Discussion:
Phew looks like we were lucky
(too old to reply)
Dean Pemberton
2002-02-24 21:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Wow, I just read this really interesting article in Infotech this
morning.

It was written by this internet expert, and he was saying that a bunch
of 'techies' came really close to breaking the New Zealand internet.

That it might have impacted my ability to dial up.

He also suggests that the government might like to step in and take
over.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,1112116a1983,FF.html

It must be true if it got printed.


Dean (I thought sarcastic irony was better than a venomous attack on
this occasion)

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Andy Gardner
2002-02-24 22:21:28 UTC
Permalink
At 10:23 AM +1300 2/25/02, Dean Pemberton wrote:
>Wow, I just read this really interesting article in Infotech this
>morning.
>
>It was written by this internet expert, and he was saying that a bunch
>of 'techies' came really close to breaking the New Zealand internet.

>Domainz has some large cash reserves and you could vote yourself
>some hefty honoraria or directors fees and all sorts of other perks.

Pot, kettle and all that.

Maybe stuff.co,.nz should to a little essay into who exactly organised
PoB's >$100,000 salary?

Exactly which idiot editor let that article be published without checking
the facts?


--
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Andy Linton
2002-02-25 00:10:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Dean Pemberton wrote:

> Dean (I thought sarcastic irony was better than a venomous attack on
> this occasion)

I'm happy to agree with Dean on this one for the most part. I'm not happy
with Jim Higgins' assessment of the history - his view of events differs
from mine but let's look at his conclusions/recommendations.

Jim Higgins wrote:


> Should the very large number of New Zealand businesses who rely on the
> Net for their existence be fearful?
>
> Yes, they should!

I'd have to say that I'm not sure there are a "very large number" of these
businesses and I don't like this fear uncertainty and doubt. So that's one
we disagree on.

>
> Should the operation of a utility so essential to New Zealand's
> economy be left in the hands of people who don't appear to be capable
> of running it sensibly?
>
> No, it shouldn't!

I'll have to confess that this came as a surprise to me but here I agree
with Jim. InternetNZ is open to capture and Domainz is a cash cow - it's
making huge profits which are being used to fund non DNS activities for
InternetNZ.

> It is time that the New Zealand Government took over policy management
> of the .nz domain, as so many other "aware" governments are doing. The
> risk is too great to leave it where it is!

And again I agree with Jim - so two out of three isn't a bad hit rate.

Having the nz namespace administered by our elected representatives and
not by a group of twenty elected by an electorate of less than 200 is
something I'd like to see.

It might just get other things on the agenda. We seem happy to spend large
amounts of money on roads, airlines but not on Internet infraststructure -
where's the support for Internet2.

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Andy Linton wrote:

> where's the support for Internet2.

Who needs Internet2?

--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-25 03:12:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:53:06PM +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Andy Linton wrote:
>
> > where's the support for Internet2.
>
> Who needs Internet2?

In case that one disappeared in the general Juha troll filter, I'd
like to hear a good answer to that question, too. The basis of
Internet2 seems to be that it is possible to build a higher-
performing and generally more advanced infrastructure when there are
no ROI or market considerations to worry about.

Having looked inside the networks of some large commercial operators,
I am interested in what further fraction of the bleeding edge the
Internet2 folk think they can bring to the table.


Joe
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Stephen Donnelly
2002-02-25 03:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Joe Abley wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:53:06PM +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote
>>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Andy Linton wrote
>>> where's the support for Internet2.
>>>
>>Who needs Internet2?
>>
>
> In case that one disappeared in the general Juha troll filter, I'd
> like to hear a good answer to that question, too. The basis of
> Internet2 seems to be that it is possible to build a higher-
> performing and generally more advanced infrastructure when there are
> no ROI or market considerations to worry about.
>
> Having looked inside the networks of some large commercial operators,
> I am interested in what further fraction of the bleeding edge the
> Internet2 folk think they can bring to the table.

If your question Joe is 'what is the justification for internet2?', then I'd say
there seems to be at least two commonly cited ones.

One is the use in current large applications such as 'grid' computing, a la DTF.
Connecting super computer centres may consume a lot of bandwidth. Climate
models, particle physics results etc.

The other one is that the internet2 is supposed to spurr new application
development, showing what *can* be done with huge amounts of bandwidth when it's
available at low cost. One of the more PR friendly applications would probably
be the 'virtual teleconferencing' systems, where 3d models are transmitted along
with the video, allowing participants to be rendered in 3d at each end. (Enables
you to make direct eye contact, surprisingly important.)

So in short, the internet2 initiatives aren't so much about networking anymore,
as applications. On the other hand, the vBNS has native multi-cast, Abilene
supports IPv6, and CA-net3 is intended to be 'all optical'; they're developing
OBGP for instance.

If your question was something else, then I'll get blasted for being OT.

Stephen.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Donnelly (BCMS) email: ***@endace.com
Endace Measurement Systems phone: +64 7 858 5224
Hamilton, New Zealand room: UoW RSC RS1.07
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Stephen Donnelly wrote:

> The other one is that the internet2 is supposed to spurr new application
> development, showing what *can* be done with huge amounts of bandwidth when it's
> available at low cost.

Ahh... so it won't ever happen in NZ then.

--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Andy Linton
2002-02-25 03:59:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:53:06PM +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Andy Linton wrote:
> >
> > > where's the support for Internet2.
> >
> > Who needs Internet2?
>
> In case that one disappeared in the general Juha troll filter, I'd
> like to hear a good answer to that question, too. The basis of
> Internet2 seems to be that it is possible to build a higher-
> performing and generally more advanced infrastructure when there are
> no ROI or market considerations to worry about.

I wasn't thinking of the technical considerations so much as the
commercial/political ones. The telcos in NZ seem unlikely to make high
bandwidth available unless someone pays (if I'm wrong on this my apologies
to those benevolent souls out there). The government's agreement to 9.6k
guarantees in the Kiwi share with Telecom NZ seems to me very strong
evidence that a number of people don't understand the problem.

So for "Internet2" research institutions need some help from government in
terms of either dollars or political leverage on the telcos to make
bandwidth available so that researchers in NZ can start to use/develop the
applications that will use the more advanced infastructure.

I'd suggest it's pretty hard for those sort of research people at NZ
universities etc to take part in discussions with their peers in other
parts of the world when they can only do so on a theoretical basis.

My impression is that there's less network based research going on in NZ
universities than say their Australian counterparts because of lack of
government support over a protracted period in the late 80s and 90s. The
NZ Internet happened to be built in spite of government lack of interest
at that time - that's not a reason to not support new developments now.



-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-25 04:10:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, February 24, 2002, at 10:37 , Stephen Donnelly wrote:

>If your question Joe is 'what is the justification for internet2?',
>then I'd say there seems to be at least two commonly cited ones.
>
>One is the use in current large applications such as 'grid' computing,
>a la DTF. Connecting super computer centres may consume a lot of
>bandwidth. Climate models, particle physics results etc.

How much bandwidth is "a lot of bandwidth"? I see commercial providers
with multiple parallel STM-64s plumbed directly into routers either
sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are struggling to attract
customers to even remotely fill the pipes. The situation in the metro
and long-haul intracontinental networks is even more fibre-rich. I don't
see a need to build another internet here -- I see a need to start using
the existing one :)

>The other one is that the internet2 is supposed to spurr new
>application development, showing what *can* be done with huge amounts
>of bandwidth when it's available at low cost. One of the more PR
>friendly applications would probably be the 'virtual teleconferencing'
>systems, where 3d models are transmitted along with the video, allowing
>participants to be rendered in 3d at each end. (Enables you to make
>direct eye contact, surprisingly important.)

This is the same answer as the one above, really -- "in order to obtain
more bandwidth".

>So in short, the internet2 initiatives aren't so much about networking
>anymore, as applications. On the other hand, the vBNS has native
>multi-cast, Abilene supports IPv6, and CA-net3 is intended to be 'all
>optical'; they're developing OBGP for instance.

Applications belong at the edge; the core network is necessarily stupid.

>If your question was something else, then I'll get blasted for being OT.

No, that was my question, and that's the answer I'm used to hearing. I
still don't understand it, though.


Joe
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Roger De Salis
2002-02-25 06:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
> How much bandwidth is "a lot of bandwidth"?

For a technically savvy domestic consumer, wishing to run a couple
of web-sites, and a new world business opportunity.

3-10mb, latency <5ms

For any reasonable commercial entity doing increasing amounts
of business electronically 10-100Mb. <1ms

Net operators and large on-line corporations n x 1000Mb/sec

> I see commercial providers
> with multiple parallel STM-64s plumbed directly into routers
> either sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are struggling
> to attract customers to even remotely fill the pipes.

Only because the price is wrong. Customers want price-certainty.

Bluntly, they will pay a 50-100% premium over their existing
marvellous telco charges for 10x the bandwidth and "all-you-can-eat".

No one either commercially or domestically will buy into the
"Jet-stream" charging model. You have to laugh at the recent
gov-fest where EVERY rural broadband group showed market take
up at >80%, except the best giggle was the Telecom exercise with
the Otago Trust, where the market take up for broadband was "3%",
helped by the marvellous Jetstream pricing model (no discounts
available).

> The situation in the metro and long-haul intracontinental
> networks is even more fibre-rich. I don't see a need to build
> another internet here -- I see a need to start using the existing
> one :)

But I don't like the price of your existing one. As you correctly
say, there is ton of un-used fibre sitting there. In the local
market (NZ, not Toronto), D-Link are offering Gigabit NIC cards for
NZ$95. Price of GBic and low cost switches are falling steadily.
New interesting devices with fibre are appearing all the time.

I want a fibre to my house, and a fixed price, all-I-can-eat service.
(Voice and data)

Pretty simple really. This is a not a service that is currently
offered, but it doesn't mean people don't want it.

Internet 2 and the rural activities are part of "the current charging
model doesn't stack up"...

Heiniously off-topic and 2c worth.

/R
>
> >The other one is that the internet2 is supposed to spurr new
> >application development, showing what *can* be done with huge amounts
> >of bandwidth when it's available at low cost. One of the more PR
> >friendly applications would probably be the 'virtual teleconferencing'
> >systems, where 3d models are transmitted along with the video, allowing
> >participants to be rendered in 3d at each end. (Enables you to make
> >direct eye contact, surprisingly important.)
>
> This is the same answer as the one above, really -- "in order to obtain
> more bandwidth".
>
> >So in short, the internet2 initiatives aren't so much about networking
> >anymore, as applications. On the other hand, the vBNS has native
> >multi-cast, Abilene supports IPv6, and CA-net3 is intended to be 'all
> >optical'; they're developing OBGP for instance.
>
> Applications belong at the edge; the core network is necessarily stupid.
>
> >If your question was something else, then I'll get blasted for being OT.
>
> No, that was my question, and that's the answer I'm used to hearing. I
> still don't understand it, though.
>
> Joe
> -
> To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> where the body of your message reads:
> unsubscribe nznog

--
\_ Roger De Salis ***@cisco.com
</' Cisco Systems NZ Ltd +64 25 481 452
/) L8, ASB Tower, 2 Hunter St +64 4 496 9003
(/ Wellington, New Zealand ***@desalis.gen.nz
`
In October 2001, the 5th most important product line by value
for Cisco is - the telephone. Cisco 79x0 IP telephones.
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
J S Russell
2002-02-25 04:22:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> How much bandwidth is "a lot of bandwidth"? I see commercial providers
> with multiple parallel STM-64s plumbed directly into routers either
> sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are struggling to attract
> customers to even remotely fill the pipes.

One would think, then, that they would lower pricing until they pipes were
filled, on the assumption that any revenue is better than zero revenue.
Yet, this doesn't seem to be happening.

I, personally, can (and would) fill any amount of international bandwiwdth
given to me, 24x7. Usage is not the problem, pricing is the problem.

JSR
--
John S Russell | Smile
Chief Engineer - R&D | Nod
Attica/Callplus NZ | Build it.


-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Michael Newbery
2002-02-25 04:33:00 UTC
Permalink
At 5:22 PM +1300 25/2/02, J S Russell wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>> How much bandwidth is "a lot of bandwidth"? I see commercial providers
>> with multiple parallel STM-64s plumbed directly into routers either
>> sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are struggling to attract
>> customers to even remotely fill the pipes.
>
>One would think, then, that they would lower pricing until they pipes were
>filled, on the assumption that any revenue is better than zero revenue.
>Yet, this doesn't seem to be happening.
>
>I, personally, can (and would) fill any amount of international bandwiwdth
>given to me, 24x7. Usage is not the problem, pricing is the problem.

Do anti-dumping trade rules apply to bandwidth? If a carrier can't
sell bw unless it charges less than its amortized cost, is that
dumping?

Of course, then it goes belly up, is bought by someone else for 10
cents in the dollar, and they CAN afford to sell at that rate.
--
Michael Newbery Technical Specialist TelstraClear Limited
Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile: +64-29-939 5102 Fax: +64-4-922 8401
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Frank March
2002-02-25 04:23:50 UTC
Permalink
I think the point is not to 'fill the pipes' but to explore the options that
become available when bandwidth is not a restriction. Necessarily there is
another condition: the bandwidth has to be essentially free. Empty pipes
capably of handing bursty/intermittent/occasional traffic at very high
transfer rates will allow for completely different long distance apps than
we currently use.

Think what Mr Gates has done to use up the abundant/free cpu cycles and RAM.
Not always good/useful/desirable, but different from what we thought heavy
use of computing was 30 years ago. Time was when a typewriter took no cpu
cycles at all.

Frank March
Specialist Advisor, IT Policy Group
Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, NZ
Ph: (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax: (+64 4) 471 2658

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Abley [SMTP:***@automagic.org]
> Sent: Monday, 25 February 2002 17:10
> To: Stephen Donnelly
> Cc: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> Subject: Re: Phew looks like we were lucky
>
> On Sunday, February 24, 2002, at 10:37 , Stephen Donnelly wrote:
>
> >If your question Joe is 'what is the justification for internet2?',
> >then I'd say there seems to be at least two commonly cited ones.
> >
> >One is the use in current large applications such as 'grid' computing,
> >a la DTF. Connecting super computer centres may consume a lot of
> >bandwidth. Climate models, particle physics results etc.
>
> How much bandwidth is "a lot of bandwidth"? I see commercial providers
> with multiple parallel STM-64s plumbed directly into routers either
> sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are struggling to attract
> customers to even remotely fill the pipes. The situation in the metro
> and long-haul intracontinental networks is even more fibre-rich. I don't
> see a need to build another internet here -- I see a need to start using
> the existing one :)
>
> >The other one is that the internet2 is supposed to spurr new
> >application development, showing what *can* be done with huge amounts
> >of bandwidth when it's available at low cost. One of the more PR
> >friendly applications would probably be the 'virtual teleconferencing'
> >systems, where 3d models are transmitted along with the video, allowing
> >participants to be rendered in 3d at each end. (Enables you to make
> >direct eye contact, surprisingly important.)
>
> This is the same answer as the one above, really -- "in order to obtain
> more bandwidth".
>

Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Dean Pemberton
2002-02-25 04:30:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 15:23, Frank March wrote:
>
> Think what Mr Gates has done to use up the abundant/free cpu cycles and RAM.
> Not always good/useful/desirable, but different from what we thought heavy
> use of computing was 30 years ago. Time was when a typewriter took no cpu
> cycles at all.

True in one sense, but I would not like to see us waste huge ammounts of
bandwidth in the same proportions as Windows eats system resources.

JSR is right though. Using bandwidth is not the issue, it's the fact
that the person you are buying it off wants to charge an arm and a leg
for it.

I was able to fill my DSL pipe to the brim 24x7 when it was
unrestricted, but then my provider put a 3G a month limit on it.

I don't think we need Internet2 because I don't think that bandwidth
providers will be able to swallow the charging model for our definition
of 'High Bandwidth'.

If you don't believe me then go and ask an NZ or AUS carrier what the
price of an STM-64 is (yes it's a trick question on so many levels).


Dean

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Michael Newbery
2002-02-25 04:42:47 UTC
Permalink
At 3:30 PM +1100 25/2/02, Dean Pemberton wrote:
>If you don't believe me then go and ask an NZ or AUS carrier what the
>price of an STM-64 is (yes it's a trick question on so many levels).

Well, while the answer is right now: POA, I'd like to think it could
be price book quite soon.

Oh, you want *INTERNATIONAL* capacity? That's outside New Zealand,
right? Ah, we might have to charge you a little more.

We have the fibre, in NZ.
We have the architecture.
We have the boxes.
We don't have the STM-64 interfaces, but we COULD have---they are
just a mite pricey at the moment. They will get cheaper fairly soon.

There are some cool things that can be done with multiple Gb within
NZ, but to reach outside at that rate costs huge dollars.

Which is why *we* don't run flat-rate cable Dean, you CHSD you :-)

BTW, is Southern Cross currently specced at 10Gb? Are the optics up to it?
--
Michael Newbery Technical Specialist TelstraClear Limited
Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile: +64-29-939 5102 Fax: +64-4-922 8401
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Matthew Poole
2002-02-25 04:25:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> On Sunday, February 24, 2002, at 10:37 , Stephen Donnelly wrote:

> How much bandwidth is "a lot of bandwidth"? I see commercial providers
> with multiple parallel STM-64s plumbed directly into routers either
> sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are struggling to attract
> customers to even remotely fill the pipes. The situation in the metro
> and long-haul intracontinental networks is even more fibre-rich. I don't
> see a need to build another internet here -- I see a need to start using
> the existing one :)
>
Now, could it possibly be the horrendous charges that said providers are
attempting to make people pay? ROI is all well and good, but there's a
point at which you are charging more than people are prepared to pay, even
insanely rich people, and thusly the network remains unused and there's no
money coming in to provide a return on the investment.
If these providers want to get people using their networks, they may have
to take the position that petrol stations take when they knock 10c/L off
their prices - Namely, lots of small-profit transactions is often better
than a few large-profit ones. And lots of small-profit transactions is
definitely better than no transactions at all :P

--
Matthew Poole

"Ever wondered why cemetaries raise the cost of
burials then blame it on the cost of living?"

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-25 04:33:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, February 24, 2002, at 11:25 , Matthew Poole wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, February 24, 2002, at 10:37 , Stephen Donnelly wrote:
>
>> How much bandwidth is "a lot of bandwidth"? I see commercial providers
>> with multiple parallel STM-64s plumbed directly into routers either
>> sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are struggling to attract
>> customers to even remotely fill the pipes. The situation in the metro
>> and long-haul intracontinental networks is even more fibre-rich. I
>> don't
>> see a need to build another internet here -- I see a need to start
>> using
>> the existing one :)
>>
> Now, could it possibly be the horrendous charges that said providers are
> attempting to make people pay? ROI is all well and good, but there's a
> point at which you are charging more than people are prepared to pay,
> even
> insanely rich people, and thusly the network remains unused and there's
> no
> money coming in to provide a return on the investment.

The answer I'm starting to hear is that there are no technical
advantages to Internet2 over the existing mesh of commercial providers;
the advantages are that the bandwidth is free. This is confusing; sooner
or later someone pays for the bandwidth. Lighting up glass under the
Pacific is never going to be free. Digging up the road will never be
free. If the end-users aren't paying for the bandwidth directly, then
taxpayers are presumably funding it.

If it's really accepted that, technically, a separate network is
unnecessary, it seems like it would be a much better use of taxpayers'
money to fund connections to the existing commercial networks rather
than incurring the costs of building and operating a new network.

So, again, why internet2?


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Dean Pemberton
2002-02-25 04:53:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 15:33, Joe Abley wrote:

> If it's really accepted that, technically, a separate network is
> unnecessary, it seems like it would be a much better use of taxpayers'
> money to fund connections to the existing commercial networks rather
> than incurring the costs of building and operating a new network.
>
> So, again, why internet2?
>

Maybe - but then how long would it be before headlines like
"Taxpayer funded links used to stream high bandwidth porn"
or
"Taxpayer funded links used to pirate latest movie titles"

Atleast if they have a different name for the network then it can be
seperated from the great unwashed Internet.

Maybe there is no real need for a seperate network apart from this.


Dean


-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Andy Gardner
2002-02-25 04:51:23 UTC
Permalink
At 11:33 PM -0500 2/24/02, Joe Abley wrote:
>So, again, why internet2?

Would it route around ICANN?


--
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joerg Micheel
2002-02-25 06:09:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 11:33:54PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
> The answer I'm starting to hear is that there are no technical
> advantages to Internet2 over the existing mesh of commercial providers;
> the advantages are that the bandwidth is free. This is confusing; sooner
> or later someone pays for the bandwidth. Lighting up glass under the
> Pacific is never going to be free. Digging up the road will never be
> free. If the end-users aren't paying for the bandwidth directly, then
> taxpayers are presumably funding it.

While not too familiar with the details, the big difference is that
Internet2 is a network owned by its customers, the universities,
whereas a for-profit company would charge higher and based on utilization.
So it is not directly "for free", but for the effective cost of operating
the net. Mind you that there is quite some debate going on in the US, some
people (influential ones) think that Internet2 should declare itself
an ISP openly, primarily due to the nature of the traffic carried and
the way that people get connected.

Joerg
--
Joerg B. Micheel Email: <***@cs.waikato.ac.nz>
WAND and NLANR MOAT Email: <***@nlanr.net>
The University of Waikato, CompScience Phone: +64 7 8384794
Private Bag 3105 Fax: +64 7 8585095
Hamilton, New Zealand Plan: PMA, TINE and the DAG's
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
J S Russell
2002-02-25 04:38:39 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Feb 2002, Dean Pemberton wrote:

> If you don't believe me then go and ask an NZ or AUS carrier what the
> price of an STM-64 is (yes it's a trick question on so many levels).

Just out of interest, I have now done this. :) I await the response with
considerable anticipation.

JSR
--
John S Russell | Smile
Chief Engineer - R&D | Nod
Attica/Callplus NZ | Build it.


-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-25 04:56:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, February 24, 2002, at 11:22 , J S Russell wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>> How much bandwidth is "a lot of bandwidth"? I see commercial providers
>> with multiple parallel STM-64s plumbed directly into routers either
>> sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are struggling to attract
>> customers to even remotely fill the pipes.
>
> One would think, then, that they would lower pricing until they pipes
> were
> filled, on the assumption that any revenue is better than zero revenue.
> Yet, this doesn't seem to be happening.

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that it's easy to lower prices, but
difficult to push them back up again afterwards.

So maybe it's not "any revenue is better than zero revenue" -- maybe
it's "zero revenue this year is better than marginal revenue for the
next N years".


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, J S Russell wrote:

> Just out of interest, I have now done this. :) I await the response with
> considerable anticipation.

And unanswerable constipation, no doubt. However, JSR is entirely right:
pricing is the problem, not the usage.

I wrote a small piece about my problems with getting a reliable ADSL
service in that illustrious and erudite publication, PC World New Zealand.

I received a good amount of feedback from readers, but what surprised me
was the people who wrote in, asking if I knew who could supply them
1-2Mbps connections at rates that didn't require them to sell their
children to organ harvesters. Imagine if I had been able to earn
commission of those sales leads! [1]

Make no mistake: the demand is there, but not the willingness of providers
to meet the market.



[1] Damn this journalistic integrity thing. Arrgh! Arrgh! Arrgh!

--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Dean Pemberton
2002-02-25 05:06:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 16:00, Juha Saarinen wrote:
> Make no mistake: the demand is there, but not the willingness of providers
> to meet the market.

Thats not always the case.

It occurs to me now that my eariler post might have sounded like I
wanted all for nothing.

Thats not where I'm at.

I'm just making the point that people are not using HUGE ammounts of
bandwidth because it costs so much for them to do so.

And it does that because for the most part it costs the carriers so much
to provide it to them.

So there you have it. I don't expect it to be for free. I'm just
saying that the demand is certainly there, just that the pricepoint is
lagging behind a bit.


Dean

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Richard Naylor
2002-02-25 05:13:23 UTC
Permalink
At 05:23 p.m. 25/02/2002 +1300, Frank March wrote:
>I think the point is not to 'fill the pipes' but to explore the options that
>become available when bandwidth is not a restriction. Necessarily there is
>another condition: the bandwidth has to be essentially free. Empty pipes
>capably of handing bursty/intermittent/occasional traffic at very high
>transfer rates will allow for completely different long distance apps than
>we currently use.

In an earlier part of life, I worked on a network where the corona effect
of every nut and bolt was a worry. It was a fast network with intermittent
traffic (we had controllers watching TV to kick in gas turbines when the
ads came on). Instability blacked out entire nations, routing was tricky
and switching had to be checked 3 times before execution, cos "big things"
going bang make an aweful mess. Besides they guys doing the switching could
get killed (and did). Hair raising is a polite way of describing this work.

Now we realised that not everyone wants this sort of fast pipe in their
home. After all the 440KV towers filled most back yards with one foot, and
how many homes REALLY do need 440KV with 2000 amps behind it ? yes thats
close to a gigawatt of power.

Thinking of IP, our pipes are getting faster. Gig NICs now cost the same as
56k modems and 10gig is here, with talk of 40/100 gig starting soon. But do
you need it to your home ? Even with teenagers ?

A very decent mpeg4 stream is going to take 700kbps, phones take 7 to
11kbps, so even with teenagers in teh average house with multiple phones
each and watching several "channels" simultaneously, you can fit it in a
100mbps line. ie we have the technology already, just as we have 230V to
homes and are satisfied. People who run 3 phase arc welders, and get JSRs
big videos of course, get different pipes, but pay for it.

So what about INET2 ?

Well with lots of CPU cycles now available, fast pipes (say 100mbps to the
home) and good codecs like mp4, we have what is needed.

What we don't have is people playing with it. Why aren't we seeing medical
tests with video ? or the "other applications" that INET2 is supposed to
deliver ?

I will wait for answers, but for now appologise for spraying that nasty
2.5mbps multicast stream out this afternoon..........I think I has it
sussed now, altho the bloody box is spraying traffic all over my
desk....... (this part gets us back on topic)

rich

***@citylink.co.nz


-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Andy Linton
2002-02-25 06:27:15 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Feb 2002, Dean Pemberton wrote:

> And it does that because for the most part it costs the carriers so much
> to provide it to them.
>

That's because those unscrupulous router vendors charge so much for their
equipment...



-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Roger De Salis
2002-02-25 06:19:36 UTC
Permalink
> That's because those unscrupulous router vendors charge so much
> for their equipment...

I find myself in violent agreement with Micheal Newbery..

POA.... :-)

/R

Andy Linton wrote:
>
> On 25 Feb 2002, Dean Pemberton wrote:
--
\_ Roger De Salis ***@cisco.com
</' Cisco Systems NZ Ltd +64 25 481 452
/) L8, ASB Tower, 2 Hunter St +64 4 496 9003
(/ Wellington, New Zealand ***@desalis.gen.nz
`
In October 2001, the 5th most important product line by value
for Cisco is - the telephone. Cisco 79x0 IP telephones.
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-25 21:28:21 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, February 25, 2002, at 01:14 , Roger De Salis wrote:

>> I see commercial providers
>> with multiple parallel STM-64s plumbed directly into routers
>> either sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are struggling
>> to attract customers to even remotely fill the pipes.
>
> Only because the price is wrong. Customers want price-certainty.

So explain to me how Internet2 is going to fundamentally lower the cost
of deploying and operating a global network. This is my core confusion.
Their commercial analogues are busy laying their own fibre into the
ground and under oceans, and incurring nothing in the way of telco
circuit pricing. There *are* no "existing marvelous telco charges".
These people are sending packets over wavelengths with SONET or SDH
framing, and no additional encaps overhead.

> No one either commercially or domestically will buy into the
> "Jet-stream" charging model.

I have no idea what Jetstream has to do with anything :) I am talking
about Internet2.

>> The situation in the metro and long-haul intracontinental
>> networks is even more fibre-rich. I don't see a need to build
>> another internet here -- I see a need to start using the existing
>> one :)
>
> But I don't like the price of your existing one.

And I don't believe the price of the proposed alternative.

> I want a fibre to my house, and a fixed price, all-I-can-eat service.
> (Voice and data)
>
> Pretty simple really. This is a not a service that is currently
> offered, but it doesn't mean people don't want it.

I would also like free intercontinental air travel, on a personal
high-speed jet aircraft, with transport to and from the airport
available by helicopter at any time of day or night with sixty minutes
notice. Strangely enough, that's not a service that anybody is currently
offering, either.

> Internet 2 and the rural activities are part of "the current charging
> model doesn't stack up"...

I remain eager to hear about the quantum leap in network architecture or
accounting that allows Internet2 to deploy a global network which is so
cheap it can be considered free. And if that is really what they are
doing, then I am confused as to why any other commercial operator is
still in business.


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Brian Gibbons
2002-02-26 17:57:29 UTC
Permalink
>From: "Joe Abley" <***@automagic.org>
>I have no idea what Jetstream has to do with anything :) I am talking
>about Internet2.

Jetstream is the seed.

As you have said, you need edge applications to justify the existance of
broadband connectivity. Jetstream introduces businesses to those
applications and the productivity gains that are the justification.

Unfortunately (with Jetstream) there is a big jump in cost between the
entry/introduction level and the next step in the growth path. This kills
the growth as the cost becomes "noticable" and these businesses lack the
experiance to measure the benefit. So they go back to doing it the old way.

Example: A business that started encouraging everyone to email their
graphics files to them for printing. Slight problem, under Jetstream it
costs the sender 20c/meg and the recipient 20c/meg, thus the cost of
delivery for a 30MB file is twelve dollars.

So that "application" died, they have gone back to using couriers because it
is cheaper to pay a human to drive a car ten kilometers across town than it
is to use Jetstream. OK, someone could have redesigned things to save cost
but why should they have to, it is the charging model that is broken, so fix
that.

Broadband will grow at a snails pace in NZ until Telecom starts charging
relative to the cost (i.e. cheaper domestic)

Cheers

BG.



-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Rodger Donaldson
2002-02-26 18:33:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 06:57:29AM +1300, Brian Gibbons wrote:

> Example: A business that started encouraging everyone to email their
> graphics files to them for printing. Slight problem, under Jetstream it
> costs the sender 20c/meg and the recipient 20c/meg, thus the cost of
> delivery for a 30MB file is twelve dollars.

Of course, that application works superbly in Wellington, since over
CityLink, no charge is levied. I should know, I build one of these (except
with AppleShareIP, not email. Much better for designers).

--
Rodger Donaldson ***@diaspora.gen.nz
> That's a thought Nic, know where I can get a pirated copy:-)
I can burn you a CD full of 0-d4y GNU GPL w4r3z[1] if you like ;-)
-- Nic, nz.comp
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Chris Wedgwood
2002-02-26 18:46:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 06:57:29AM +1300, Brian Gibbons wrote:

As you have said, you need edge applications to justify the
existance of broadband connectivity. Jetstream introduces
businesses to those applications and the productivity gains that
are the justification.

What applications? In many respects, we have bandwidth to burn in
lots of places over here. The only applications I see are more
irritating trojans (sigh) and DoS problems. Is Internet2 supposed to
be engineered to make a syn-flood better or more reliable SNMP scans?


--cw
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> This is my core confusion.

$ jabley: SIG_CONF received. Core dumped.

> > No one either commercially or domestically will buy into the
> > "Jet-stream" charging model.
>
> I have no idea what Jetstream has to do with anything :) I am talking
> about Internet2.

I think what Roger's referring to is the ancient pay-a-fortune-per-byte
ideology, which is now colloquially known as the "Jetstream Charging Model", or JCM.

JCM was devised as a method of limiting broadband service uptake amongst
businesses and consumers, and to encourage the darkening of fibre in and
out of New Zealand.

Works extremely well.


--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Chris Wedgwood
2002-02-25 23:06:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 11:57:39AM +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:

JCM was devised as a method of limiting broadband service uptake
amongst businesses and consumers, and to encourage the darkening
of fibre in and out of New Zealand.

Works extremely well.

Until I see proof of this, I'm going to call BULLSHIT.

Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm far from the TCNZ supporter, but
I have worked on both sides of the fence, as both a bandwidth consumer
and a supplier, and I have been privy to the financial aspects of
buying and selling bandwidth from both perspectives.

I wish people in New Zealand would stop pretending bandwidth is cheap
and/or cost almost zero and expecting vast amounts of resource for
little cost. It doesn't work that way. Anywhere.



--cw
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Mark Foster
2002-02-25 23:36:37 UTC
Permalink
>
Rodger Donaldson
2002-02-26 18:38:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 12:36:37PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
>
> >
Mark Foster
2002-02-26 20:28:30 UTC
Permalink
At 07:38 27/02/02 +1300, Rodger Donaldson wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 12:36:37PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
> >
> > >
Andy Gardner
2002-02-26 01:08:28 UTC
Permalink
At 3:06 PM -0800 2/25/02, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>I wish people in New Zealand would stop pretending bandwidth is cheap
>and/or cost almost zero and expecting vast amounts of resource for
>little cost. It doesn't work that way. Anywhere.

It does on my wireless link.

--
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Simon Lyall
2002-02-25 23:13:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Juha Saarinen wrote:
> JCM was devised as a method of limiting broadband service uptake amongst
> businesses and consumers, and to encourage the darkening of fibre in and
> out of New Zealand.

Speaking of which does anyone know how much of Southern cross is actually
used for Internet bandwidth into NZ? I would guess a Gb or two but can't
find statistics anywhere.

Actually it's hard to even find how big SC is this week, they seem to like
telling us how big they are next year rather than how big they are now.


--
Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: ***@ihug.co.nz
Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: ***@darkmere.gen.nz
ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Chris Wedgwood wrote:

> Until I see proof of this, I'm going to call BULLSHIT.

Oh no! Please don't call BULLSHIT!

> Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm far from the TCNZ supporter, but
> I have worked on both sides of the fence, as both a bandwidth consumer
> and a supplier, and I have been privy to the financial aspects of
> buying and selling bandwidth from both perspectives.
>
> I wish people in New Zealand would stop pretending bandwidth is cheap
> and/or cost almost zero and expecting vast amounts of resource for
> little cost. It doesn't work that way. Anywhere.

Nobody with any sense would think that, but... Jetstream currently charges
between 13 and 23 cents per megabyte.

Does that strike you as affordable, compared to other countries?

--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Chris Wedgwood
2002-02-26 00:02:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 12:15:19PM +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:

Nobody with any sense would think that, but... Jetstream currently
charges between 13 and 23 cents per megabyte.

And what does it cost them to deliver this to the user? What other
factors aside from 'bandwidth' affect this cost? Is anyone holding a
gun to your head forcing you to buy this? Many people (sadly not
everyone one) can choose another carrier/supplier ... are they
significantly cheaper?

Does that strike you as affordable, compared to other countries?

Let me see... $800USD for the circuit to our apartment. It probably
handles about 500MB/traffic per day[1], often less. Thats about
5.3c/MB (US) or about 13c/MB (NZD).

Now, that's ball park with what people in NZ pay --- and they are also
paying for a very expensive transpacific cable which almost certainly
makes up a good percentage of the overall cost involved.



--cw

[1] Yes, in theory we could do much much more than this over a T1, but
I'm talking about typical use here.
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Simon Lyall
2002-02-25 23:30:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 11:57:39AM +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:
>
> JCM was devised as a method of limiting broadband service uptake
> amongst businesses and consumers, and to encourage the darkening
> of fibre in and out of New Zealand.
>
> Works extremely well.
>
> Until I see proof of this, I'm going to call BULLSHIT.
>
> Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm far from the TCNZ supporter, but
> I have worked on both sides of the fence, as both a bandwidth consumer
> and a supplier, and I have been privy to the financial aspects of
> buying and selling bandwidth from both perspectives.

I'm not saying bandwidth is free but 15cents per megabyte for National and
Internation is a bit steep. Even if it's 100% International it implies a
per Megabyte cost of around $48,000 per month (which I hope is more than
most people are paying).

Why not charge a flat rate for the link/user and let the ISP traffic
shape/charge the customers, this works okay for jetstart?

If you compare the current jetstart/jetstream pricing then they are way
out of whack. AFAIK the extra money customers pay for Jetstream doesn't
buy them anything except removal of the cap and the ability to do static
ips, all the extra money they now pay goes to telecom rather than the ISP.

--
Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: ***@ihug.co.nz
Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: ***@darkmere.gen.nz
ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Chris Wedgwood
2002-02-26 01:51:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 12:30:47PM +1300, Simon Lyall wrote:

I'm not saying bandwidth is free but 15cents per megabyte for
National and Internation is a bit steep. Even if it's 100%
International it implies a per Megabyte cost of around $48,000 per
month (which I hope is more than most people are paying).

Factor in the cost of the Southern Cross Cable --- it's not a clear
cut as you may think.

Why not charge a flat rate for the link/user and let the ISP
traffic shape/charge the customers, this works okay for jetstart?

Some carriers do. Sadly not everyone has the option of using them.
Also, shaping to thousands of individual users becomes technically
difficult.

If you compare the current jetstart/jetstream pricing then they
are way out of whack. AFAIK the extra money customers pay for
Jetstream doesn't buy them anything except removal of the cap and
the ability to do static ips, all the extra money they now pay
goes to telecom rather than the ISP.

Yet people continue to buy Jetstream and the uptake is pretty good.
For such a terrible product this surprises me.



--cw
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Ewen McNeill
2002-02-25 23:57:25 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@pop3.attica.net.nz>, Mark Foster writes:
>>
Rodger Donaldson
2002-02-26 18:45:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 12:57:25PM +1300, Ewen McNeill wrote:

> By no means is it perfect now. And yes, the charges in New Zealand are
> probably higher than charges overseas by pure exchange rates or
> whatever. But quite a number of providers overseas (eg, the US) appear
> to have been going out of business which is, umm, inconvenient for their
> customers, suggesting they're not entirely profitable charges there.

This is the key point. People keep wittering on about a flat rate, and seem
to be ignoring the outcomes of such - at worst, bankruptcy for your ISP, and
at best, significant restrictions on what you can do with that bandwidth.

I'd like to pay lower bandwidth charges. I'd like it if petrol were free,
too.

--
Rodger Donaldson ***@diaspora.gen.nz
I just had this vision of a young boy cowering in terror, whispering:
"I see dumb people"
-- Steve VanDevender
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Chris Wedgwood wrote:

> And what does it cost them to deliver this to the user?

I've asked Telecom, but haven't received an answer (probably won't,
either).

> What other factors aside from 'bandwidth' affect this cost?

See above. Still, you'll have to agree that such pricing makes it
pointless for anyone to buy Jetstream.

> Is anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy this? Many
> people (sadly not everyone one) can choose another carrier/supplier ...
> are they significantly cheaper?

Unfortunately, I'm stuck with this geek gig for the time being, and need a
quickish connection. Jetstream is all I can get, even though I'm right
across the harbour, only a few km from Auckland (and Takapuna) CBD.

> Let me see... $800USD for the circuit to our apartment. It probably
> handles about 500MB/traffic per day[1], often less. Thats about
> 5.3c/MB (US) or about 13c/MB (NZD).
>
> Now, that's ball park with what people in NZ pay --- and they are also
> paying for a very expensive transpacific cable which almost certainly
> makes up a good percentage of the overall cost involved.

Sounds like you've got a rotten deal there. Anyway, that's not ADSL, it's
a dedicated circuit. In Auckland CBD, I understand you can get 2-10Mbps
links for NZ$1,000 to $1,200 a month (DDS and UN fibre), all-you-can-eat.

If you're on Jetstream 600, and use up 500MB a day, it'd cost over
NZ$3,000 a month. On the 1500MB plan, you'd be looking at NZ$2,500.

Futhermore, you need to factor in purchase parity indices. 5.3 US cents
doesn't hurt an American in the wallet quite as much as it does a Kiwi.


--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Chris Wedgwood
2002-02-26 01:38:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 01:14:02PM +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:

See above. Still, you'll have to agree that such pricing makes it
pointless for anyone to buy Jetstream.

Not at all.

Before I left New Zealand I had Jetscream. Aside from a couple of
annoying outages it worked pretty well and the cost seemed reasonable
compared to the alternatives in my price bracket.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck with this geek gig for the time being,
and need a quickish connection. Jetstream is all I can get, even
though I'm right across the harbour, only a few km from Auckland
(and Takapuna) CBD.

In some respects that is a choice you have to make, just like the
bigger picture I claimed with regards to New Zealand being a nice
place to live --- if you were to move the the CBD your options would
perhaps be greater and the price you pay even lower. I've not checked
if this is indeed the case, but I'm sure various people in this list
can comment on this assertion.

If I look at when I would ideally like to live, I know I will be
restricting significantly what services and grades of services
available to me for a given price.

Sounds like you've got a rotten deal there. Anyway, that's not
ADSL, it's a dedicated circuit. In Auckland CBD, I understand you
can get 2-10Mbps links for NZ$1,000 to $1,200 a month (DDS and UN
fibre), all-you-can-eat.

That's $3200NZD/month --- assume you use a good percentage of that
capacity, say 80% of it. The carrier can then sell (say) 27 of those
per STM1. That's $3M NZD/year for everything.

Joe, perhaps, you can give a reasonable estimate of what an STM-1 of
transit costs right now?

If you're on Jetstream 600, and use up 500MB a day, it'd cost over
NZ$3,000 a month. On the 1500MB plan, you'd be looking at
NZ$2,500.

Talk to another carrier. Even in Devonport there are alternatives.

Futhermore, you need to factor in purchase parity indices. 5.3 US
cents doesn't hurt an American in the wallet quite as much as it
does a Kiwi.

Indeed... I've come to realize things like the cost of food stuffs
(eg. cheese, tomatoes, meat) and indeed most small low-priced
commodities seems to be priced as much on psychology as anything. I
pay about the same in USD for groceries as I did in NZD when living in
NZ. The cost of many of these items is about the same in USD and in
NZD, as is the cost of many of the factors that determine this cost.

However, for certain more expensive / high-value items, where is
becomes worth someone's while to ship them from one place to another,
convert monies and all the other things involves in import/export ---
there is a cost difference. It seems look at computer (Home PC)
prices you get about the same for $1000 USD and you do $2500 NZD or
there abouts. I should think bandwidth clearly fits into this latter
category when the costs are high enough and the volumes sufficient
that it would be very attractive for new players and existing
competitors to lower prices to their US equivalent of supply plus a
small margin.



--cw
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-26 00:45:37 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, February 25, 2002, at 07:02 , Chris Wedgwood wrote:

> Let me see... $800USD for the circuit to our apartment. It probably
> handles about 500MB/traffic per day[1], often less. Thats about
> 5.3c/MB (US) or about 13c/MB (NZD).
>
> Now, that's ball park with what people in NZ pay

Not really -- price yourself half an E1 in New Zealand with IP transit
over it, and see how that compares.

I have (finally! gods be praised!) a cable modem here for which I pay
CAD 45/month (a shade under NZD 70) for unlimited traffic. I've clocked
it at 4Mbit/s towards me, and 256kbit/s up. This in a country with a
lower population density than New Zealand (although clearly much, much
closer to the US).

I don't think that this means anything. Things cost differently in
different countries. Kiwifruit is expensive here, for example. However,
if I was living a little closer to town and not out in the country, I'd
have a choice of three or four DSL providers, plus any number of other
ISPs reselling one of those DSL providers' access service. Plus dial,
plus cable, plus high-speed-return satellite, plus two-way satellite,
plus a wireless provider. Plus two mobitex networks, three CDMA networks
and two GPRS networks.

So regardless of the cost of things, there is definitely more choice in
little old London, Ontario, than there is in the much larger centre of
Auckland, NZ. That's what I think I would be upset about, if I was still
living in Auckland. There are some benefits to having a choice.


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Chris Wedgwood
2002-02-26 01:46:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 07:45:37PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:

Not really -- price yourself half an E1 in New Zealand with IP
transit over it, and see how that compares.

This is a T1 (uncapped, and performs very well). I think the cost
compares quite reasonably to NZ. I guess taking it to the extreme and
using a good amount of the bandwidth all the time it would be vastly
cheaper than in New Zealand, but I suspect if too many people do this,
it will affect pricing models over here too.

I have (finally! gods be praised!) a cable modem here for which I
pay CAD 45/month (a shade under NZD 70) for unlimited
traffic. I've clocked it at 4Mbit/s towards me, and 256kbit/s
up. This in a country with a lower population density than New
Zealand (although clearly much, much closer to the US).

I could compare that to a cable modem here at $30USD/month ignoring
deals like first six months for $10 or so. Or similar DSL deals. But
they are no the same --- the T1 I have gives 1.5M downstream AND 1.5M
upstream, it comes with a reasonable IP address space allocation and
more can be routed if so desired. If it breaks at 2am on a Sunday
morning, someone will be there to fix it promptly.

I don't think that this means anything. Things cost differently in
different countries.

Indeed.

So regardless of the cost of things, there is definitely more
choice in little old London, Ontario, than there is in the much
larger centre of Auckland, NZ. That's what I think I would be
upset about, if I was still living in Auckland. There are some
benefits to having a choice.

Choice always helps[1] --- but claiming lack of choice and TCNZ is a
big scary monopoly-monster doesn't alter the fact the getting
bandwidth to New Zealand does and probably always will cost
significantly more than say North California or Ontario.


--cw

[1] FWIW, my T1 provider is a monopoly. There is no way for me to get
a T1 without them getting paid for a good chunk of the circuit.
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Michael Newbery
2002-02-27 21:44:06 UTC
Permalink
At 7:45 PM -0500 25/2/02, Joe Abley wrote:
>On Monday, February 25, 2002, at 07:02 , Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
>>Let me see... $800USD for the circuit to our apartment. It probably
>>handles about 500MB/traffic per day[1], often less. Thats about
>>5.3c/MB (US) or about 13c/MB (NZD).
>>
>>Now, that's ball park with what people in NZ pay
>
>Not really -- price yourself half an E1 in New Zealand with IP
>transit over it, and see how that compares.

I'll say it once more. The main cost of bandwidth is our international links.

NZ is a long way to anywhere else, and is not ON the way to anywhere
else much except Antarctica. So our international links are expensive
(and have high latency until we get around to upgrading the speed of
light).

For all the wondrous attractions of Australia, the fact remains that
most Internet traffic---about 80% of it---goes to or via the USA.

People say they want flat rate. They want unlimited bandwidth at
10Mbps. And they want it for <NZ$50/month.

I would love to provide that, but if you can provide me 10Mbps to Los
Angeles for that rate I *REALLY* want to talk to you. Until then, we
have to find some other model.

"I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want."
"What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams

Looking at our residential broadband figures, I see that the
distribution is NOWHERE near normal in the statistical sense. In fact
it's basically Poisson with a few people moving GB and most people
moving kB.

In order to offer reasonable pricing for most people (97% approx) I
need to protect against the 3% who can drive the whole service into
the red.
Much lower costs for local traffic (which costs us much less), and
usage charging with pre-buy seems to suit most people. I'm open to
other models.
--
Michael Newbery Technical Specialist TelstraClear Limited
Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile: +64-29-939 5102 Fax: +64-4-922 8401
Nicholas Lee
2002-03-03 09:30:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 10:44:06AM +1300, Michael Newbery wrote:
>
> Looking at our residential broadband figures, I see that the
> distribution is NOWHERE near normal in the statistical sense. In fact
> it's basically Poisson with a few people moving GB and most people
> moving kB.

Traffic behaviour on a networking looking like a queue, Hmm...

> In order to offer reasonable pricing for most people (97% approx) I
> need to protect against the 3% who can drive the whole service into
> the red.

Sounds like the ISPs are complaining now - should you get your pricing
model sorted to avoid that? As much as 'us' users complain about traffic
limits there is a certain point where it is reasonable to control heavy
tails.

Different people have different views of reasonable though.


Nicholas
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> I have (finally! gods be praised!) a cable modem here for which I pay
> CAD 45/month (a shade under NZD 70) for unlimited traffic. I've clocked
> it at 4Mbit/s towards me, and 256kbit/s up. This in a country with a
> lower population density than New Zealand (although clearly much, much
> closer to the US).

Sigh.


> I don't think that this means anything. Things cost differently in
> different countries. Kiwifruit is expensive here, for example.

And come to think of it, contrary to Chris' claim, lots of things are
cheaper here than in richer, more densely populated countries. Petrol,
cars, houses, electricity, food, drink, heaps of things. It's what the
market can bear to pay, I suppose.

> However, if I was living a little closer to town and not out in the
> country, I'd have a choice of three or four DSL providers, plus any
> number of other ISPs reselling one of those DSL providers' access
> service. Plus dial, plus cable, plus high-speed-return satellite, plus
> two-way satellite, plus a wireless provider. Plus two mobitex networks,
> three CDMA networks and two GPRS networks.

Enough already.

--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Chris Wedgwood
2002-02-26 01:48:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 02:10:52PM +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:

And come to think of it, contrary to Chris' claim, lots of things
are cheaper here than in richer, more densely populated
countries. Petrol, cars, houses, electricity, food, drink, heaps
of things. It's what the market can bear to pay, I suppose.

I never claimed some things weren't cheaper --- in fact I've always
indicated that indeed that is the case. Cost of living in New Zealand
I would claim is very cheap compared to Northern California for
example.

But that doesn't mean _everything_ should be cheaper.



--cw
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Jeremy Clyma
2002-02-26 01:14:34 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Enough already.

--
Juha
Take off every sig!
[/snip]

A-frikken-men.




-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Don Stokes
2002-02-26 01:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Joe Abley <***@automagic.org> wrote:
>I have (finally! gods be praised!) a cable modem here for which I pay
>CAD 45/month (a shade under NZD 70) for unlimited traffic. I've clocked
>it at 4Mbit/s towards me, and 256kbit/s up. This in a country with a
>lower population density than New Zealand (although clearly much, much
>closer to the US).

Um, I don't think the population density of the whole of Canada is
entirely relevant when referring to southern Ontario. As the crow
flies, London is within 60km of the centres of Toronto, Detroit,
Cleveland and Buffalo, each major cities. The region represents a
pretty significant chunk of Canada's population.
Chris Wedgwood
2002-02-26 01:57:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 02:50:45PM +1300, Don Stokes wrote:

London itself might not be very big, but it's within spitting
distance of a hell of a lot of infrastructure.

Someone claimed on NANOG not long ago London as the second largest
amount of Internet infrastructure of any location in the world after
New York. I guess considering they are on opposite sides of the
Atlantic and that much of the communications between the US and Europe
goes via this route this makes sense.

Perhaps a more interesting comparison is closer to home -- little
ol' Wellington has more choice than Auckland, despite having a
third of the population, at least in terms of domestic IP
connectivity.

Because per capita, more investment has been made in local loop. I
suspect that Wellington is much more densely populated than Auckland
meaning the cost of a local-loop deployment more attractive for
potential returns.

Richard and or Simon may be able to comment here as this clearly
relates to Citylink too.


--cw
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Andy Gardner
2002-02-26 02:06:18 UTC
Permalink
>> London itself might not be very big, but it's within spitting
>> distance of a hell of a lot of infrastructure.
>
>Someone claimed on NANOG not long ago London as the second largest
>amount of Internet infrastructure of any location in the world after
>New York. I guess considering they are on opposite sides of the
>Atlantic

We're talking London, Ontario, Canada. Not London, England.

Unless Joe moved and didn't want his pals to know.

--
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Steven Heath
2002-02-26 02:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Quoting Don Stokes <***@daedalus.co.nz>:

> Um, I don't think the population density of the whole of Canada is
> entirely relevant when referring to southern Ontario. As the crow
> flies, London is within 60km of the centres of Toronto, Detroit,
> Cleveland and Buffalo, each major cities. The region represents a
> pretty significant chunk of Canada's population.
Joe Abley
2002-02-26 02:37:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 03:31:18PM +1300, Steven Heath wrote:
> While I get the point Don is making I feel that it should be pointed out that
> London is hardly 60 kms (as crow flies) from TO or from anything else.
>
> London -> Toronto 170 Km
> London -> Cleveland 173 kms
> London -> Buffalo 195 km
> London -> Detroit 167 kms

I just figured that "km" must mean something different on Don's
planet. Or that he knows some very peculiar-looking crows.

> But yes, the 'golden horseshoe' (the North, NW, West, SW, and South parts of
> the lake shore) does have a 'pretty significant' chunk of Canucks (and heavy
> industry, nuke plant or 3, smog, Hamilton *shudder*, etc...

I should have inserted disclaimers relating to a tedious, flat
landscape, polluted lakes, petrochemical smog, winter temperatures
of -20C and summer temperatures of +35C with 98% humidity in order
to offset any annoyance caused by my bountiful cheap infrastructure
comments. Sorry about that. Won't happen again :)

(nice hockey teams, though)


Joe
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-26 02:32:01 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 02:50:45PM +1300, Don Stokes wrote:
>
> Joe Abley <***@automagic.org> wrote:
> >I have (finally! gods be praised!) a cable modem here for which I pay
> >CAD 45/month (a shade under NZD 70) for unlimited traffic. I've clocked
> >it at 4Mbit/s towards me, and 256kbit/s up. This in a country with a
> >lower population density than New Zealand (although clearly much, much
> >closer to the US).
>
> Um, I don't think the population density of the whole of Canada is
> entirely relevant when referring to southern Ontario.

Probably more relevant that the population density of the whole of
NZ, when referring to Auckland.

> Re Internet2, I'm finding myself disturbingly in agreement of both you
> and cw, which bothers me somewhat. 8-)

You are not alone :)

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Richard Naylor
2002-02-26 03:49:47 UTC
Permalink
At 05:57 p.m. 25/02/2002 -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>Because per capita, more investment has been made in local loop. I
>suspect that Wellington is much more densely populated than Auckland
>meaning the cost of a local-loop deployment more attractive for
>potential returns.
>
>Richard and or Simon may be able to comment here as this clearly
>relates to Citylink too.

Yes Wellington is easier. Its unique geography makes it very attractive.
Lack of land made them build up and so there has been more advanced
engineering here for ages. The power network in Wgtn is fantastic and we
basically cloned it with fiber. Wgtn has high rise, sleep slopes, short
distances, narrow streets - and trolley buses. London (UK) is very similar.
Doing the layer 0 engineering is great fun in both cities. There is always
a tunnel, car park, basement etc that allows non traditional cabling to
work. In London it can be a bit exciting when you suddenly come across the
Underground where you didn't expect it, or a train rumbles past out of the
blue (and you are in a void between the track and the road above). Remember
its power at up to 110KV in cables so don't say a telco can't do it. UNL
and London Electricity (whatever they are now) did and still do.

What I'm getting at is architectures. Traditional roll outs use telco style
ring or star architectures. In the power industry you NEVER run a separate
cable back to the power station. Instead a mesh architecture is used and we
copied it. It is unusual for us to run fiber for more than 1km, VERY
unusual. Most ccts are around 3-400m to the nearest switch. But be aware
that a switch may have 8 ports in use, with 3 customers. Just like the
power substations.

Its interesting, we regularly get vendors showing us their lovely big kit.
But we never buy it. We explain our methods and they go quiet. They go away
and come back with a smaller switch with some distribution and say - wow we
saved 50%. Only Foundry has made the next step and gone really small and
saved another 30% (memory vague here). That means we are 80% cheaper than
the traditional design.

Using different layer 0 engineering (yes you have to learn this the hard
way) we can get into a building for say $5k (remember short fiber runs (and
we carry big drills)), our MAN cabinets are live for under $2k and remember
that in a typical building (under 10 floors) we will get 25% of tenants if
we are VERY lucky. That means we need 2-3 ports + feeds. So why buy a 48
port switch with a chassis, dual psu etc, when in reality 12 ports is all
thats needed. We also prefer to roll a truck instead of avoiding it. After
all 90%+ of issues are customer related and I haven't yet found a way to
ssh into a customers brain, so a small geographic area is very economical.
And those 2-3 customers typically groan at paying us $300 a month, so there
isn't a budget for a big switch.

Another hidden is the cost of media converters. I suspect thats why some
others are using multimode for the building drop. We don't because we rent
dark fibers and doing the sm/mm conversion is a pain on longer ccts.
Michael you want to comment ?

So geography is important, but so is architecture and its vital to have a
very pragmatic approach and local knowledge is vital. Thats why we're
always out walking places.

And I know we (ie the industry) can do better. When suppliers can get us
real cheap Gig gear (as they are) we need to look at different
architectures and techniques to use them. I'm trying to get our
microtrenching released as copyleft or some sort of open source. That way
others can use it and we (ie the country) can get Gig or 100mbps to the
home at very affordable rates. Which is also why I'm against local loop
unbundling - its all past its time. Why stick dsl on it and try to prolong
its use - unless you happen to own it and need to pay big dividends.

sorry this is so long - many interruptions.........


***@citylink.co.nz



-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Chris Wedgwood wrote:

> Not at all.
>
> Before I left New Zealand I had Jetscream. Aside from a couple of
> annoying outages it worked pretty well and the cost seemed reasonable
> compared to the alternatives in my price bracket.

I thought you had Jetstart?

> In some respects that is a choice you have to make, just like the
> bigger picture I claimed with regards to New Zealand being a nice
> place to live --- if you were to move the the CBD your options would
> perhaps be greater and the price you pay even lower.

Sure; if I emigrate to just about any first world country, I'd have an
even better choice. That, however, isn't a realistic option, for obvious
reasons.

> Sounds like you've got a rotten deal there. Anyway, that's not
> ADSL, it's a dedicated circuit. In Auckland CBD, I understand you
> can get 2-10Mbps links for NZ$1,000 to $1,200 a month (DDS and UN
> fibre), all-you-can-eat.
>
> That's $3200NZD/month --- assume you use a good percentage of that
> capacity, say 80% of it. The carrier can then sell (say) 27 of those
> per STM1. That's $3M NZD/year for everything.

No, it's between NZ$1,000 and $1,200 a month, charged out to the customer.

Unless I'm totally mistaken, 12 * 1,200 * 27 works out as NZ$388,800 per
annum.

> Talk to another carrier. Even in Devonport there are alternatives.

Would love to hear of some, actually. Drawn a blank so far.


--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
James Tyson
2002-02-26 06:33:50 UTC
Permalink
> What I'm getting at is architectures. Traditional roll outs use telco style
> ring or star architectures. In the power industry you NEVER run a separate
> cable back to the power station. Instead a mesh architecture is used and we
> copied it. It is unusual for us to run fiber for more than 1km, VERY
> unusual. Most ccts are around 3-400m to the nearest switch. But be aware
> that a switch may have 8 ports in use, with 3 customers. Just like the
> power substations.

Hi Richard.

I'm sure this is a lot different for you as a primarily layer 2 provider,
whereas people like us have to provide all sorts of crazy services, like
MPLS VPN's, AVVID, etc over the circuits we provide to customers we have
to have a lot more intelligence closer to the edge of the network than
Citylink appears to be.
So, whilst I agree that its about architectures, it's also about services.
Some architectures are better than others for different things, but I
guess you knew that.

Cheers.

---
James Tyson
Moebius Systems Ltd
http://www.moebius.co.nz/

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Don Stokes
2002-02-26 08:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Steven Heath <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>While I get the point Don is making I feel that it should be pointed out that
>London is hardly 60 kms (as crow flies) from TO or from anything else.
>
>London -> Toronto 170 Km
>London -> Cleveland 173 kms
>London -> Buffalo 195 km
>London -> Detroit 167 kms

<mutter> Cheaparse atlas. Its scale is only out by a factor of three.
I thought it felt a little small.

OK, maybe rock throwing distance rather than spitting distance, but the
point still stands.

-- don
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-26 18:15:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 12:57 , Brian Gibbons wrote:

>> From: "Joe Abley" <***@automagic.org>
>> I have no idea what Jetstream has to do with anything :) I am talking
>> about Internet2.
>
> Jetstream is the seed.
>
> As you have said, you need edge applications to justify the existance of
> broadband connectivity. Jetstream introduces businesses to those
> applications and the productivity gains that are the justification.

I never said that -- I just said application support didn't belong in
the network, but at the edge. The focus of Internet2 actually seems to
be the reverse of what you are saying -- throw large amounts of
bandwidth into the ring, and see what people do with it.

This whole "Jetstream introduces business to broadband" thing is just
bogus. We were happily selling 155M circuits to customers at CLEAR five
years ago. (We weren't providing 155M internet transit, because even if
that capacity was available on PRE, it would have cost us about $155M
per year in half-circuit costs, but we're talking about access network
speeds here). Citylink have been providing 100M domestic service for
ages. The idea that a DSL service is somehow bleeding edge, novel or the
only game in town for business broadband internet access is just
farcical.


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Brian Gibbons
2002-02-27 17:23:37 UTC
Permalink
>From: "Joe Abley" <***@automagic.org>
>The focus of Internet2 actually seems to
>be the reverse of what you are saying -- throw large amounts of
>bandwidth into the ring, and see what people do with it.

They built the roads, then along came taxies, couriers and trucking
companies.

>We were happily selling 155M circuits to customers at CLEAR five
>years ago.

OK, some large companies built some roads to link each other. These
companies do everything "inhouse" - no need for couriers here, they have
their own vans.

>This whole "Jetstream introduces business to broadband" thing is just
>bogus.

Extend the roads to pass thousands of businesses that need to deliver things
and the courier service becomes a viable business. Slight problem, someone
else owns the roads and they charge a "toll" at every driveway/exit point
which is more than the value of the courier service.

Telecom have already disclosed their vision, connecting to their IP Network
will be free and they will clip the ticket for services delivered over the
network.
A better business model, a service provider can bundle the delivery cost
into the service (aka pizza delivery) and the delivery man knows that he
won't have to pay a toll to drive into someone's gate.

Build the road Telecom.

BG.



-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> This whole "Jetstream introduces business to broadband" thing is just
> bogus. We were happily selling 155M circuits to customers at CLEAR five
> years ago. (We weren't providing 155M internet transit, because even if
> that capacity was available on PRE, it would have cost us about $155M
> per year in half-circuit costs, but we're talking about access network
> speeds here). Citylink have been providing 100M domestic service for
> ages. The idea that a DSL service is somehow bleeding edge, novel or the
> only game in town for business broadband internet access is just
> farcical.

Last time I looked, 85% of New Zealand business fell into the "small"
category, ie. under twenty employees. The vast majority of these will not
be in areas serviced by Clear or Citylink, only by Telecom Jetstream.

Unfortunately, that makes farci out of broadband for most NZ businesses.

--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Rodger Donaldson
2002-02-26 18:56:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 07:40:17AM +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Last time I looked, 85% of New Zealand business fell into the "small"
> category, ie. under twenty employees. The vast majority of these will not
> be in areas serviced by Clear or Citylink, only by Telecom Jetstream.

TelstraClear are in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. That's a fairly
significant proportion of the country.

The best high speed access is in Wellington, of course, but if people insist
on being in business in Auckland, high speed Internet access obviously
can't be that important to them.

--
Rodger Donaldson ***@diaspora.gen.nz
Why is it I can find sex toys but no socks?
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-26 18:50:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 01:40 , Juha Saarinen wrote:

> Last time I looked, 85% of New Zealand business fell into the "small"
> category, ie. under twenty employees. The vast majority of these will
> not
> be in areas serviced by Clear or Citylink, only by Telecom Jetstream.

The vast majority of these businesses are not in Auckland, Wellington,
Christchurch, or in the rest of the towns and cities that CLEAR provided
local service in?

CLEAR could sell frame-relay in far more places than Telecom can sell
Jetstream. I presume this has only become more true in the years since I
left.


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Rodger Donaldson wrote:

> This is the key point. People keep wittering on about a flat rate, and seem
> to be ignoring the outcomes of such - at worst, bankruptcy for your ISP, and
> at best, significant restrictions on what you can do with that bandwidth.

I think the idea is not free bandwidth, but affordable and predictable
charging.

I pay $199 plus $20 a month for my Jetstream connection. Telecom gets the
$199 and TelstraSaturnParadiseClear twenty bucks, although it is the
latter that provides the majority of bandwidth I use. That's only for
1.5GB a month. If that doesn't tell you the JCM is a rip-off and unfair to
ISPs, I don't know what will.

> I'd like to pay lower bandwidth charges. I'd like it if petrol were free,
> too.

Fill up before tomorrow... ;-)

--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

>
> The vast majority of these businesses are not in Auckland, Wellington,
> Christchurch, or in the rest of the towns and cities that CLEAR provided
> local service in?

OK, to clarify: my understanding is that in order to get Clear etc
service, you have to be in the CBD of the abovementioned towns. I could be
wrong though.

> CLEAR could sell frame-relay in far more places than Telecom can sell
> Jetstream. I presume this has only become more true in the years since I
> left.

Possibly. If they do, they've not advertised the fact much.

--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Rodger Donaldson wrote:

> TelstraClear are in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. That's a fairly
> significant proportion of the country.

Yes, but not *everywhere* in those cities. Auckland especially seems
poorly covered.

> The best high speed access is in Wellington, of course, but if people insist
> on being in business in Auckland, high speed Internet access obviously
> can't be that important to them.

Oh yeah, I must remember to spin customers that line next time I try to
explain why there's such a limited choice.

--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Michael Newbery
2002-02-27 21:19:38 UTC
Permalink
At 8:09 AM +1300 27/2/02, Juha Saarinen wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Rodger Donaldson wrote:
>
>> TelstraClear are in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch.
>>That's a fairly
>> significant proportion of the country.
>
>Yes, but not *everywhere* in those cities. Auckland especially seems
>poorly covered.

Auckland takes urban sprawl to ludicrous levels, but even so, where
do you mean? We've got coverage of the CBD and lots of other
interesting places. We even have ADSL (and I DON'T mean JetSxxx)
scattered around. And what this space.
--
Michael Newbery Technical Specialist TelstraClear Limited
Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile: +64-29-939 5102 Fax: +64-4-922 8401
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-26 19:26:12 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 01:55 , Juha Saarinen wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>>
>> The vast majority of these businesses are not in Auckland, Wellington,
>> Christchurch, or in the rest of the towns and cities that CLEAR
>> provided
>> local service in?
>
> OK, to clarify: my understanding is that in order to get Clear etc
> service, you have to be in the CBD of the abovementioned towns. I could
> be
> wrong though.

I'm fairly certain that you are. CLEAR and Telstra NZ would both deliver
circuit (E1) services over tail circuits from other providers when I
last had anything to do with either of them. I know of someone with a
CLEAR Frame internet service in Piha, for example :)


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-26 19:26:12 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 01:55 , Juha Saarinen wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>>
>> The vast majority of these businesses are not in Auckland, Wellington,
>> Christchurch, or in the rest of the towns and cities that CLEAR
>> provided
>> local service in?
>
> OK, to clarify: my understanding is that in order to get Clear etc
> service, you have to be in the CBD of the abovementioned towns. I could
> be
> wrong though.

I'm fairly certain that you are. CLEAR and Telstra NZ would both deliver
circuit (E1) services over tail circuits from other providers when I
last had anything to do with either of them. I know of someone with a
CLEAR Frame internet service in Piha, for example :)


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> I know of someone with a CLEAR Frame internet service in Piha, for
> example :)

Must be that woman doing teleconferencing from Piha, in those commercials
for Jetstream ;-).

--
Juha
Take off every sig!

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Simon Lyall
2002-02-26 19:34:02 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Juha Saarinen wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Rodger Donaldson wrote:
> > The best high speed access is in Wellington, of course, but if people insist
> > on being in business in Auckland, high speed Internet access obviously
> > can't be that important to them.
>
> Oh yeah, I must remember to spin customers that line next time I try to
> explain why there's such a limited choice.

Limited to:

Telecom
United Networks
Clear
Telstra Fibre
Tangent Fibre
Citylink Fibre
Walker Wireless
Ihug Ultra

plus probably a couple of others.

Even outside Auckland & Wellington you can get ihug or Clear Tempest
($100/monthfor 256k flatrate) and Walker Wireless in many areas.

Pretty picture:

http://www.internetnz.net.nz/communications/presentations/IIForum011129-james/sld026.htm


--
Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: ***@ihug.co.nz
Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: ***@darkmere.gen.nz
ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-26 20:48:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 03:28 , Mark Foster wrote:

> At 07:38 27/02/02 +1300, Rodger Donaldson wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 12:36:37PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
>> > Bandwidth has dropped in cost, but we download more, and faster,
>> nowadays.
>>
>> Oddly enough, you may find some relationship between these facts.
>
> I do see the relationship, and people who rant about how its all too
> expensive irritate me - but I find myself having to agree with them to
> at least some degree. Id really seriously like to know what kind of
> margins there are in the Jetstream/Jetstart packages - because I know
> from an ISP point of view, the overhead is pushing the boundaries of
> what is genuinely profitable.

The internal revenue characteristics of the Jetstream/Jetstart packages
to Telecom are irrelevant. Telecom is not a charity.

The problem is that competing with Telecom requires a fresh access
network build. That's an expensive thing, particularly if your target
market is spread out over a city the size of Auckland, the revenue per
household is likely to be relatively low, your major competitor already
has an access network which was funded by the taxpayer, and you are a
carrier drowning in a culture of telephony engineering.

I think that mandating unbundling of the local loop would result in more
competition, leading to choice and cheaper alternatives to the Jet*
packages that seem to be universally hated.

I don't agree that it's too late to bother with, either; even if you
optimistically assume that the telephony mindset in the non-incumbent
carriers is long forgotten, building out to local exchanges and
installing your own DSLAMs is a much more straightforward exercise to
fund than a disruptive deployment like Richard has described. There are
probably at least ten ISPs in Auckland who could start deploying DSL
service straight away, if they had access to the copper at the local
exchange. I don't suppose there are ten ISPs who are currently planning
fibre-to-the-home.


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Don Stokes
2002-02-26 22:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Joe Abley <***@automagic.org> wrote:
>I think that mandating unbundling of the local loop would result in more
>competition, leading to choice and cheaper alternatives to the Jet*
>packages that seem to be universally hated.

I guess this depends on what is meant by "unbundling". In some places
this means physical access to copper etc, in others it means mandating
offering certain classes of access services.

In real life mandating physical access to copper by competitors is a
dicey proposition; without physically separating the various bits of
network there's a lot of scope for conflict and excuses. And for what?
A bit of crummy copper that may or may not support a DSL link.

Frankly, I don't see DSL over voicegrade copper as the long or even
medium term solution to the problem of providing ubiquitous broadband
service. At best, it's a stopgap.

What's happened in Wellington in particular is that Citylink & Saturn
built "next generation" local loops -- cable TV, fibre -- in parallel
with the voicegrade copper links. As Richard noted, Wellington is
suitable for this -- it's a small geographic area with a fairly high
population density. Wellington has also been in the habit of cluttering
the sky with overhead cables (the, uh, uneven terrain makes underground
cabling difficult for everyone), and Saturn was able to get cable rolled
cheaply on existing poles, whereas in other centres such services have
had to have been put underground at greater cost.

Perhaps what's needed is assistance in building such local loop
infrastructure. Not just in terms of assistance in getting capital to do
it raised, but in providing an environment where infrastructure can be
built easily. The latter doesn't necessarily mean overhead cabling, but
say co-ordinating infrastructure development; why do water supply,
sewerage, power, gas, traditional telecomms and broadband need
completely separate holes? If you're going to dig up a street to
replace a water main, how about laying ductlines for some or all of the
above? How about if local authorities were required to maintain a
register of interest in all street works, and were required to notify
all interested parties so that co-ordinated, shared development or
maintenance could be done?

-- don
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Richard Naylor
2002-02-26 23:43:29 UTC
Permalink
At 11:34 a.m. 27/02/2002 +1300, Don Stokes wrote:

>Joe Abley <***@automagic.org> wrote:
> >I think that mandating unbundling of the local loop would result in more
> >competition, leading to choice and cheaper alternatives to the Jet*
> >packages that seem to be universally hated.

While others have suggested at least 10 ISPs would get into the action, I
still don't like unbundling. In my (narrow) mind, the local loop is
history. End of story. Its not just the cables (old construction, water in
it etc, but the terminations, dodgy splices, etc. But also that at best
xDSL will never deliver the sort of bandwidth that we as an industry want
to see in the as soon as possible future.

>Frankly, I don't see DSL over voicegrade copper as the long or even
>medium term solution to the problem of providing ubiquitous broadband
>service. At best, it's a stopgap.

At last !! someone agrees with me.

>What's happened in Wellington in particular is that Citylink & Saturn
>built "next generation" local loops -- cable TV, fibre -- in parallel
>with the voicegrade copper links. As Richard noted, Wellington is
>suitable for this -- it's a small geographic area with a fairly high
>population density. Wellington has also been in the habit of cluttering
>the sky with overhead cables (the, uh, uneven terrain makes underground
>cabling difficult for everyone), and Saturn was able to get cable rolled
>cheaply on existing poles, whereas in other centres such services have
>had to have been put underground at greater cost.
>
>Perhaps what's needed is assistance in building such local loop
>infrastructure.

No - we (NZ) just spent 10 years getting away from this.

The economics of local loop roll out are very simple and the figures apply
in both NZ and the US.

- You have to get into a house for under $1200 - thats the build, the kit,
connections, converters, etc (and often the set top box/router/whatever.
This is not too hard.

You have to take a total street or block approach not just one house. Then
you look at your uptake figures and as I mentioned before you do well if
you get 25 to 30%. I think Saturn got around 30% which internationally is
good.

So you work out your street build and divide the number of houses and then
multiply by 4 and that is your return, so start applying your roi figures.

>Not just in terms of assistance in getting capital to do
>it raised, but in providing an environment where infrastructure can be
>built easily. The latter doesn't necessarily mean overhead cabling, but
>say co-ordinating infrastructure development; why do water supply,
>sewerage, power, gas, traditional telecomms and broadband need
>completely separate holes? If you're going to dig up a street to
>replace a water main, how about laying ductlines for some or all of the
>above? How about if local authorities were required to maintain a
>register of interest in all street works, and were required to notify
>all interested parties so that co-ordinated, shared development or
>maintenance could be done?

DON - they have been doing this for years ! remember that funny Palette
based mapping system I used to run at the MED ? technology now called
GIS.......

However getting trench co sharing is as hard as interconnect....... even
WCC find it hard agreeing to let us share a trench

However, its not that bad. Remember we are DEREGULATED. That means YOU can
dig up the road. Just fill in the form, comply with the specs and get out
your shovel. Hook up 12 people and get an operators licence. your own
letter from the GG.

But in fact its even easier. In large parts of the US the utility
reticulation is along the BACK fences. Thats where the poles are, not in
the street. So what you do is run your cables along the back fences using a
standard easement form for each home owner. They easy to train.

Now you start using NID boxes like we build. They're basically a fiber
media converter and an ethernet switch in a weatherproof box with psu and
surge protection. Simple traditional engineering. You put boxes every 100m
like good ethernet says, and you run cat-5 to the houses. If you can't do
it bloody cheap you go broke. If your're real clever you even skip the
fiber and just run gig copper between the boxes. THat saves you the media
converter costs which are the big hurdle. And since you are running copper
its about 30 cents per meter.

So why is a decent gigabit connection to a home so hard ?

Actually I only think we need 100mbps, but the gig switches are getting so
cheap might as well go for gig......

rich
ps if you want to see real fun look at

http://www.r2.co.nz/20020219 its only wireless tho nothing too sexy, but it
does show the services like voice and video running.


***@citylink.co.nz


-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Richard Naylor
2002-02-27 00:23:34 UTC
Permalink
At 01:06 p.m. 27/02/2002 +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Richard Naylor wrote:
>
> > However, its not that bad. Remember we are DEREGULATED. That means YOU can
> > dig up the road. Just fill in the form, comply with the specs and get out
> > your shovel. Hook up 12 people and get an operators licence. your own
> > letter from the GG.
>
>I was told that it's not that simple. You need permits, and you have to
>pay the local council a hefty sum for the "ground lease" (or a similar
>term).

The permits are typically called street opening notices. You follow the
local code of practice and you should be sweet.

The ground lease idea is something that councils are trying on at the
moment, just like building owners are trying to get operators to pay them
for the cables being in buildings. So just watch how useful a building (or
city) is like without services. AKL people know what it was like without power.

>This might be a peculiarity for Auckland city, however.

Akl CC doesn't get the program. Which is why AKL is referred to as a
"bandwidth desert" - and that gets us back to the beginning of the topic.

rich

***@citylink.co.nz


-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Simon Blake
2002-02-27 05:01:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 01:23:34PM +1300, Richard Naylor said:
> The permits are typically called street opening notices. You follow
> the local code of practice and you should be sweet.
>
> The ground lease idea is something that councils are trying on at the
> moment, just like building owners are trying to get operators to pay them
> for the cables being in buildings. So just watch how useful a building (or
> city) is like without services. AKL people know what it was like without power.
>
> >This might be a peculiarity for Auckland city, however.
>
> Akl CC doesn't get the program. Which is why AKL is referred to as a
> "bandwidth desert" - and that gets us back to the beginning of the topic.

And hits the nail on the head. My observations of 6 years playing in
the Citylink sandpit is that getting glass into the ground (or air) and
in use has little to do with geography, existing infrastructure, deep
pockets, or population density. Rather, it's about the drive of the
people involved, and most crucially, the support of local territorial
authorities.

So if you don't want to get your hands dirty running fibre, then pull
finger and affect your local council so that other people can. Richard
did it by the fairly sneaky route of becoming WCC IT manager, but there
are other well defined processes (annual plan submissions, getting on
council, etc, etc) that will make a difference to whether you get glass
this century or the next. Stop whining, and make a difference.

Cheers
Si
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
2002-02-27 00:06:25 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Richard Naylor wrote:

> However, its not that bad. Remember we are DEREGULATED. That means YOU can
> dig up the road. Just fill in the form, comply with the specs and get out
> your shovel. Hook up 12 people and get an operators licence. your own
> letter from the GG.

I was told that it's not that simple. You need permits, and you have to
pay the local council a hefty sum for the "ground lease" (or a similar
term).

This might be a peculiarity for Auckland city, however.

--
Regards,

Juha
C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Don Stokes
2002-02-27 00:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Richard Naylor <***@citylink.co.nz> wrote:
>>Perhaps what's needed is assistance in building such local loop
>>infrastructure.
>
>No - we (NZ) just spent 10 years getting away from this.

We spent 10 (well, 15) years getting away from a state operated and
regulated monopoly, where it was *illegal* to compete with the Post
Office. I'm not for a moment suggesting going back to that situation.

Rather I'm suggesting that the things that make telecomms hard be eased
as much as possible. Digging up the road is expensive for everybody.
Last time I looked (which was a while ago), you were talking $100 /
metre, at least if you had to dig through the road rather than a nice
soft verge, which Wellington hill suburbs are rather short on.

>DON - they have been doing this for years ! remember that funny Palette
>based mapping system I used to run at the MED ? technology now called
>GIS.......

Yes, I recall very well you showing this off. But it takes a bit more
than just knowing where everything is. If I come to the WCC and say I
want to lay a ductline in a given street, does anyone else get told? Do I
get an opportunity to utilise existing ductlines and avoid digging up
a busy thoroughfare at all? Do I get told that I should lay multiple
ductlines, and someone else may be along sometime later to buy them off
me?

>But in fact its even easier. In large parts of the US the utility
>reticulation is along the BACK fences. Thats where the poles are, not in
>the street. So what you do is run your cables along the back fences using a
>standard easement form for each home owner. They easy to train.

I always get into trouble generalising about US infrastructure, cos
there's a lot of it and they all do stuff differently -- someone always
finds a counter-example. But it's very common in N. America to have
back alleys; the (*ugly*) 110/220V reticulation is down the backs of the
properties rather than on the street as in NZ. It looks better than
cables up the front of the street (except were it goes over
cross-streets), but it does take up space -- it's not "down the back
fence" per se, but on separate land.

>Now you start using NID boxes like we build. They're basically a fiber
>media converter and an ethernet switch in a weatherproof box with psu and
>surge protection. Simple traditional engineering. You put boxes every 100m
>like good ethernet says, and you run cat-5 to the houses. If you can't do
>it bloody cheap you go broke. If your're real clever you even skip the
>fiber and just run gig copper between the boxes. THat saves you the media
>converter costs which are the big hurdle. And since you are running copper
>its about 30 cents per meter.

OK. Now run video and telephones over it. This is where it gets
thornier, but would mack such an approach a hell of a lot more
attractive to the punters. By "video" I mean something I can (a) plug
into the TV, and (b) that I might actually watch.

Saturn ended up running separate POTS and broadband cables. I get TV
and Internet over the cable, but a telephone is still stuck with Dark
Ages technology.

-- don
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-27 02:05:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 07:58 , Don Stokes wrote:

> Rather I'm suggesting that the things that make telecomms hard be eased
> as much as possible. Digging up the road is expensive for everybody.
> Last time I looked (which was a while ago), you were talking $100 /
> metre, at least if you had to dig through the road rather than a nice
> soft verge, which Wellington hill suburbs are rather short on.

Digging up the roads will be always be hard, so long as you have local
councils to deal with, each with their own set of requirements. Hard
things take a long time, which is why I am a proponent of "nasty old
telecom copper now, fibre later". Getting some choice now would be a
good thing, regardless of how architecturally tacky the details are.

> OK. Now run video and telephones over it.

Why cripple the IP infrastructure with requirements for legacy services?
Leave the voice to the cellular operators and the existing copper pair
people, and the video to the satellite and terrestrial broadcast people.

Convergence can come later, once a fast, cheap IP infrastructure is
reliably available.


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Michael Newbery
2002-02-27 21:11:19 UTC
Permalink
I go to Auckland for two days and find the list has exploded with
things that I want to talk about. Oh well.

At 9:05 PM -0500 26/2/02, Joe Abley wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 07:58 , Don Stokes wrote:

[snip]

>>OK. Now run video and telephones over it.
>
>Why cripple the IP infrastructure with requirements for legacy
>services? Leave the voice to the cellular operators and the existing
>copper pair people, and the video to the satellite and terrestrial
>broadcast people.
>
>Convergence can come later, once a fast, cheap IP infrastructure is
>reliably available.

We (TelstraClear) are running a converged infrastructure now. Because
it is cheaper. At least, where we have the new build (and that
includes AK CBD). It cost us some more to build the IP infrastructure
to accommodate the needs of telephony (and I'm NOT talking VoIP here
by the way). But the overall cost went down.

Personally I was surprised a bit that we managed to do it so fast,
but we have. We've still got lots of 'legacy' stuff (and I do find it
ironic that SDH gets relegated to legacy when it was cutting edge not
so very long ago. Internet time I guess) but it's cheaper to do all
new build based on an IP infrastructure.

I recall a presentation from some telco types back at VUW when they
were sneering at the reliability of data equipment vs telephone
exchanges. Neil James made the comment that if he had a telco budget
he could make the data network that reliable in a couple of years.
Well, since rather less money was available, it's taken more than a
couple of years, but Neil's vision is pretty much fulfilled.
--
Michael Newbery Technical Specialist TelstraClear Limited
Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile: +64-29-939 5102 Fax: +64-4-922 8401
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-27 17:40:48 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 12:23 , Brian Gibbons wrote:
> Telecom have already disclosed their vision, connecting to their IP
> Network
> will be free and they will clip the ticket for services delivered over
> the
> network.

This is great and fantastic for Telecom. It does nothing to promote
choice for the end-user, and experience clearly shows where there is a
lack of choice, there is lack of service.


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
J S Russell
2002-02-27 20:21:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> This is great and fantastic for Telecom. It does nothing to promote
> choice for the end-user, and experience clearly shows where there is a
> lack of choice, there is lack of service.

So Telecom get to provide not much service, and charge
whatever-they-feel-like for it. Indeed great for Telecom. Why else do you
think they're doing it? It's _their job_ to maximise return for
shareholders. Acting in any other way leaves Telecom management without
performance-related bonuses at best, possibly unemployed, and at worst
being sued by shareholders. :)

One doesn't criticise a shark for being a shark, and one can't really
criticise a public company for acting like one.

If you don't like it, treat it as damage and route around it. :) Or else
get your government to change things. Dissing Telecom (while fun) is
pointless.

JSR
--
John S Russell | Smile
Chief Engineer - R&D | Nod
Attica/Callplus NZ | Build it.


-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Juha Saarinen
2002-02-27 21:23:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Newbery wrote:

> Auckland takes urban sprawl to ludicrous levels, but even so, where
> do you mean? We've got coverage of the CBD and lots of other
> interesting places. We even have ADSL (and I DON'T mean JetSxxx)
> scattered around. And what this space.

I will -- any plans for the North Shore?

--
Regards,

Juha
C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley
2002-02-27 21:41:19 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 04:11 , Michael Newbery wrote:

> I go to Auckland for two days and find the list has exploded with
> things that I want to talk about. Oh well.
>
> At 9:05 PM -0500 26/2/02, Joe Abley wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 07:58 , Don Stokes wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> OK. Now run video and telephones over it.
>>
>> Why cripple the IP infrastructure with requirements for legacy
>> services? Leave the voice to the cellular operators and the existing
>> copper pair people, and the video to the satellite and terrestrial
>> broadcast people.
>>
>> Convergence can come later, once a fast, cheap IP infrastructure is
>> reliably available.
>
> We (TelstraClear) are running a converged infrastructure now. Because
> it is cheaper.

You're talking about a converged core, right? Not delivering voice,
video and internet to customers over ethernet.


Joe

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Michael Newbery
2002-02-27 21:59:40 UTC
Permalink
At 4:41 PM -0500 27/2/02, Joe Abley wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 04:11 , Michael Newbery wrote:
>
>>I go to Auckland for two days and find the list has exploded with
>>things that I want to talk about. Oh well.
>>
>>At 9:05 PM -0500 26/2/02, Joe Abley wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 07:58 , Don Stokes wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>OK. Now run video and telephones over it.
>>>
>>>Why cripple the IP infrastructure with requirements for legacy
>>>services? Leave the voice to the cellular operators and the
>>>existing copper pair people, and the video to the satellite and
>>>terrestrial broadcast people.
>>>
>>>Convergence can come later, once a fast, cheap IP infrastructure
>>>is reliably available.
>>
>>We (TelstraClear) are running a converged infrastructure now.
>>Because it is cheaper.
>
>You're talking about a converged core, right? Not delivering voice,
>video and internet to customers over ethernet.

No, I AM talking about delivering voice, video and Internet to
customers over ethernet. Right now. If you call Christchurch City
Council or people in the WestPacTrust tower in AK (not all of it,
just some are our customers), or a numver of other customers, that
POTS call runs over enet and has done for some months. In fact, the
transport between exchanges up and down the country currently runs on
a traditional telco SDH core, but the access is on IP. And it is NOT
VoIP. Its a POTS line into a standard telco cabinet that happens to
backend over a protected ethernet ring. No ATM. No SDH. It re-emerges
back onto a traditional telco switch.

We've also got the converged core, but the cool thing was integrating
the access plot as well. Now, this is only where we have the new
build at the moment, but all the legacy stuff integrates---at least
for voice. The challenge is how to deliver high speed IP over
existing infrastructure at reasonable price.
--
Michael Newbery Technical Specialist TelstraClear Limited
Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile: +64-29-939 5102 Fax: +64-4-922 8401
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Chris Hellberg
2002-02-25 23:34:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Juha Saarinen wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> > Until I see proof of this, I'm going to call BULLSHIT.
>
> Oh no! Please don't call BULLSHIT!
>
> > Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm far from the TCNZ supporter, but
> > I have worked on both sides of the fence, as both a bandwidth consumer
> > and a supplier, and I have been privy to the financial aspects of
> > buying and selling bandwidth from both perspectives.
> >
> > I wish people in New Zealand would stop pretending bandwidth is cheap
> > and/or cost almost zero and expecting vast amounts of resource for
> > little cost. It doesn't work that way. Anywhere.
>
> Nobody with any sense would think that, but... Jetstream currently charges
> between 13 and 23 cents per megabyte.
>
> Does that strike you as affordable, compared to other countries?
>
>

And how is the Jetstream model vastly different to most other bandwidth
charging models in NZ? Not only costing model itself, but also the costs
themselves?

Chris

-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Terence Giufre-Sweetser
2002-03-09 15:14:09 UTC
Permalink
> I'm not saying bandwidth is free but 15cents per megabyte for
> National and Internation is a bit steep. Even if it's 100%
> International it implies a per Megabyte cost of around $48,000 per
> month (which I hope is more than most people are paying).
>
> Factor in the cost of the Southern Cross Cable --- it's not a clear
> cut as you may think.

you should find a "double whammy" effect from SX, as it was turned on, a
few telco's took liberties and upped their margins, overall prices fell
nicely. meanwhile, the smaller guys are now half-way through their
payments plans for SX bandwidth, so in 2004, expect another slide in
prices...

---
Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser

+---------------------------------+--------------------------+
| TereDonn Telecommunications Ltd | Phone +61-[0]7-32369366 |
| 1/128 Bowen St, SPRING HILL | FAX +61-[0]7-32369930 |
| PO BOX 1054, SPRING HILL 4004 | Mobile +61-[0]414-663053 |
| Queensland Australia | http://www.tdce.com.au |
+---------------------------------+--------------------------+


-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Chris Wedgwood
2002-03-09 15:31:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 01:14:09AM +1000, Terence Giufre-Sweetser wrote:

you should find a "double whammy" effect from SX, as it was turned
on, a few telco's took liberties and upped their margins

Who?

How do you know this?

More information please.

overall prices fell nicely. meanwhile, the smaller guys are now
half-way through their payments plans for SX bandwidth, so in
2004, expect another slide in prices...

As technology progresses, it's natural cost benefits will filter down
at some point.



--cw
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Terence Giufre-Sweetser
2002-03-09 15:46:50 UTC
Permalink
> You're talking about a converged core, right? Not delivering voice,
> video and internet to customers over ethernet.

Must be the Ericsson/Juniper/ExtremeNetworks stuff, very nice purple and
blue boxes, very nice byte movers.

Add martini, and them `Anything'oMPLS as it's finalised, and ethernet is
just a little part of it.

// BTW, VoIP is not a dirty word in the industry, it's just plain simply
not a good idea to switch voice with a windows NT box in control of it.
Siemens, Ericsson, Alcatel, et al, all have a very robust set of SS7
offerings that don't "muck about" with a GUI and hard drives. //

---
Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser

+---------------------------------+--------------------------+
| TereDonn Telecommunications Ltd | Phone +61-[0]7-32369366 |
| 1/128 Bowen St, SPRING HILL | FAX +61-[0]7-32369930 |
| PO BOX 1054, SPRING HILL 4004 | Mobile +61-[0]414-663053 |
| Queensland Australia | http://www.tdce.com.au |
+---------------------------------+--------------------------+


-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Terence Giufre-Sweetser
2002-03-10 01:59:35 UTC
Permalink
> overall prices fell nicely. meanwhile, the smaller guys are now
> half-way through their payments plans for SX bandwidth, so in
> 2004, expect another slide in prices...
>
> As technology progresses, it's natural cost benefits will filter down
> at some point.

scenario: you pay your US$2M PA for 4 years, you get the bandwidth for
fifteen. in year five, you give your competition a BIG kick, as you know,
as also they know, that everybody has just paid off the glass from Sydney
to LA.

---
Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser

+---------------------------------+--------------------------+
| TereDonn Telecommunications Ltd | Phone +61-[0]7-32369366 |
| 1/128 Bowen St, SPRING HILL | FAX +61-[0]7-32369930 |
| PO BOX 1054, SPRING HILL 4004 | Mobile +61-[0]414-663053 |
| Queensland Australia | http://www.tdce.com.au |
+---------------------------------+--------------------------+


-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
Ewen McNeill
2004-10-10 08:01:47 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@babylon.blakjak.net>, Mark Foster writes:
>>[Regarding an apparently fairly widespread email to people "involved
>> in the local internet / computer industry."]
>
>Speaking of which; any representatives of Michael's upstream present on
>the list? If so you can colour this as an official complaint about the UCE
>from Michael Hallager as he obviously doesn't see the reason that NZNOG
>have such a low opinion of him.

I sent a report to abuse@$UPSTREAMISP around 17:30 with full details.
I assume someone at $UPSTREAMISP will deal with it tomorrow.

Meanwhile the reaction is hopefully a sufficient demonstration that
sending advertising (spam) to "individuals who we have found on the New
Zealand internet" is fairly counter productive if your aim is to attract
new customers. Particularly when the spam goes to those involved in
running the networks.

So hopefully there will not be a repeat.

Ewen
Ewen McNeill
2005-11-09 23:46:25 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@webmail.blakjak.net>, "Mark Foster" writes:
>I thought that most malware did its own MX lookups and relayed directly?
>Aka bypassing the SMTP relay provided by infected-parties ISP?

There's at least one common variant around now which seems to relay via
the ISP mail servers. I notice it mainly through the reflections,
including some where that ISP's mail server apparently tried to deliver
to some nonexistant user at my domain, got rejected, and so instead
delivers a bounce message to the (forged) from address at the same
domain (which happens to exist; if that one didn't exist either I'd
never see it).

I'm not sure how much longer relaying mail without scanning it first
(and rejecting anything that doesn't pass at SMTP time) is going to be
a viaable strategy for both incoming and outgoing mail relays. Either
that or dynamic IP addresses going away, so it's possible to assign
reputation right back to the originating machine.

Ewen
Loading...