provide
    > broardband either 1280k for the same cost, or the 128k for $6


    Huh?

    >
    > Good luck.
    >
    >> Maybe your definition of good is not so good.

    >
    > What definition? I never used the word good or made any definition.
    Jay, Jul 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Steve

    Jay Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:

    > In article <bfdgf4$dr78h$-berlin.de>, Jay
    > <> wrote:
    >>T.N.O. wrote:

    > *SNIP*
    >>Who said it does? But you cannot have broadband without peering.

    > Now I KNOW you're talking through your arse.
    > The two are not related, in any way, shape or form. Absence of one does
    > not equate to absence of the other, in either direction.
    > Peering makes broadband cheaper to supply, but it is quite possible to
    > offer a broadband service without peering with anyone.


    How?

    I think we need to clarify what "peering" means.
    Does it mean free exchange of traffic or does it just mean exchange
    of traffic.

    My definition doesn't care whether traffic is charged for or not.
    Peering is just when ISPs and/or networks exchange traffic.

    So how is my little packet to get to Southern Cross's link
    if there is no peering anywhere? The moment I connect to that link
    ther *must* be some peering!

    >
    >>You can, however, have peering without broadband.
    >>

    > *SNIP*
    > *clap clap clap*
    > Thanks for pointing out this self-evident tidbit that the rest of us had
    > never thought of for ourselves.
    >


    Typical.
    Jay, Jul 20, 2003
    #7
  8. On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:33:15 +1000, Jay wrote:


    > Bullshit.
    > Broadband is about 10 times cheaper in Australia than in NZ.


    Elsewhere too.

    My home connection is 512kb/s and costs $75/month, has 8 IP addresses and
    NO DATA CHARGES/CAPS.


    Compare that with the NZ situation of a ADSL charge payable to Telecom and
    then ISP charges on top, which brings the total cost to at least $65 for
    jetstart

    If I want 1Mb/s or 2Mb/s, it would cost an extra $20/$30, but that speed
    is all I need at home. $orkplace is 100Mb/s to the core $ork net and 1Gb/s
    from there to the Internet itself.
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Jul 20, 2003
    #8
  9. On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:49:41 +1000, Jay wrote:

    > If your peering is so good how come your broadband is so expensive?


    Telecom NZ has an effective monopoly on last mile and will have for some
    time to come.

    > And any other type of connectivity for that matter.
    > I mean businesses in NZ are paying 10 times what they should be.


    See my other comments. Telecom has been known to futz with voice
    interconnects to screw up companies who are selling "too cheap" in their
    eyes. They're also notorious for taking months/years to switch on
    interconnnect expansions, even when the competitor has done everything
    right up to the edge of the Telecom network.
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Jul 20, 2003
    #9
  10. On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:30:44 +1000, Jay wrote:

    >> Most of the reason for our broardband being so expensive seems to be
    >> around the cost for international bandwidth, which is (for all intents
    >> and purposes) controlled by Telecom(Virtual Monopoly holder here)

    >
    > Not true. Telstra charges $888 for 10GB of national traffic
    > with their JetStream.


    "Their Jetstream" is no different to any other ISP's jetstream - it's a
    repackaged Telecom service with pricing dictated by Telecom.
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Jul 20, 2003
    #10
  11. In article <bfdpju$ddrfa$-berlin.de>, Jay <> wrote:
    >Matthew Poole wrote:

    *SNIP*
    >I think we need to clarify what "peering" means.
    >Does it mean free exchange of traffic or does it just mean exchange
    >of traffic.
    >

    Free exchange of traffic. If you're purchasing connectivity then you're
    no longer peering, you're engaging in a carrier/link agreement.

    >My definition doesn't care whether traffic is charged for or not.
    >Peering is just when ISPs and/or networks exchange traffic.
    >

    In which case the entire Internet would be a peered network, and it most
    certainly is not referred to as such.

    >So how is my little packet to get to Southern Cross's link
    >if there is no peering anywhere? The moment I connect to that link
    >ther *must* be some peering!
    >

    *SNIP*
    No. Someone must be buying transit capacity. That doesn't mean that
    there is peering.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Jul 20, 2003
    #11
  12. Steve

    Jay Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:

    > In article <bfdpju$ddrfa$-berlin.de>, Jay
    > <> wrote:
    >>Matthew Poole wrote:

    > *SNIP*
    >>I think we need to clarify what "peering" means.
    >>Does it mean free exchange of traffic or does it just mean exchange
    >>of traffic.
    >>

    > Free exchange of traffic. If you're purchasing connectivity then you're
    > no longer peering, you're engaging in a carrier/link agreement.


    I don't see the need to make a distinction.
    Anyhow free peering is dommed to failure. Who is going to pay
    for the equipment? Or is that free too?

    No wonder broadband never took off in NZ where such idiotic
    thinking abounds.

    >
    >>My definition doesn't care whether traffic is charged for or not.
    >>Peering is just when ISPs and/or networks exchange traffic.
    >>

    > In which case the entire Internet would be a peered network, and it most
    > certainly is not referred to as such.
    >
    >>So how is my little packet to get to Southern Cross's link
    >>if there is no peering anywhere? The moment I connect to that link
    >>ther *must* be some peering!
    >>

    > *SNIP*
    > No. Someone must be buying transit capacity. That doesn't mean that
    > there is peering.
    >


    Sorry, but you *must* receive packets too. There is absolutely no way
    you can have a TCP session without a bidirectional link.
    Jay, Jul 21, 2003
    #12
  13. In article <bffa9u$ed7gp$-berlin.de>, Jay <> wrote:
    >Matthew Poole wrote:

    *SNIP*
    >I don't see the need to make a distinction.

    Surprise surprise.

    >Anyhow free peering is dommed to failure. Who is going to pay
    >for the equipment? Or is that free too?
    >

    All it needs is a switch. In the case of APE, Cisco NZ have kindly
    donated low-end switching hardware. WIX's switching equipment is
    provided by Citylink.

    >No wonder broadband never took off in NZ where such idiotic
    >thinking abounds.
    >

    Broadband has nothing to do with peering.
    As for why it never took off, that'd be because the monopoly telco (you
    Aussies know all about those) has totally dropped the ball on the
    pricing model.

    *SNIP*
    >Sorry, but you *must* receive packets too. There is absolutely no way
    >you can have a TCP session without a bidirectional link.
    >

    Well congratulations, you're nearly as stupid as you seem to be.
    A transit link isn't a uni-directional thing.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Jul 21, 2003
    #13
    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. Matthew Poole
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    803
    Matthew Poole
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. Matthew Poole
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,447
    Master Tech ©
    Jul 23, 2003
  3. Uncle StoatWarbler
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    764
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Jul 20, 2003
  4. Nik Coughin

    telstra clear and peering exchange

    Nik Coughin, Jul 7, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    385
    steve
    Jul 8, 2004
  5. Philip

    Telecom and peering

    Philip, Jul 20, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    331
    Matthew Poole
    Jul 22, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page