Discussion:
Interesting articles from Beehive
(too old to reply)
Ian McDonald
2005-07-28 04:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Folks,

You might be interested in two postings today:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=23810

which is the Anti Spam bill and includes a (badly) scanned version of the bill.

Also:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=23811

where the government seems to be rattling the sabres a little in
broadband particularly around wholesale and the 128 k upload.

Regards,

Ian
Juha Saarinen
2005-07-28 04:43:28 UTC
Permalink
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry but has the Minister read his own Commissioner's rulings?
I am aware of an very strong opinion in the industry that 128k upstream is
a constraint. Like the Commissioner I do not regard the proposed regulated
128k service as an upper limit. On the contrary, it should be seen as a
baseline and I expect commercial offerings in the market above that level.
snip
I'm sorry but the regulation has 128 as the MAXIMUM upload speed, not some
kind of regulated minimum. He can expect all he likes, without some new
regulation that says otherwise, 128 is all the incumbent has to deliver and
128 is all it will deliver.

I must now drink a lot of beer a: to stay on topic and b: to drown my
narrowband sorrows. I bid you good day.

- Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian McDonald
2005-07-28 05:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juha Saarinen
I'm sorry but the regulation has 128 as the MAXIMUM upload speed, not some
kind of regulated minimum. He can expect all he likes, without some new
regulation that says otherwise, 128 is all the incumbent has to deliver and
128 is all it will deliver.
I would suggest sending a polite e-mail to the minister at:
***@ministers.govt.nz

I have just done this myself.

Regards,

Ian
Juha Saarinen
2005-07-28 05:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian McDonald
I have just done this myself.
Oh, you as well? ;)
--
Juha
Andy Linton
2005-07-28 05:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juha Saarinen
I'm sorry but the regulation has 128 as the MAXIMUM upload speed, not some
kind of regulated minimum. He can expect all he likes, without some new
regulation that says otherwise, 128 is all the incumbent has to deliver and
128 is all it will deliver.
I've just come back from Sydney where I was at the Equinix Gigabit Peering
Forum drinking beer.

One of the talks was from John Lindsay at Internode about peering etc but he
talked about their ADSL network. Of course, in Oz their regulator mandates
access to the local loop so these guys have deployed their own ADSL2+ with
speeds of up to 24000k/1000k for $59.95 per month. See
http://www.internode.on.net/ and http://www.internode.on.net/adsl2/index.htm

Perhaps there is some benefit in unbundling the local loop (;-)
Blair Harrison
2005-07-28 07:59:08 UTC
Permalink
I think everyone is missing the point of what he's trying to say.

The Telecom retail UBS offering is not regulated at all, but rather a
commercial offering based on the Commission's reccomendations for a
regulated service.

The Regulated UBS currently being negotiated with TelstraClear will have
this upstream limitation, but Telecom is not currently bound by any
rules to provide only 128k upstream, as I understand things.

Feel free to correct me, but Telecom could provide as much upstream
bandwidth as it likes (within the limits of the current ADSL system) to
it's customers, it's just choosing to provide the bare minimum in this
case, to mirror the regulated service. There may be a number of reasons
for this that I'm not privvy to and this is unfortunate, but the
Commerce Commission has set the guidelines, so is ultimately
responsible. Did they really think Telecom would do more than they
absolutely had to ?

Cheers,
Blair
Post by Juha Saarinen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry but has the Minister read his own Commissioner's rulings?
I am aware of an very strong opinion in the industry that 128k upstream is
a constraint. Like the Commissioner I do not regard the proposed regulated
128k service as an upper limit. On the contrary, it should be seen as a
baseline and I expect commercial offerings in the market above that level.
snip
I'm sorry but the regulation has 128 as the MAXIMUM upload speed, not some
kind of regulated minimum. He can expect all he likes, without some new
regulation that says otherwise, 128 is all the incumbent has to deliver and
128 is all it will deliver.
I must now drink a lot of beer a: to stay on topic and b: to drown my
narrowband sorrows. I bid you good day.
- Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Juha Saarinen
2005-07-28 08:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blair Harrison
I think everyone is missing the point of what he's trying to say.
The Telecom retail UBS offering is not regulated at all, but rather a
commercial offering based on the Commission's reccomendations for a
regulated service.
The Regulated UBS currently being negotiated with TelstraClear will have
this upstream limitation, but Telecom is not currently bound by any
rules to provide only 128k upstream, as I understand things.
Feel free to correct me, but Telecom could provide as much upstream
bandwidth as it likes (within the limits of the current ADSL system) to
it's customers, it's just choosing to provide the bare minimum in this
case, to mirror the regulated service. There may be a number of reasons
for this that I'm not privvy to and this is unfortunate, but the
Commerce Commission has set the guidelines, so is ultimately
responsible. Did they really think Telecom would do more than they
absolutely had to ?
All good points Blair, and it will be interesting to see if Telecom will
increase the upstream speed on its "commercial UBS proxy service" when
the regulated Bitstream comes into play.

Then again, with ADSL2(+) being readied, maybe it's just a matter of
Telecom holding out for say six to nine months? My understanding is that
ADSL2(+) is part of the NGN and thus not subject to regulation.


Cheers,
--
Juha
Richard Dingwall
2005-07-28 08:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blair Harrison
Feel free to correct me, but Telecom could provide as much upstream
bandwidth as it likes (within the limits of the current ADSL
system) to
it's customers, it's just choosing to provide the bare minimum in this
case, to mirror the regulated service. There may be a number of reasons
for this that I'm not privvy to and this is unfortunate, but the
Commerce Commission has set the guidelines, so is ultimately
responsible. Did they really think Telecom would do more than they
absolutely had to ?
I would imagine that the low upstream limit could (partly) have been
an effort to curb NZ P2P network traffic.

National P2P networks (DC, particularly) became very popular a few
years ago, when unlimited 128KBit/128KBit DSL was available (i.e,
download as fast as your connection goes - woohoo!).

More recently, as the downstream rate has significantly exceeded the
upstream, your slow upload becomes someone else's slow download.
Imagine the thrill of leeching at 16KByte/s on a 2MBit connection..!

- Richard
Post by Blair Harrison
I think everyone is missing the point of what he's trying to say.
The Telecom retail UBS offering is not regulated at all, but rather a
commercial offering based on the Commission's reccomendations for a
regulated service.
The Regulated UBS currently being negotiated with TelstraClear will have
this upstream limitation, but Telecom is not currently bound by any
rules to provide only 128k upstream, as I understand things.
Feel free to correct me, but Telecom could provide as much upstream
bandwidth as it likes (within the limits of the current ADSL
system) to
it's customers, it's just choosing to provide the bare minimum in this
case, to mirror the regulated service. There may be a number of reasons
for this that I'm not privvy to and this is unfortunate, but the
Commerce Commission has set the guidelines, so is ultimately
responsible. Did they really think Telecom would do more than they
absolutely had to ?
Cheers,
Blair
Post by Juha Saarinen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
I'm sorry but has the Minister read his own Commissioner's rulings?
I am aware of an very strong opinion in the industry that 128k upstream is
a constraint. Like the Commissioner I do not regard the proposed regulated
128k service as an upper limit. On the contrary, it should be seen as a
baseline and I expect commercial offerings in the market above that level.
snip
I'm sorry but the regulation has 128 as the MAXIMUM upload speed, not some
kind of regulated minimum. He can expect all he likes, without some new
regulation that says otherwise, 128 is all the incumbent has to deliver and
128 is all it will deliver.
I must now drink a lot of beer a: to stay on topic and b: to drown my
narrowband sorrows. I bid you good day.
- Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Blair Harrison
2005-07-28 09:09:05 UTC
Permalink
I would imagine that the low upstream limit could (partly) have been an
effort to curb NZ P2P network traffic.
National P2P networks (DC, particularly) became very popular a few
years ago, when unlimited 128KBit/128KBit DSL was available (i.e,
download as fast as your connection goes - woohoo!).
More recently, as the downstream rate has significantly exceeded the
upstream, your slow upload becomes someone else's slow download.
Imagine the thrill of leeching at 16KByte/s on a 2MBit connection..!
- Richard
Quite a possibility. I did have one of our high speed customers leave
Kazaa on over a few days.. managed to eat up about 75GB of traffic in
those couple of days. They were uploading at a rate of about 1.8 gig an
hour.

I can see the merits of limiting upstream speed in the interests of
conserving network capacity, but I don't see why regular non-p2p-using
customers should be held back from experiencing true broadband speeds
because of the actions of the leechers out there.

There are methods available to limit the impact of such P2P applications
and I believe at least one large ISP in NZ has implemented a layer 7
filtering system that can limit speeds at the application level.

So the technology to limit the impact of P2P users to the network is
available, should Telecom choose to use it. Why slow down the rest of
the users who want to do really cool things like full screen multi-user
videoconferencing and sending media files across town for processing
because of the actions of the pesky leechers?

Maybe because that would start to eat into their other more traditional
'higher value' revenue streams such as Frame Relay, Metro Ethernet and
ATM? (which, incidentally, I can't even find on their website today)

P2P may be a big reason and the most obvious, but I doubt it's the only
reason.

Cheers,
Blair
James Clark
2005-07-28 10:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Dingwall
I would imagine that the low upstream limit could (partly) have been
an effort to curb NZ P2P network traffic.
P2P is being used as a scapegoat, it's sad to see people are buying it.

James.
Jamie Baddeley
2005-07-28 10:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Clark
Post by Richard Dingwall
I would imagine that the low upstream limit could (partly) have been
an effort to curb NZ P2P network traffic.
P2P is being used as a scapegoat, it's sad to see people are buying it.
Aye. The Internet was built on the peer to peer concept. Tim Berners Lee
wanted to share some information that he valued with his peers. Steve
Crocker and Vint Cerf and Jon Postel did what they did so they could
have a network that shared information. Respect to them.

Their world was not of consumer/provider. Their world was of equivalency
and symmetry.

I'm not building my part of The Internet so that the computer and
computing is nothing more than a telephone with a screen. Smart Core,
Dumb Edge? No thanks.

jamie
Will
2005-07-28 05:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Politeness gets you nowhere.

Burn the infidels!

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian McDonald [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2005 5:03 p.m.
To: Juha Saarinen
Cc: NZNOG List
Subject: Re: [nznog] [FW] Re: Interesting articles from Beehive
Post by Juha Saarinen
I'm sorry but the regulation has 128 as the MAXIMUM upload speed, not some
kind of regulated minimum. He can expect all he likes, without some new
regulation that says otherwise, 128 is all the incumbent has to deliver
and
Post by Juha Saarinen
128 is all it will deliver.
I would suggest sending a polite e-mail to the minister at:
***@ministers.govt.nz

I have just done this myself.

Regards,

Ian
Jeremy Naylor
2005-07-28 05:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will
Politeness gets you nowhere.
Burn the infidels!
Hey Will,

No - be nice!

Rudeness gets you nowhere actually!

Thanks,

Jeremy Naylor
p: +64 21 374 689
e: ***@r2.co.nz
w: http://www.r2.co.nz/~jeremy
w: http://e-living.wellington.net.nz
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 27/07/2005
P***@computerworld.co.nz
2005-07-28 05:43:53 UTC
Permalink
or consider iiNet with its own ADSL2+ where for $70/month Australian you
can get a service that in NZ costs $2400/month plus GST for something
similar.

Even given the exchange rate someone's added at least a zero somewhere.
Will
2005-07-28 05:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Well in that case, no wonder no-one wuvs me anymore.

Will

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Naylor [mailto:***@r2.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2005 5:55 p.m.
To: Will
Cc: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: RE: [nznog] [FW] Re: Interesting articles from Beehive
Post by Will
Politeness gets you nowhere.
Burn the infidels!
Hey Will,

No - be nice!

Rudeness gets you nowhere actually!

Thanks,

Jeremy Naylor
p: +64 21 374 689
e: ***@r2.co.nz
w: http://www.r2.co.nz/~jeremy
w: http://e-living.wellington.net.nz
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 27/07/2005
Erin Salmon - Unleash Computers Ltd
2005-07-28 08:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

I'd say Richard's theory was exactly right here... Telecom isn't bound by a
128k maximum, and did in fact recently drop its own upload speed to 128k
from 192k to match the speed offered through UBS in order to make it fair
for wholesalers. Crappy as it is, it was probably a fair move. One could
only wish Telecom and the Comcom will see merit in raising this as soon as
possible.

:)

Erin Salmon
Managing Director
Unleash Computers Ltd
Mobile: 021 877 913
Landline: 03 365 1273
www.unleash.co.nz

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Dingwall [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: 28 July 2005 8:33 p.m.
To: Blair Harrison
Cc: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] [FW] Re: Interesting articles from Beehive
Post by Blair Harrison
Feel free to correct me, but Telecom could provide as much upstream
bandwidth as it likes (within the limits of the current ADSL
system) to
it's customers, it's just choosing to provide the bare minimum in this
case, to mirror the regulated service. There may be a number of
reasons
for this that I'm not privvy to and this is unfortunate, but the
Commerce Commission has set the guidelines, so is ultimately
responsible. Did they really think Telecom would do more than they
absolutely had to ?
I would imagine that the low upstream limit could (partly) have been
an effort to curb NZ P2P network traffic.

National P2P networks (DC, particularly) became very popular a few
years ago, when unlimited 128KBit/128KBit DSL was available (i.e,
download as fast as your connection goes - woohoo!).

More recently, as the downstream rate has significantly exceeded the
upstream, your slow upload becomes someone else's slow download.
Imagine the thrill of leeching at 16KByte/s on a 2MBit connection..!

- Richard
Post by Blair Harrison
I think everyone is missing the point of what he's trying to say.
The Telecom retail UBS offering is not regulated at all, but rather a
commercial offering based on the Commission's reccomendations for a
regulated service.
The Regulated UBS currently being negotiated with TelstraClear will
have
this upstream limitation, but Telecom is not currently bound by any
rules to provide only 128k upstream, as I understand things.
Feel free to correct me, but Telecom could provide as much upstream
bandwidth as it likes (within the limits of the current ADSL
system) to
it's customers, it's just choosing to provide the bare minimum in this
case, to mirror the regulated service. There may be a number of
reasons
for this that I'm not privvy to and this is unfortunate, but the
Commerce Commission has set the guidelines, so is ultimately
responsible. Did they really think Telecom would do more than they
absolutely had to ?
Cheers,
Blair
Post by Juha Saarinen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
I'm sorry but has the Minister read his own Commissioner's rulings?
I am aware of an very strong opinion in the industry that 128k
upstream is
a constraint. Like the Commissioner I do not regard the proposed
regulated
128k service as an upper limit. On the contrary, it should be
seen as a
baseline and I expect commercial offerings in the market above that
level.
snip
I'm sorry but the regulation has 128 as the MAXIMUM upload speed,
not some
kind of regulated minimum. He can expect all he likes, without
some new
regulation that says otherwise, 128 is all the incumbent has to
deliver and
128 is all it will deliver.
I must now drink a lot of beer a: to stay on topic and b: to drown my
narrowband sorrows. I bid you good day.
- Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Erin Salmon - Unleash Computers Ltd
2005-07-28 09:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Blair's quite right. A simple Linux box can limit P2P traffic easily, and
I'm sure even Telecom has a few Linux geeks running around in the
development team.

Still, a good number of the people on this list work for ISPs, and P2P users
mean traffic, which means money. Can it be all bad? Unless of course what
he's saying about it slowing down the rest of the network is true, but
surely if you can charge people for the traffic they use, you merely need to
upscale the network using the funds thus procured until it has enough
capacity.

Perhaps the problem preventing that is that most ISPs loose money on the P2P
users by trying to squeeze them onto plans designed for ordinary consumers,
when they should simply fling the pipe open and charge what they need to for
it.

If you're going to get someone else's movies for free, surely you'd be happy
to pay a couple of bucks a movie to get them?

- Erin



-----Original Message-----
From: Blair Harrison [mailto:***@jedi.school.nz]
Sent: 28 July 2005 9:09 p.m.
To: Richard Dingwall
Cc: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] [FW] Re: Interesting articles from Beehive
I would imagine that the low upstream limit could (partly) have been an
effort to curb NZ P2P network traffic.
National P2P networks (DC, particularly) became very popular a few
years ago, when unlimited 128KBit/128KBit DSL was available (i.e,
download as fast as your connection goes - woohoo!).
More recently, as the downstream rate has significantly exceeded the
upstream, your slow upload becomes someone else's slow download.
Imagine the thrill of leeching at 16KByte/s on a 2MBit connection..!
- Richard
Quite a possibility. I did have one of our high speed customers leave
Kazaa on over a few days.. managed to eat up about 75GB of traffic in
those couple of days. They were uploading at a rate of about 1.8 gig an
hour.

I can see the merits of limiting upstream speed in the interests of
conserving network capacity, but I don't see why regular non-p2p-using
customers should be held back from experiencing true broadband speeds
because of the actions of the leechers out there.

There are methods available to limit the impact of such P2P applications
and I believe at least one large ISP in NZ has implemented a layer 7
filtering system that can limit speeds at the application level.

So the technology to limit the impact of P2P users to the network is
available, should Telecom choose to use it. Why slow down the rest of
the users who want to do really cool things like full screen multi-user
videoconferencing and sending media files across town for processing
because of the actions of the pesky leechers?

Maybe because that would start to eat into their other more traditional
'higher value' revenue streams such as Frame Relay, Metro Ethernet and
ATM? (which, incidentally, I can't even find on their website today)

P2P may be a big reason and the most obvious, but I doubt it's the only
reason.

Cheers,
Blair
Jeremy Strachan
2005-07-28 10:13:56 UTC
Permalink
We'd like an increase from 128K to a whole 256K! Greedy I know ...

But 128K is horribly limited for any remote users trying to access a
site over a vpn, webmail, you name it.

Things we do in the modern age.


Jeremy

-----Original Message-----
From: Blair Harrison [mailto:***@jedi.school.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2005 9:09 p.m.
To: Richard Dingwall
Cc: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] [FW] Re: Interesting articles from Beehive
Post by Richard Dingwall
I would imagine that the low upstream limit could (partly) have been
an effort to curb NZ P2P network traffic.
National P2P networks (DC, particularly) became very popular a few
years ago, when unlimited 128KBit/128KBit DSL was available (i.e,
download as fast as your connection goes - woohoo!).
More recently, as the downstream rate has significantly exceeded the
upstream, your slow upload becomes someone else's slow download.
Imagine the thrill of leeching at 16KByte/s on a 2MBit connection..!
- Richard
Quite a possibility. I did have one of our high speed customers leave
Kazaa on over a few days.. managed to eat up about 75GB of traffic in
those couple of days. They were uploading at a rate of about 1.8 gig an
hour.

I can see the merits of limiting upstream speed in the interests of
conserving network capacity, but I don't see why regular non-p2p-using
customers should be held back from experiencing true broadband speeds
because of the actions of the leechers out there.

There are methods available to limit the impact of such P2P applications
and I believe at least one large ISP in NZ has implemented a layer 7
filtering system that can limit speeds at the application level.

So the technology to limit the impact of P2P users to the network is
available, should Telecom choose to use it. Why slow down the rest of
the users who want to do really cool things like full screen multi-user
videoconferencing and sending media files across town for processing
because of the actions of the pesky leechers?

Maybe because that would start to eat into their other more traditional
'higher value' revenue streams such as Frame Relay, Metro Ethernet and
ATM? (which, incidentally, I can't even find on their website today)

P2P may be a big reason and the most obvious, but I doubt it's the only
reason.

Cheers,
Blair
Nathan Ward
2005-07-28 18:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeremy Strachan
We'd like an increase from 128K to a whole 256K! Greedy I know ...
But 128K is horribly limited for any remote users trying to access a
site over a vpn, webmail, you name it.
Or when your ADSL circuit is limited to 128kbps upstream at L2 and your
packets hit the wire slower, VoIP degrades. Please note the recent stream
of mail from Michael Sutton and InternetNZ re ENUM.

<snip>
Co-operating with the Government, Telecommunication Carriers Forum and
applications developers, InternetNZ will participate and facilitate a New
Zealand ENUM Trial over the next year that will provide a platform to test,
demonstrate, commercialize applications and integrate ENUM to deliver
economic advantage to the New Zealand community.
</snip>

I hope ENUM will be of use..

;-)
Matthew Poole
2005-07-28 20:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathan Ward
Post by Jeremy Strachan
We'd like an increase from 128K to a whole 256K! Greedy I know ...
But 128K is horribly limited for any remote users trying to access a
site over a vpn, webmail, you name it.
Or when your ADSL circuit is limited to 128kbps upstream at L2 and your
packets hit the wire slower, VoIP degrades. Please note the recent stream
of mail from Michael Sutton and InternetNZ re ENUM.
Which is what I was lead to believe was the reason for a 128k upstream
to begin with: locking VoIP out, to protect Telecom - the poor dears -
from competition against their voice services.
It's rubbish, regardless, and if protecting Telecom from competition is
the real reason then doubly so. Free market rules say innovate or die,
don't go crawling to the Government for protection against
more-efficient competitors (unless you're the media industry, of
course).
--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
Loading...