I don't think the logic is purely economic. By integrating the national routing table you get lower $/Mbps but also importantly lower latency and often less risk of packet loss. The big question of course is how do you value a 100ms advantage - which would bring this back to the question as you've framed it. jamie On 8 October 2013 09:08, Jonathan Brewer <jon.brewer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Shane Hanson <shanson(a)istar.net.nz> wrote:
** I’m working for a service provider (Mothership) and we’re trying to differentiate between national and international traffic. Any pointers?
If we're to believe media reports*, bandwidth is so cheap these days that small providers like Orcon (at 5% of market share) are purchasing upwards of 400kbps/subscriber on SCC.
At what point does the overhead involved in differentiation and differential shaping/billing exceed the cost of just buying more capacity?
-JB
* http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/why-isnt-orcon-heeding-dotcoms-call-eliminate-d... locked, but the relevant details are:
"Orcon have upgraded capacity. They had around 8Gbit/s of capacity, now they’ve upgraded that to 23Gbit/s," Mr Dotocm replied (Orcon later confirmed this Southern Cross Cable capacity upgrade. Asked about shaping or throttling, spokesman Quentin Reade told NBR, "We have a fair use policy – but to date, since we launched almost a year ago, we haven't kicked anyone off, or changed any service levels for people. People regularly use more than 1TB a month; some use much more.")
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog