Is chorus going to deliberately slow adsl internet down

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Is chorus going to deliberately slow adsl internet down

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

646 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 230

#1095044 24-Jul-2014 16:04

sbiddle:
NZCrusader:

Because Chorus are then inventing a premium product by hindering a regulated product.

This is quite a poor business practise.

They are delivering a premium product but I fail to see how they're hindering a regulated product when they're offering exactly as the regulated offering requires.

If The Commerce Commission had a brain they would have reviewed the UBA product several years ago and written new requirements that deliver a service that meets the needs of an internet user in 2014, not an internet user in 2004. They fact they haven't has meant they've basically invited Chorus to do exactly what they've done. Everybody saw this coming.

That in itself is a poor system.

Requiring UBA to be reviewed every few years is just a waste of money.
Granted that BUBA requires dimensioning as a result of obsolete constraining technology might be acceptable, but the EUBA product has no constraints in this day and age as Ethernet is significantly faster and is continuing to be developed.

Sure I completely agree that the ComCom hasnt done the best job, but an endless reviewing process is not the answer.

I do not have all the answers, but I firmly believe that creating a product or solution that customers WANT to purchase as opposed to one customers are FORCED to migrate to is the best answer.

NZ / AU Battlefield 4 Gaming Community
http://www.sonsofvalour.net/forums/forum.php

NZtimbo

165 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 54

#1095046 24-Jul-2014 16:15

So lets get some comments on these paragraphs out of the Wigly & Company Solicitors report...

1.2 Chorus appears to assume that the only relevant UBA STD obligation is the 32 kbps minimum throughput. That is not correct. There is an express requirement on Chorus in the UBA STD service description to achieve "maximum downstream [and upstream] line speed", the only relevant exception being to meet Interference Management Plan requirements.

1.3 Over the full footprint of the regulated UBA service – it is important to be clear what that footprint is as Chorus appear to confuse the issue – such maximum line speeds must be achieved. Chorus is not permitted to traffic manage the regulated service, and that includes traffic managing the service at handover or any other points.

1.4 The 32 kbps minimum throughput does not erode the maximum line speed obligation. That is as a matter of straightforward interpretation: the two obligations can stand alongside each other. In any event, the blanket 32 kbps minimum throughput is designed to meet the relatively low speeds and performance over a sizeable percentage of connections, such as where speed attenuates due to long copper lengths, or where ATM based UBA is provided. Maximum line speeds apply to those services too, but they are much slower.

I understnad why Chorus as a business want to lower the quality of a service they are delivering but they appear to be wanting to create a "New and Improved" product when it's already being provided. Yes the ComCom seriously need to consider what they are going to do with this one.

Tim

_________________________________________
I must learn to be a good Kiwi and stop moaning...

Zeon

3926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759

Trusted

#1095052 24-Jul-2014 16:24

NZCrusader:
sbiddle:
NZCrusader:

Because Chorus are then inventing a premium product by hindering a regulated product.

This is quite a poor business practise.

They are delivering a premium product but I fail to see how they're hindering a regulated product when they're offering exactly as the regulated offering requires.

If The Commerce Commission had a brain they would have reviewed the UBA product several years ago and written new requirements that deliver a service that meets the needs of an internet user in 2014, not an internet user in 2004. They fact they haven't has meant they've basically invited Chorus to do exactly what they've done. Everybody saw this coming.

That in itself is a poor system.

Requiring UBA to be reviewed every few years is just a waste of money.
Granted that BUBA requires dimensioning as a result of obsolete constraining technology might be acceptable, but the EUBA product has no constraints in this day and age as Ethernet is significantly faster and is continuing to be developed.

Sure I completely agree that the ComCom hasnt done the best job, but an endless reviewing process is not the answer.

I do not have all the answers, but I firmly believe that creating a product or solution that customers WANT to purchase as opposed to one customers are FORCED to migrate to is the best answer.

Yea sot he ComCom shouldn't have pushed for lower pricing and Chorus would probably have not done anything beyond the status quo....

Speedtest 2019-10-14

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1095053 24-Jul-2014 16:26

I'll go back a few steps again.

If dimensioning had been introduced as part of the EUBA deployment as it was a BUBA equivalent service, would we be having this discussion right now? Are Chorus at fault here for not introducing dimensioning earlier?

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1095073 24-Jul-2014 17:19

sbiddle: I'll go back a few steps again.

If dimensioning had been introduced as part of the EUBA deployment as it was a BUBA equivalent service, would we be having this discussion right now? Are Chorus at fault here for not introducing dimensioning earlier?

depends on what level the introduced dimensioning at, and whether they consistently increased the level to keep track with demand.

What Chorus are suggesting now is not just implementing dimensioning, but, critically, holding it steady at a rate that is only marginally above the current average, and never ever improving it, even though usage is growing at 50% per year.

Bobdn

222 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#1095078 24-Jul-2014 17:29

This is a really good question. Despite what the media and shockingly for me, Telecom, might say about Chorus, Chorus has been an excellent corporate citizen. It's been over delivering key infrastructure for years. It's mistake was not addressing this matter earlier. People and telcos now have this bizarre sense of entitlement.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1095125 24-Jul-2014 18:14

NonprayingMantis:

What Chorus are suggesting now is not just implementing dimensioning, but, critically, holding it steady at a rate that is only marginally above the current average, and never ever improving it, even though usage is growing at 50% per year.

Have Chorus said they'll never increase it? I've seen no mention of that.

One of the key areas here is that the Commerce Commission totally ignored throughput in it's IPP. That is a key failing on their behalf.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1095138 24-Jul-2014 18:44

sbiddle:
NonprayingMantis:

What Chorus are suggesting now is not just implementing dimensioning, but, critically, holding it steady at a rate that is only marginally above the current average, and never ever improving it, even though usage is growing at 50% per year.

Have Chorus said they'll never increase it? I've seen no mention of that.

One of the key areas here is that the Commerce Commission totally ignored throughput in it's IPP. That is a key failing on their behalf.

Yes. They've said they are capping investment in the regulated product to maintain it at that rate.

That is why it is such a rort and why the ISPs are up in arms.
If chorus were planning to keep investing in regulated aggregation in line with demand, then no ISP would take the boost product (except perhaps vodafone who have their own ip tv service they may want to guarantee higher bandwidth for)

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 230

#1095393 25-Jul-2014 08:58

Zeon:
NZCrusader:
sbiddle:
NZCrusader:

Because Chorus are then inventing a premium product by hindering a regulated product.

This is quite a poor business practise.

They are delivering a premium product but I fail to see how they're hindering a regulated product when they're offering exactly as the regulated offering requires.

If The Commerce Commission had a brain they would have reviewed the UBA product several years ago and written new requirements that deliver a service that meets the needs of an internet user in 2014, not an internet user in 2004. They fact they haven't has meant they've basically invited Chorus to do exactly what they've done. Everybody saw this coming.

That in itself is a poor system.

Requiring UBA to be reviewed every few years is just a waste of money.
Granted that BUBA requires dimensioning as a result of obsolete constraining technology might be acceptable, but the EUBA product has no constraints in this day and age as Ethernet is significantly faster and is continuing to be developed.

Sure I completely agree that the ComCom hasnt done the best job, but an endless reviewing process is not the answer.

I do not have all the answers, but I firmly believe that creating a product or solution that customers WANT to purchase as opposed to one customers are FORCED to migrate to is the best answer.

Yea sot he ComCom shouldn't have pushed for lower pricing and Chorus would probably have not done anything beyond the status quo....

The commerce commission are ensuring the price we pay is (more) inline with the rest of the developed world.

Pretty much here the requirement is for Chorus to drop the price charged for land line services because they have a monopoly.
If there were other land line services competing with Chorus, then we would probably see that the prices would have already dropped.

So what we can do is keep it fair by keeping the land line services a (more) similar price to what is being charged overseas.

Just because Chorus are being made to be fair does not mean they should resort to bad business practises in order to force customers on to an artificial premium service.

NZ / AU Battlefield 4 Gaming Community
http://www.sonsofvalour.net/forums/forum.php

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1095412 25-Jul-2014 09:39

NZCrusader:

The commerce commission are ensuring the price we pay is (more) inline with the rest of the developed world.

The Commerce Commission chose 2 countries to model pricing off, didn't factor in any inputs for the cost of providing a service, and totally ignored throughput as a factor.

Should the wholesale cost of UBA in NZ where somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of lines can get 30/10 minimum on VDSL2 and 84% of premises get 10Mbps+ on ADSL cost the same as Australalia where there is no VDSL2 and average DSL sync speeds are significantly less than NZ?

I fundamentally disagree with their view that throughput and the cost of inputs is not important - Chorus spent over $1 billion to build one of the world's best FTTN networks and that's basically being ignored.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1095530 25-Jul-2014 12:04

sbiddle:
NZCrusader:

The commerce commission are ensuring the price we pay is (more) inline with the rest of the developed world.

The Commerce Commission chose 2 countries to model pricing off, didn't factor in any inputs for the cost of providing a service, and totally ignored throughput as a factor.

Should the wholesale cost of UBA in NZ where somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of lines can get 30/10 minimum on VDSL2 and 84% of premises get 10Mbps+ on ADSL cost the same as Australalia where there is no VDSL2 and average DSL sync speeds are significantly less than NZ?

I fundamentally disagree with their view that throughput and the cost of inputs is not important - Chorus spent over $1 billion to build one of the world's best FTTN networks and that's basically being ignored.

which two countries did they choose?

sounds like Australia was one. Which was the other?

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1095572 25-Jul-2014 12:55

Sweden and Denmark.

Last time I looked last year wholesale costs in Australia were about A$25 and more for rural, but there are a lot more components to add on top.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#1095577 25-Jul-2014 13:00

sbiddle: Sweden and Denmark.

Last time I looked last year wholesale costs in Australia were about A$25 and more for rural, but there are a lot more components to add on top.

I'm not sure what you are saying then. They should have used Australia as a benchmark?

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#1095625 25-Jul-2014 14:00

rugrat: Story in stuff.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10294245/Telecom-lays-complaint-over-copper-network

250 kpbs sounds not much faster then the old dial up days. I can get about 12 Mbps on national data at present.

Guessing it's average through put per user, So how much difference would it make?

Could stuff up streaming tv services, if to many people try to watch at once, if is the case.

In christchurch if people go to fibre, it's a lost customer to Chorus, as enable has contract here, guessing they're trying to make people change products. If mine slows to dial up, I'll ditch it altogether and just go to mobile, just have to go without youtube etc.

This reads like more of the same ComCom/Chorus argibargie.

What I'm not seeing is talk about PPS. http://www.cisco.com/web/about/security/intelligence/network_performance_metrics.html

Everyone seems hung up on PIR and CIR.

People also don't really seem to care at all about the issues that the Chorus traffic management guys are having to contend with.

Someone rightly pointed out that year on year traffic is growing by 50%, but they don't seem to connect this with the need to put more routing and switching capacity into the network to manage the load.

It's all well and good to put xDSL end point upgrades in, but then people actually start wanting to use that capacity.

How is Chorus meant to manage that balance?

With a 2mbit tail you can only pull a PIR of 2mbit. So if we calculate that out over 24 hours we can figure that max data transfer per month.

We know that most users tail off at a given time of day. So when we give users a 10Gb data plan we know they're only pulling that from 4pm to 11pm with a trickle the rest of the day.

Power users might put p2p software in and pull their 10Gb over the whole day.

This puts loading over the routing and switching. So the power user might pull 100Gb in a month, but doesn't push the PPS per hour much higher than the previous user.

What I'm reading here is that Chorus seems to want to keep that power user in their box while upgrading the network for the previous user who wants to pull 100Gb as well, but from 4pm to 11pm.

Why should the 'power user' be impacted by the change in usage trend of the other user?

At the same time, we also know that the power user given 20mbit where they had 2mbit is likely to then pull 1TB per month which does impact the PPS rate per hour.

It seems to me that the OP has missed the point completely.

It seems to me that Chorus are attempting to speed up the internet for those who are willing to pay for it but at the same time wants to keep those who are not willing to pay for the change in the same box that they're in currently.

At the same time, ComCom seem to want new products in the market place. Give the platform that Chorus has, what are these new products that ComCom actually want?

ComCom want to see the cost of the current product come down line with international costings.

Chorus need to hold their revenue up so they can continue to pay staff and return a dividend to shareholders.

Seems to me that this is all about just back and forth argiebargie looking for the balance that will keep everyone unhappy but from throwing their toys out of the cot.

D

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#1095630 25-Jul-2014 14:06

Additionally, I have to ask how much of this issue is pushed along internationally be vendors who want to see telco's put in new kit so are fanning the flames?

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

1 | 2 | 3 | 4