Our recipe for better broadband

Forums › 2degrees (including Slingshot, Orcon, Flip, Stuff Fibre, MyRepublic, 2talk and Vocus) › Our recipe for better broadband

1 | 2 | 3

jfnz

211 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#191613 23-Jan-2009 16:26

w2krules: And gamers, according to the SCC website their cable is not responsible for much of the latency to the US : It takes only seven hundredths of a second for information to go from Australia to the US on the Southern Cross Network.

PenultimateHop:
Which is 70msec, and since generally you need a response packet back, that makes a round trip time of 140msec on the transmission network, excluding routing/switching delays, backhaul to/from the network, and any other transmission requirements (e.g. if you're in Melbourne and the game server is in Chicago, the Sydney-LA delay is only part of the equation).

So yes, their network does make up a significant component of the latency between Australia (and NZ) and the US, but there isn't much they can do about it until someone figures out how to increase the speed of light in fiber.

Please note: Any posts, comments, or contributions in this forum are posted by me as an individual acting in my own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of any company I work for, clients I've consulted for, or anyone else.

w2krules

492 posts

Ultimate Geek

#191641 23-Jan-2009 18:53

PenultimateHop:
w2krules: And gamers, according to the SCC website their cable is not responsible for much of the latency to the US : It takes only seven hundredths of a second for information to go from Australia to the US on the Southern Cross Network.

Which is 70msec, and since generally you need a response packet back, that makes a round trip time of 140msec on the transmission network, excluding routing/switching delays, backhaul to/from the network, and any other transmission requirements (e.g. if you're in Melbourne and the game server is in Chicago, the Sydney-LA delay is only part of the equation).

So yes, their network does make up a significant component of the latency between Australia (and NZ) and the US, but there isn't much they can do about it until someone figures out how to increase the speed of light in fiber.

The point I was trying to make is that actual transit time in the cable is 70 ms of the total latency in one direction. I get the impression that most gamers on Orcon would be very happy with 140 ms latency!

I was a geek before the word was invented!

honem

194 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#191664 23-Jan-2009 21:16

w2krules:
The point I was trying to make is that actual transit time in the cable is 70 ms of the total latency in one direction. I get the impression that most gamers on Orcon would be very happy with 140 ms latency!

I know I would....
*has a orgasmic daydream of having 140 ms latency*
Don't disturb me it's my happy time !

==================================
- Hone , Often accused of Excess Verbosity
==================================

cr250bromo

222 posts

Master Geek

#191677 23-Jan-2009 21:54

w2krules: Yes, they do have a monopoly, but how is it that Telecom and Telstra can provide adequate international bandwidth when Orcon can't?

My guess is this is due to Telecom and Telstra being much larger than Orcon and having greater economies of scale, bigger volume discounts so costs are lower per user and so on. More mum and dad users checking their emails rather than leechers. Plus more business/corporate customers who may not be using their capacity in residential peak times...

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#191685 23-Jan-2009 22:35

PenultimateHop:
The quote 'champagne taste, beer budget' comes to my mind. You have received cheaper and faster broadband over the last few years (when I lived in Wellington, I paid circa $100/month for 2Mbps/192K DSL with a 10GB cap, by the time I had included the cost of the POTS line I never used - I moved out of Wellington at the end of 2006). Getting 3Mbps for $120-ish sounds quite reasonable, as I would bet that is with a much larger data cap too.

Oh, it does, does it? Personally, I disagree completely with your quote, which when put into international context is a joke. Our residential connections go up to... 20Mbps (on TelstraClear Cable, and ONLY in Christchurch) - damn I'd love that. By contrast, the fastest I can find at short notice in the USA is about 50Mbps (on Verizon FIOS). For bonus points, the Verizon FIOS and TelstraClear cable cost roughly the same thing. For half the speed. And Verizon doesn't limit the bandwidth you're allowed to use (*fair use policy applies). How can you still be defending our lazy ISPs who, with the exception of TelstraClear (in four cities only!) aren't even bothering to get off their chuff and even talk about next generation broadband? ADSL2+? Come on, who else in the world still uses that! If we're intending to move further up the OECD, that aint gonna happen any time soon.

NzKaizer

130 posts

Master Geek

#191890 24-Jan-2009 23:54

I'd love to agree with you more and I mean, you do make some decent points but the markets are diffrent. Yes we are lacking behind in other OECD countries, but how many countries better than us have a population of 4 million people or less with a very low broadband adoption rate by world standards. The fact is until technology becomes dirt cheap aka old technolgy NZ will never get ahead unless someone litteratly decides to waste money on infastructure. There is simply not enough revenue rolling around from broadband users to fund vast great networks.

Onto my next point. We are living on a small set of islands litteratly in the middle of nowhere. We are far away from any significant continents and generally the rest of the world. Of course this means that 95% of broadband data used in NZ is for overseas data, and naturally overseas data costs A LOT. ISP's will never be able to offer no data caps in New Zealand on all their plans until the infastructure is upgraded to a point where data costs for overseas data go ahead down many fold. Countries like the USA can offer no data caps because they know 90% of their users will use 99% of their data on LOCAL (USA,CANADA,MEXICO etc same continent data)

My 3rd point which is where I could agree with you some what. However I do believe that since national data is MUCH cheaper than international I do believe national data in NZ should be free at least on ISP's "top" plans like Orcon's $120 plan etc..

As you can see, it's not quite possible at the current situation and state for NZ to offer free data completly and improving our broadband speeds won't happen drasticly either at least compared to international standards. However I do believe ISP's could offer free national data on "some" of their plans

w2krules

492 posts

Ultimate Geek

#191911 25-Jan-2009 08:15

Not that long ago some ISPs charged national and international data at different rates. I suspect the problem now is it's difficult to know exactly where the data comes from when someone downloads from a website. (Akamai servers, etc.)

I suspect that there's no simple solution to this. But some ISPs are obviously using very blunt tools to control international traffic, and all they're doing is screwing the average customer. I can download Torrents at 500+ kB/s, yet downloading a single file from a website can be as slow as 25 kB/s. And it is so obviously being shaped - exactly 24.8 kB/s throughout the download.

I was a geek before the word was invented!

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Ilmarin

94 posts

Master Geek

#191988 25-Jan-2009 16:55

I would like to see free or low-cost national data make a comeback. I understand that differentiation isn't easy, or 100% reliable, but I suspect it's largely due to laziness that ISPs have pretty much abandoned it. Now that the unbundling catfight is winding down somewhat, ISPs like Orcon should be looking at how they can allow their customers to get more value for their money, and thus differentiate themselves from the competition in a very distinct way (as compared to speed, which is an unreliable and mercurial differentiator). Charging me $10 for downloading 5 GB of data from a server that could be just down the road (or even a thousand km away) is nothing less than extortion. Ihug used to charge 1/10th the cost of international data, so I doubt very much that it costs Orcon more than a $1 (and probably a lot less than that) for 5 GB of local traffic.

The side effect of charging the same rate for all traffic is that there is little or no incentive to localise content, or even create local content from scratch. Why would I want to host anything for the benefit of my compatriots if I was being charged $2/GB of traffic to do so? God forbid we should actually make use of all that next-gen national infrastructure that Telecom has been putting in place. The alternative is to make the link to North America less of an issue by laying more cables and creating competition at the physical transport layer, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

I would also like Orcon to consider making international data less expensive for moderate to heavy users, by giving them the option of shifting their data in off-peak periods. Consumers will continue to shift more and more data as time goes on... and if Orcon's only answer to this is to buy more international bandwidth, then they can expect their profit margins and subscriber count to decrease. Slingshot and Xnet don't exactly have the best QoS right now compared to Orcon, but for users who use more than 40 GB a month, they are a far more economical option. Orcon has the opportunity to smooth traffic out (somewhat) over the 24 hour period and create a win-win situation. If they don't, I fear we're just going to see recurrences of the peak congestion problems that Orcon customers were plagued by in early to mid 2008, with reactive solutions like buying more bandwidth instead of proactive solutions like better traffic management.

jermsie

302 posts

Ultimate Geek

#191994 25-Jan-2009 17:53

Ilmarin: I would like to see free or low-cost national data make a comeback. I understand that differentiation isn't easy, or 100% reliable, but I suspect it's largely due to laziness that ISPs have pretty much abandoned it. Now that the unbundling catfight is winding down somewhat, ISPs like Orcon should be looking at how they can allow their customers to get more value for their money, and thus differentiate themselves from the competition in a very distinct way (as compared to speed, which is an unreliable and mercurial differentiator). Charging me $10 for downloading 5 GB of data from a server that could be just down the road (or even a thousand km away) is nothing less than extortion. Ihug used to charge 1/10th the cost of international data, so I doubt very much that it costs Orcon more than a $1 (and probably a lot less than that) for 5 GB of local traffic.

That's a sticky issue. The key is for all major NZ ISPs to peer at dedicated peering exchanges. TelstraClear don't and nor do Telecom. Neither parties are interested in peering either.

– J

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#191996 25-Jan-2009 18:32

Something like 10% of Telecom's revenue was from interconnection last year so I doubt they will be peering unless they have to

1 | 2 | 3