Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 
188 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Subscriber

  Reply # 321348 21-Apr-2010 15:33
Send private message

Do Telecom's 29 peering points still include the stupid practice of having multiple points in a single city so unless you want to pay Telecom for transit you have to peer in multiple exchanges even in a single city (e.g. 2 in Christchurch)

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

  Reply # 321349 21-Apr-2010 15:35
Send private message

Cymro: Likewise, the responsibility for giving a good customer experience and adequate access to the content on other networks (be they national or international) for the ISP Customer is the responsibility of the Residential ISP (or in some cases whoever they buy transit from).

So it works both ways, the problem with the APE/WIX model is that if the Content Provider's Host is local to these points they only carry xGB/s over a few hundred meters, and then expect the Residential ISP to carry that same xGB/s over many hundreds of kilometers (and bear that cost).

The NZ model is skewed by the fact that all the Residential customers are on one network (Telecom Wholesale) and most of the content hosts are on a seperate network which doesn't have the same national reach, so if Telecom peered at APE/WIX they would be bearing the majority of the transit burden. Hopefully the MPOI (Multiple points of Interconnect) model will go someway to fixing this, as FX networks have started to.

This is a valid issue, but you must remember that the residential end-user has paid the residential ISP to deliver bits to them - which means that the residential ISP is not bearing a cost they are not being paid for - this is where it differs somewhat from my previous MTR statement, because the "receiving" ISP should not need to recover cost from the "originating" ISP, due to already being paid by their customer (unlike mobile calls which are 'free' to receive).

Of course, you also must wonder how all the other residential ISPs (Vodafone, Orcon, etc) manage to receive all this data into their residential networks without needing their content provider partner networks to interconnect at 29 locations - especially as they often have the cost of getting across their 3rd party DSL access network to consider.

3404 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 399

Trusted

  Reply # 321363 21-Apr-2010 16:04
Send private message

OK so the conclusion that I draw is that since Telecom provides hardly any content (majority from say ICONZ, Maxnet and maybe Orcon) - they are effectively trying to get the content provider to pay the backhaul to get the content to the region where Telecom's customers are. Telecom then don't have to pay the backhaul but can then charge the customer for a cost that the content provider is bearing.

Now let's say I was a big Auckland data center with kickass HD content which everybody wanted. I would have to either pay to install my own network to 29 peering points just to access Telecom's customers OR I would have to pay Telecom the cost of backhauling to their customers. I could provide a service to Telecom's Auckland customers though.

So at the end of the day, it's the same old double dipping by Telecom/Telstra.

Now let's say that the Auckland data center also had a pipe to wellington which (they would already have one for a WIX connection which is pretty normal). What they would then do is say we can offer our service to a customer of any ISP except no Telstra and Telecom customers only in Auckland or Wellington.

Basically Telecom is abusing it's duoply position by forcing the content providers to pay its costs. The content providers have no choice but to accept this as since Telecom has such a large market share they can't afford to stop access to Telecom customers.

At least Telecom could give customers unlimited free data if it travels through their local "Telecom peering point".





281 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8


  Reply # 321365 21-Apr-2010 16:06
Send private message

PenultimateHop:
Cymro: Likewise, the responsibility for giving a good customer experience and adequate access to the content on other networks (be they national or international) for the ISP Customer is the responsibility of the Residential ISP (or in some cases whoever they buy transit from).

So it works both ways, the problem with the APE/WIX model is that if the Content Provider's Host is local to these points they only carry xGB/s over a few hundred meters, and then expect the Residential ISP to carry that same xGB/s over many hundreds of kilometers (and bear that cost).

The NZ model is skewed by the fact that all the Residential customers are on one network (Telecom Wholesale) and most of the content hosts are on a seperate network which doesn't have the same national reach, so if Telecom peered at APE/WIX they would be bearing the majority of the transit burden. Hopefully the MPOI (Multiple points of Interconnect) model will go someway to fixing this, as FX networks have started to.

This is a valid issue, but you must remember that the residential end-user has paid the residential ISP to deliver bits to them - which means that the residential ISP is not bearing a cost they are not being paid for - this is where it differs somewhat from my previous MTR statement, because the "receiving" ISP should not need to recover cost from the "originating" ISP, due to already being paid by their customer (unlike mobile calls which are 'free' to receive).


And likewise, the Content Provider has paid their host network to deliver bits to other networks, it all comes down to cost vs. service for both the host and the ISP, both should be equally burdened with the true cost of the service and pass that on to their customers.

PenultimateHop:
Of course, you also must wonder how all the other residential ISPs (Vodafone, Orcon, etc) manage to receive all this data into their residential networks without needing their content provider partner networks to interconnect at 29 locations - especially as they often have the cost of getting across their 3rd party DSL access network to consider.


I'm not certain, but don't they choose a handover location for the DSL service they buy from TNZ Wholesale, which whilst burdening them with a transit cost element (fixed step-charge I think), also allows them to centralise their interconnects?
As an aside, does the MPOI connectivity FX networks have signed up for give them access to all TNZ Wholesale and Retail customers at those points?

281 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8


  Reply # 321386 21-Apr-2010 17:06
Send private message

Zeon: OK so the conclusion that I draw is that since Telecom provides hardly any content (majority from say ICONZ, Maxnet and maybe Orcon) - they are effectively trying to get the content provider to pay the backhaul to get the content to the region where Telecom's customers are. Telecom then don't have to pay the backhaul but can then charge the customer for a cost that the content provider is bearing.


Since (Host) provides hardly any eyeballs (majority from say Telecom, Testraclear and maybe Orcon) - they are effectively trying to get the Residential ISP to pay the backhaul to get the content to the region where their Content providers customers are. (Host) then don't have to pay the backhaul but can then charge the Content Provider for a cost that the Residential ISP is bearing.


Now let's say I was a big Auckland data center with kickass HD content which everybody wanted. I would have to either pay to install my own network to 29 peering points just to access Telecom's customers OR I would have to pay Telecom the cost of backhauling to their customers. I could provide a service to Telecom's Auckland customers though.


You need to disassociate the HD Content in the data center with the Data center connectivity, whoever the data center are paying for network access are responsible for getting to those 29 peering points in your example if you want to offer the best access to that HD content. Of course they could choose to go to the biggest 10 interconnects and save network build/transit costs themselves, but then pay a step charge to the other 19 regions to have Telecom carry that traffic for them, so the host needs to do their maths on what makes the most sense based on how much they are charging the owner of that HD content and the level of service that they want to offer.


So at the end of the day, it's the same old double dipping by Telecom/Telstra.


Well, I get the feeling that was your opinion before any of this, so it's unlikely to change :)



At least Telecom could give customers unlimited free data if it travels through their local "Telecom peering point".


This we can agree on, I think all NZ ISP's should be able to offer free national traffic to their customers and that would be a huge driver in encouraging new e-businesses to grow onshore, much more so than FTTH. It would however, mean that all parties involved (hosts and ISP's) would need to pay their fair share of the transit costs.

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

  Reply # 321389 21-Apr-2010 17:14
Send private message

Cymro: Since (Host) provides hardly any eyeballs (majority from say Telecom, Testraclear and maybe Orcon) - they are effectively trying to get the Residential ISP to pay the backhaul to get the content to the region where their Content providers customers are. (Host) then don't have to pay the backhaul but can then charge the Content Provider for a cost that the Residential ISP is bearing.

Equally the content provider (or "content host") should charge the residential ISP for their costs in operating the datacentre(s)?

Cymro: This we can agree on, I think all NZ ISP's should be able to offer free national traffic to their customers and that would be a huge driver in encouraging new e-businesses to grow onshore, much more so than FTTH. It would however, mean that all parties involved (hosts and ISP's) would need to pay their fair share of the transit costs.

Their "fair share" of the costs is quite simple: build to the IXP(s), peer.  Pay your own network costs to get to the IXP.  Bill your customers, keep the revenue.

The Internet has worked quite happily this way for 20 odd years since the first NAPs were introduced, I am not at all sure why New Zealand feels it has to do it differently.

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

  Reply # 321393 21-Apr-2010 17:18
Send private message

Cymro: And likewise, the Content Provider has paid their host network to deliver bits to other networks, it all comes down to cost vs. service for both the host and the ISP, both should be equally burdened with the true cost of the service and pass that on to their customers.

And the "host network" is doing so; except the most efficient path is at this stage rarely the most cost effective path.  It is often much cheaper to dump the traffic via the USA than it is to send it via domestic interconnects, which says that there is a severe mismatch for the business model of the domestic interconnection product.

Curiously this problem doesn't seem to occur where all providers peer on an equal footing at IXPs.

Cymro: I'm not certain, but don't they choose a handover location for the DSL service they buy from TNZ Wholesale, which whilst burdening them with a transit cost element (fixed step-charge I think), also allows them to centralise their interconnects?

Yes, retailers purchasing from TNZ Wholesale (which is not the only DSL wholesaler in NZ) can specify their interconnect locations and pay a backhaul transport charge to get to their customers not located in that "step".

Cymro: As an aside, does the MPOI connectivity FX networks have signed up for give them access to all TNZ Wholesale and Retail customers at those points?
From what I have read and heard it gives access only to Retail.

8027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 387

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 321405 21-Apr-2010 18:18
Send private message

Will be interesting to see how peering will work for the regional fibre co's / crown fibre.

2278 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 370

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 321507 22-Apr-2010 00:47
Send private message

Zeon: OK so the conclusion that I draw is that since Telecom provides hardly any content (majority from say ICONZ, Maxnet and maybe Orcon) - they are effectively trying to get the content provider to pay the backhaul to get the content to the region where Telecom's customers are. Telecom then don't have to pay the backhaul but can then charge the customer for a cost that the content provider is bearing.

Now let's say I was a big Auckland data center with kickass HD content which everybody wanted. I would have to either pay to install my own network to 29 peering points just to access Telecom's customers OR I would have to pay Telecom the cost of backhauling to their customers. I could provide a service to Telecom's Auckland customers though.

So at the end of the day, it's the same old double dipping by Telecom/Telstra.

Now let's say that the Auckland data center also had a pipe to wellington which (they would already have one for a WIX connection which is pretty normal). What they would then do is say we can offer our service to a customer of any ISP except no Telstra and Telecom customers only in Auckland or Wellington.

Basically Telecom is abusing it's duoply position by forcing the content providers to pay its costs. The content providers have no choice but to accept this as since Telecom has such a large market share they can't afford to stop access to Telecom customers.



Pretty much, ISPs have already payed for the data, no reason to completly charge again for the same data.

ISPs pay say Telecom for DSL ports, then they pay for Interconnection fees for UBA, EUBA/HSNS, pay for backhaul fees to get data across the country, then possibly pay again for a layer 2 service to get it to the ISP's physical location, and again for National and International transit.

So the same data is charged for multiple times even before the costs to the content providers are factored in, which probably has some baring on why colocation costs in NZ are far greater than overseas.

61 posts

Master Geek

Subscriber

  Reply # 322668 25-Apr-2010 14:55
Send private message

this "peering" is not really a peering in the same sense the rest of the planet uses it for. the whole model in nz is so screwed.

what i know about it it's a telecom service they sell.

true peering is over an exchange managed by neutral party; most typically even a not-for-profit organization where each peerer (sp?) is represented.

and operators only exchange the traffic of their customers, you can not get transit over it. well, at least not over the public LAN; some exchanges offer also private circuits.

telecom's claim someone would use it for getting free backhaul is just smokescreen to uphold the protectionism of bandwidth. it'd also the telecom nz's best interest to get their customers an access to a content offered by a 3rd party. what tnz wants is that content is in their network, forced to be a customer.

the model where national traffic really is exchanged for free works in pretty much ANY OTHER COUNTRY on PLANET EARTH, why it would not work here too? and in a country so small as nz you really need 2-3 exchanges, unless you go for the Swedish model where exchanges are placed in every second village; that's a nightmare really; and until the broadband here is in the speed it is in sweden it's just an overkill of an overkill.

say, exchanges in Dunedin, Wellington and Auckland, possibly also in CH. requirement that anyone peering needs to be present in at least 2 (or all), and has 2 independent international uplinks (model used in FICIX) makes sure not every "in my garage" company gets the free meal. telecom and other fiber providers would still get money, because people would need to by physical fibers to the exchange. or just AK and WLG or CH, 2 exchanges.) note i also mean the exchanges themselves are not connected on the switching fabric.

telecom already pretty much has a monopole on the international capacity here, why are they allowed to have same for national capacity i just do not understand. the regulator here is not up to the task at all; all this keeps the internet in nz expensive for the consumers to the unforeseeable future. and not just expensive, but technologically nz falls behind the rest of the planet every day, further and further.



3404 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 399

Trusted

  Reply # 323778 27-Apr-2010 17:18
Send private message

With the national fibre rollout, and the cheaper prices of getting data from the ISP to the user will mean that local content will probably spring up whether Telecom openly peer or not. If they don't, Telecom will just end up paying to use an international mirror instead. It's all about removing market power from them which they use to screw up the content hosting market in NZ.





3224 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 624

Trusted

  Reply # 323844 27-Apr-2010 19:39
Send private message

  and has 2 independent international uplinks (model used in FICIX) makes sure not every "in my garage" company gets the free meal. telecom and other fiber providers would still get money, because people would need to by physical fibers to the exchange. or just AK and WLG or CH, 2 exchanges.) note i also mean the exchanges themselves are not connected on the switching fabric.



Why would smaller 'garage' companies be barred?
I am pretty sure a number of smaller companies are connected to the WIX who also connect through a standard ISP.

Whe whole idea of peering at exchanges is to stop traffic going places where it doesnt need to. If a company has alot of national traffic they should be allowed to connect at any peering exchange they can get a connection to.




Ray Taylor
Taylor Broadband (rural hawkes bay)
www.ruralkiwi.com

There is no place like localhost
For my general guide to extending your wireless network Click Here




6269 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1061

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 324138 28-Apr-2010 12:29
Send private message
61 posts

Master Geek

Subscriber

  Reply # 324456 28-Apr-2010 23:00
Send private message

raytaylor: Why would smaller 'garage' companies be barred?


that's not what i said.

in a true meaning of peering the traffic is exchanged because it's beneficial for each party to do so. one directional leeching does not benefit both parties even if it's just relatively local content that is leeched, and that's one reason why some operators are so much against it. but if you're a garage content provider surely it's a different story unless the other party is bandwidth protectionistic telco.

1 | 2 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.