Remote backup services
On Demand Pay TV, Movies, Music (like IPTV)
Regarding free national peering, we already have APE and WIX but both Telecom and Telstra decided to de-peer a few years ago now.
Ragnor: I can think of two legitimate and viable uses of heavy local traffic straight away, there's probably many more:
Remote backup services
On Demand Pay TV, Movies, Music (like IPTV)
nate: I don't think national traffic should be free, as with anything if it's free it will be abused.
nate: I don't think national traffic should be free, as with anything if it's free it will be abused.? The flipside of this is an ISP's billing engine may not be setup to count traffic differently so there will be costs involved in installing hardware/software to count traffic differently.
National traffic also does cost to backhaul around the country.? Kordia don't give ISPs free bandwidth, so if national was free, more capacity would be needed, so ISPs would require a larger pipe down the country.? With ADSL margins already very, very slim, this overhead has to be covered somewhere else.
Maybe a smarter solution would be that content providers such as TVNZ, Sky, et al peer directly at a peering exchange (such as the APE), then ISPs can pass data directly between them, and zero rate this.
Last query, for the normal ADSL user, who would use copious amounts of national bandwidth anyway?
Screeb:nate: I don't think national traffic should be free, as with anything if it's free it will be abused.
Like I asked of coffeebaron, how is that different to other countries? How do THEY handle this "abuse"? Why is NZ any different? Other countries are doing just fine with unlimited national (and international for that matter) traffic.
Chorus has spent $1.4 billion on making their xDSL broadband network faster and even more now as they are upgrading their rural Conklins. If your still stuck on ADSL or VDSL, why not spend $195 on a master filter install to make sure you are getting the most out of your connection?
I install - Naked DSL, DSL Master Splitters, VoIP, data cabling and general computer support for home and small business.
Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com
Unfortunately it is not absurd, and is exactly what happened in the previous days of unmetered NZ traffic that some ISP's had. One of the main culprits was DC Hubs, shifting up into the Terabytes of data per month.coffeebaron:
Try signing up for a guaranteed 80GB of traffic per month = $165 on a 256Kbps UNS connection. OK, so this is a commercial hi grade service, but how much would it cost to do the same for residential? ISP's work on very slim margins, you would need a reasonable price hike to make anything near unmetered national data a reality.
This was all fine a few years a go when 5GB per month was a huge amount of data, but not so now.
But how is that different to other countries? How do THEY handle this "abuse"? Why is NZ any different?
cokemaster:Screeb: Other countries are doing just fine with unlimited national (and international for that matter) traffic.
As cokemaster points out, they aren't managing, and more and more we are hearing of these overseas ISPs beginning to put restrictions on data usage.
Because we in NZ are on a much smaller scale, there just isn't the same economics of scale at play.
There are also more choices overseas, e.g. UK or USA have several fixed line players including a large cable TV network. We only have Telecom, plus a bit of Telstra cable in Wellington / Christchurch.
We don't have big apartment blocks: what do you think the economies of scale are for feeding a bit of fibre backhaul into a few massive apartment blocks, Vs a whole suburb with the same population?
I definitely think there is a lot more that can be done, but at the same time the grass is not as green as some people think on the other side.
Screeb:cokemaster:Screeb: Other countries are doing just fine with unlimited national (and international for that matter) traffic.
Great understanding of the issues there! The reason they're doing that isn't that the network can't handle it, but because Time Warner and Comcast are protecting their cable TV business revenues by making it impossible for users to download movies and TV shows instead of watching TV. Non-cable companies like Verizon have promised that they will never do throttling or capping. In fact a bill has been introduced to the US government to ensure plans aren't capped/throttled.
The US isn't the only other country in the world.
Screeb:Because we in NZ are on a much smaller scale, there just isn't the same economics of scale at play.
On a much smaller scale? The total population of a country has nothing to do with the viability of uncapped national traffic, and neither does population density for that matter.
Screeb:There are also more choices overseas, e.g. UK or USA have several fixed line players including a large cable TV network. We only have Telecom, plus a bit of Telstra cable in Wellington / Christchurch.
Well yes, of course, competition = better deals. If we had more competition we would already have unlimited national traffic. No one is politely asking Telecom to kindly give us free national.
Screeb:I definitely think there is a lot more that can be done, but at the same time the grass is not as green as some people think on the other side.
No, the grass is infact greener than some think. Don't look at the US's relatively (compared to Europe and Asia) poor broadband situation and conclude it's the best in the world.
PenultimateHop: There is so much misinformation in this thread, I will try to clear some of it up over a few posts as I have time.
I'll start with this one.
Three (well, two and a half) reasons:
1. Subscriber density. Many of the operators in other countries have subscriber bases which equal the population base of New Zealand. It's not unusual to see 'mid size' ISPs with 1-2 million subscribers. In New Zealand there's only one ISP which even comes close to that.
Even in Australia, a small DSL ISP might have 200K customers. A small DSL ISP in New Zealand is likely to have less than 20K.
When you have subscriber density in these numbers, economies of scale come into play. 10% of the subscribers still use 90% of the resources, but you have a huge amount more income to work with, allowing you to afford those 10% of subscribers. Even then it can still be tough for an ISP to actually make money. When your subscriber base does not give you massive income that is required to service those customers, you just don't have the flexibility in your business to allow unlimited downloads.
2. Competition. In all of: access loops to the home, wholesale DSL networks, and wholesale IP transit. In many countries with bigger populations, it is cheaper to buy transit than it is to peer. This is certainly the case in the USA and in lots of European countries. If you can buy 10Gbps of transit to anywhere for $4000 per month, then obviously it gives you a lot of options for your subscribers vs. paying $200/Mbit!
NZ does not have this competition, and does not (yet) have the bandwidth demand to provide it. Additional trans-Oceanic cables might help, I suspect an increase in bandwidth demand is more likely to provide the stimulus to reduce costs and introduce more IP wholesale competitors. There are various plateaus that are reached in order to bring costs down, and so far nobody is running circuits bigger than STM-16 into New Zealand. Breaking that plateau will help to reduce the wholesale costs to ISPs.
Of course, international transit bandwidth is only one component of an ISPs costs (although it is usually their second largest, after staff).
3. No distinguisher between peering, offshore, and onshore. Many countries just don't distinguish because they are either:
a. Sitting in a strategic location for interconnection (e.g. Singapore, USA)
b. Not on the very far end of a piece of wet string (e.g. Anywhere in Europe)
c. Are seen as the centre of the Internet (USA!)
d. Have a significant population with particular language requirements, which means the majority of their traffic is sourced locally (e.g. China, Korea, Japan, some European nations...)
e. Are in a highly competitive, developed, wholesale market where there is often a financial disincentive to peer vs. buy transit (USA, parts of Europe).
It is definitely also worth pointing out that there are significant infrastructure and wholesale costs in offering free domestic bandwidth, such as:
1. Increase in wholesale costs from your wholesale operator (e.g. TNZ). Their network is not dimensioned to sustain significant volumes of traffic over the subscriber loop, although this is definitely improving. However this is a significant stranglehold until alternatives become available for backhaul services, and TNZ deciding to alter their models.
2. Network investment at the ISP. This will include more or bigger BRAS - this is a significant investment in the millions of dollars. Additionally the ISP may now need to upgrade their core infrastructure and their switching infrastructure, as well as their accounting/metering infrastructure and all their support systems. This could be anywhere from $0.5M to $10M depending on the size of ISP, their support systems, and their vendor selection.
3. Assumes that there is actual content and business to drive this investment. At the moment there really isn't, but this is a usual circular chicken-and-egg debate.
As a final note, it's worth understanding that many of these "overseas operators who provide unlimited broadband services" oversubscribe and traffic manage their networks absolutely ferociously. I have unlimited 100Mbps HFC service at my home costing me NZD$130 per month, and I am lucky if I get beyond 2-4Mbps on anything - the highest I have ever seen was 40Mbps to a local speedtest server, and about 16Mbps from Akamai for AppleTV content. Additionally it is DPI'd (at every CMTS!), aggregate traffic shaped, per subscriber traffic shaped (punitively based on subscriber profile), and transparent proxied and content filtered (badly). This makes the overall performance frankly suck. I had better experiences in Australia and New Zealand - at least I had a much better chance of hitting my PIR.
Actually, a lot of operators in the US and even Europe are looking at metering as a way of controlling their network investment - by reducing the number of expensive-to-serve users. This includes non-MSOs who don't have a TV offering, so it is not necessarily related to that.
I beg to differ. My job entails network architecture for carriers and ISPs, and I have worked in many countries around the world. The total population, subscriber population, and population density absolutely have a huge amount to do with the viability of the network for reasons I outlined previously. They are not the only components to the equation (retail competition is obviously a big one), but they do have a significant impact to it.
The grass is not always greener. As I've mentioned, I've lived and worked in a lot of countries and can categorically tell you that there are the same discussions and debates going on everywhere.