[WXC/VFX] The Torrent plan and what it's done...

Forums › One NZ (including Farmside) › [WXC/VFX] The Torrent plan and what it's done...

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 23

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#171029 14-Oct-2008 10:25

Talkiet:
Wrong, then wrong, and finally wrong, but not as wrong as the first 2 points.

You need to understand how NZ being a traffic sink affects the price ISPs pay for internatinoal bandwidth, and how the massive bias towards international traffic (as opposed to national traffic) affects cost structures as compared to international ISPs where the traffic patterns are different.

Hoping that you're right and wishing for cheaper plans won't make it so.

Cheers- N

Are you trying to say NZ ISP's like Xnet are well managed and have good economy of scale? Are you serious?

We all know our ISP's bandwidth costs are literally 150x that of US or UK isp's per Mbit/s. However high fixed bandwidth cost is not a good valid excuse for poor management and badly designed plans (like the torrent one). If anything you would think that would make ISP's more interested in caching and QoS.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#171030 14-Oct-2008 10:31

Ragnor: I understand perfectly well that our ISP's bandwidth costs are literally around 150x that of US or UK isp's per Mbit/s...

However that is not a valid excuse for poor management and badly designed plans (like the torrent one).

I Agree, but it IS a valid reason to have plans that are "Charging users per GB for traffic [which] is an unrealistic and crude way to restrict[snip] users internet usage"

I don't see how you can attack the per GB charging model if you do understand that international traffic costs are astronomical here in NZ. The fact that UK and US ISPs have different charging models owes almost nothing to scale, and a massive amount to their completely different cost structure.

Regards
N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#171032 14-Oct-2008 10:36

Ragnor:
Are you trying to say NZ ISP's like Xnet are well managed and have good economy of scale? Are you serious?

We all know our ISP's bandwidth costs are literally 150x that of US or UK isp's per Mbit/s. However high fixed bandwidth cost is not a good valid excuse for poor management and badly designed plans (like the torrent one). If anything you would think that would make ISP's more interested in caching and QoS.

And I would claim that most NZ ISPs that don't try and do flat rate plans or have flat rate plan components are doing pretty well in terms of managing resources - the market is ultra competitive.

However, don't lose sight of the fact that in order to be cheapest, and Xnet are the cheapest for heavy users - it's unreasonable to also expect the best performance.

The traditional saying here is "Fast, reliable, cheap - pick any two" but it doesn't really apply that well here because reliability isn't important to most heavy users - they would FAR prefer fast and cheap...

But there's an old adage from motorsport which probably does apply pretty well... "Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?"

If you're prepared to pay peanuts, well, you know the rest.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#171038 14-Oct-2008 11:08

Ragnor:
We all know our ISP's bandwidth costs are literally 150x that of US or UK isp's per Mbit/s.

Is that for real? Holy cow..... That`s a bit excessive...

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

ventolin

110 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 4

#171055 14-Oct-2008 12:07

Yeah NZ isps pay for each mbit of international pipe, they don't pay for the data used on that pipe.

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#171058 14-Oct-2008 12:20

ventolin: Yeah NZ isps pay for each mbit of international pipe, they don't pay for the data used on that pipe.

Of course. But I`m just shocked at the prices they`re paying. 150x European is exorbitant.

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#171059 14-Oct-2008 12:27

It's more like 15x not 150x from what I understand. It's very difficult to give any real numbers since almost no ISP will give out this information willingly nor will the carrier and since it's contract based it varies based on ISP size and demand.

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#171065 14-Oct-2008 13:15

Is there any infrastructural investment that the government could make which would substantially reduce these costs?

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

insane

3325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1006

ID Verified

Trusted

2degrees

Subscriber

#171069 14-Oct-2008 13:44

depends which carriers they use in the states but the likes of cogent can get traffic to Auckland for as little as $15 /mbps if bought in a resonible quantity.

so maybe 40x or so.... still a bit rude if you ask me. its not like our phone calls are 40x their prices..

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#171102 14-Oct-2008 17:03

attilathegorilla: Is there any infrastructural investment that the government could make which would substantially reduce these costs?

Kordia and Pipe Networks are still planning a trans pacific cable
http://www.kordia.co.nz/?q=node/1268&area=media

However realistically it's years away.

JayADee

2236 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#171113 14-Oct-2008 18:18

ventolin: Yeah NZ isps pay for each mbit of international pipe, they don't pay for the data used on that pipe.

To keep it simple for me, do you mean they pay for the speed of the pipe (or throughput or whatever) and not the amount of data? I always imagined they paid for the number of GBs downloaded and uploaded. Like paying for town water; pay for the amount, not the size of the pipe. :)

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

coffeebaron

6304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3567

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#171114 14-Oct-2008 18:22

JayADee: ventolin: Yeah NZ isps pay for each mbit of international pipe, they don't pay for the data used on that pipe.

To keep it simple for me, do you mean they pay for the speed of the pipe (or throughput or whatever) and not the amount of data? I always imagined they paid for the number of GBs downloaded and uploaded. Like paying for town water; pay for the amount, not the size of the pipe. :)

Yes, that is correct.

Rural IT and Broadband support.

Broadband troubleshooting and master filter installs.
Starlink installer - one month free: https://www.starlink.com/?referral=RC-32845-88860-71
Wi-Fi and networking
Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally

Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#171117 14-Oct-2008 18:27

coffeebaron:
JayADee: ventolin: Yeah NZ isps pay for each mbit of international pipe, they don't pay for the data used on that pipe.

To keep it simple for me, do you mean they pay for the speed of the pipe (or throughput or whatever) and not the amount of data? I always imagined they paid for the number of GBs downloaded and uploaded. Like paying for town water; pay for the amount, not the size of the pipe. :)

Yes, that is correct.

And it's the reason both Slinngshot and WxC introduced torrent plans.

If you're paying for X capacity and it's average usage is (pure hypothetical figures) 50% over a 24/7 period but 100% usage for a 4 hour period in the evening then you've got excess capacity for 20 hours of the day. The goal of the torrent plans was to move this peak traffic offpeak rather than buying extra capcity.

The problem with torrents is that it doesn't matter how much capacity you add it will all get gobbled up instantly, hence adding additional bandwidth isn't a fix for the problem - that torrent traffic is slowly bringing the internet to a crawl. IMHO traffic shaping is the future, if you don't like it you're potentially going to have to get used to it.

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#171118 14-Oct-2008 18:28

You buy water from the council. The council is your ISP. The council invests in infrastructure. That investment is a given, whether nobody uses the system or it`s used to its full capacity. The same way, ISP`s invest in buying international bandwidth. Their cost depends on the bandwidth they buy each month, regardless of the traffic their customers use.

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

attilathegorilla

213 posts

Master Geek

#171119 14-Oct-2008 18:31

sbiddle:
The problem with torrents is that it doesn't matter how much capacity you add it will all get gobbled up instantly

And that is why torrenters have been moved to a time slot when everybody else is asleep. Ideally hehe.

If honest work and justice are not enough - we'll get a lawyer.

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 23