Telecom and peering

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Philip, Jul 20, 2005.

  1. Philip

    Philip Guest

    I see that Telecom and TelstraClear say they won't peer with Radio NZ
    over digital distribution of the broadcaster's programmes.

    Can anyone here point me to other instances outside NZ where major
    telcos refuse to enter into peering agreements?

    Or are we truly unique, and have we found a Pacific Way that we may not
    be so proud of?

    Philip
     
    Philip, Jul 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Philip wrote:
    > I see that Telecom and TelstraClear say they won't peer with Radio NZ
    > over digital distribution of the broadcaster's programmes.
    >
    > Can anyone here point me to other instances outside NZ where major
    > telcos refuse to enter into peering agreements?
    >
    > Or are we truly unique, and have we found a Pacific Way that we may not
    > be so proud of?


    pretty much every country except NZ uses transit rather than peering...
    transit means you pay for the traffic across the links rather than
    getting it for free/mutual benefit(peering)

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
    http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:19:29 +1200, someone purporting to be Dave -
    Dave.net.nz didst scrawl:

    > Philip wrote:

    *SNIP*
    > pretty much every country except NZ uses transit rather than peering...
    > transit means you pay for the traffic across the links rather than
    > getting it for free/mutual benefit(peering)


    Not so. What was unique about the NZ model was that any startup could
    peer with the largest player in the market - they can still peer with
    three of the top five, but the top two won't play the game.
    Overseas peering is about exchange of neutral volumes of traffic, so two
    carriers who send 1TB/month each way might peer but carriers where it's
    1TB in one direction and 10TB in the other will likely enter into a
    transit arrangement. This isn't the case in some countries, either -
    particularly India where the government is rolling out peering exchanges
    of the nature that NZ has known them; it's also strongly encouraging all
    ISPs and content providers to join up.

    The issue in NZ is that TCL threw their toys out, not that they were
    sending more traffic than they received. When TCL and ICONZ agreed to
    swap cheques for exchanged traffic, TCL obviously didn't realise that
    their position in the market didn't extend to major content sources, since
    they promptly spat the dummy when presented with the first invoice from
    ICONZ.
    It's a greed and market-share issue, not a traffic equality one. TCL and
    Telecon don't have any kind of monopoly on hosting sources of content, and
    that's borne out by TCL's reaction - TCL obviously expected to be
    receiving money, not paying it.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Jul 22, 2005
    #3
    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. Paul Westwell
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    494
    Paul Westwell
    Jul 16, 2005
  2. Matthew Poole
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    824
    Matthew Poole
    Jul 19, 2003
  3. Matthew Poole
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,497
    Master Tech ©
    Jul 23, 2003
  4. Steve
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,143
    Matthew Poole
    Jul 21, 2003
  5. Uncle StoatWarbler
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    805
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Jul 20, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page