According to this document less than 10% of Japanese traffic is international. See page 12 for that soundbite, but the rest of the document is quite interesting too. http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0602/pdf/cho.pdf It is from the lightning talks at the last NANOG. The impact of fiber access to ISP backbones in .jp, by Kenjiro Cho, WIDE Project/IIJ PS: Sorry for breaking threading, I deleted the message I was going to followup to. -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.

At 10:16 23/02/2006, Simon Lyall wrote:

According to this document less than 10% of Japanese traffic is international. See page 12 for that soundbite, but the rest of the document is quite interesting too.

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0602/pdf/cho.pdf

It is from the lightning talks at the last NANOG.

The impact of fiber access to ISP backbones in .jp, by Kenjiro Cho, WIDE Project/IIJ

Good point. In fairness to Telecom I'm surprised Theresa didn't bring that up - and the same also applies to South Korea - which is often vaunted for their extremely fast and pervasive broadband connections, until you consider its not a fair comparison because only a small percentage of South Korea's traffic is international, (probably similar to Japan) compared to 90% for New Zealand, simply due to English vs non-English as the language in use. So strictly speaking you could only make a broadband comparision with English speaking countries who source most of their content from overseas...or at minimum check the national/international traffic ratios to see if they're comparable... Regards, Simon

On 23/02/2006 11:02 a.m., Simon Lyall wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Simon Byrnand wrote:

...

So strictly speaking you could only make a broadband comparision with English speaking countries who source most of their content from overseas...or at minimum check the national/international traffic ratios to see if they're comparable...

Does anyone have some current ratios ( Int/Nat/Internal ISP) for NZ?

I would assume International has been steadly increasing for various reasons.

I'd be surprised if that's true. NZ-based content has been increasing over the past 5 years. I don't think it's even relevant though, is it? Internet bandwidth is the ISP's responsibility, not Telecom's. Telecom's DSL caps are there to protect their network, which has insufficient capacity to support real broadband (hence the 148:1 contention ratio on the new plans - basically they are increasing the speed you pay for, while the actual speed you'll get will go down!). The caps have nothing to do with Internet data or where it comes from - that's just a red herring introduced by Ms Gattung to deflect attention from the real question, which she didn't want to answer. -Simon

"Theresa, if the data caps are only present because of the cost of international data, why are there data caps in place on UBS connections? Wholesale UBS connections only connect end-users with local ISPs, and are therefore 100% local and non-international. Can you explain?" I didn't see the show, but was this question asked? I'm guessing not. JSR

What I would have loved to have seen is John ask Teresa about AAPT and how they are crying fowl of Telstra in Austrlia, and how they are not "playing ball", and isn't that EXACTLY what Telecom in New Zealand does to it's competitors? Very interesting show, and at least John was briefed before he went out to ask these questions - someone at TV3 is getting their facts right. On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 11:15 +1300, John S Russell wrote:

"Theresa, if the data caps are only present because of the cost of international data, why are there data caps in place on UBS connections? Wholesale UBS connections only connect end-users with local ISPs, and are therefore 100% local and non-international. Can you explain?"

I didn't see the show, but was this question asked? I'm guessing not.

JSR

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 10:34 +1300, Nicholas Lee wrote:

On 23/02/06, Simon Byrnand wrote:

...

So strictly speaking you could only make a broadband comparision with English speaking countries who source most of their content from overseas...or at minimum check the national/international traffic ratios to see if they're comparable...

I'd disagree.

If we had true broadband here and people were watching stream media from local content providers I'm quite sure our local vs international percentages would be much better.

Like any statistic its a matter of use.

Anyway one of the problem we face at the moment, is we have a market monopoly who dictates the course of the market for ITS best interest. Telecom maintaining their regulation of the market which allows them to match changes and compete with new entrants on their terms. So you might say the development of local independant content is not in their interest for control of the market.

As JSR notes, WHY do the need to regulate the rate between the ISP and user with UBS connections? You would assume that ISPs can do what they obviously have the skill to do, they could regulate the service they supply to their customers. However, this would not be in Telecom best interests. Similar to VoIP it attacks their core markets and forces them to change faster than they are able or will too.

I guess the need to dimension the network and manage how that is used is a fair need. But 148:1 or xxx:1 or whatever it actually is, is the point worth pressing. We engineer between 4 and 8:1 here. There seems to be a long gap between what I know makes my customers happy, and the level that Telecom thinks makes theirs happy. On the Internet, everyone is a customer. Perhaps a standard needs to be agreed? cheers jamie

On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 15:16 +1300, John S Russell wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Jamie Baddeley wrote:

...

I guess the need to dimension the network and manage how that is used is a fair need. But 148:1 or xxx:1 or whatever it actually is, is the point worth pressing.

On the Internet, everyone is a customer. Perhaps a standard needs to be agreed?

And UltraGlobalOmniISP may require Quantum Teleported Infinite Improbability Modules to provide connectivity for their vast userbase.

Ahh, that's what that package was the other day...and we thought it was part of a lego set :-)

So yeah, there's no need to regulate this back-end contention ratio stuff, the market would sort it out ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

Agreed, my point was that take advantage of the aforementioned playing field, it'd pay to agree on some rules/standards first. Should a ref be necessary, he or she'd need to know when to cry foul...(he said analogously) At some point I'd imagine we'll need to collectively agree on what fair and level/balanced is. Some agreement at an industry level would be a good idea. Has NZ ever had of local form of this? http://www.ops.ietf.org/ I can't recall, though I remember a few smart cookies doing NZ sourced rfc-drafts back in the late 20th century. One other question I'd have is what is the best vehicle (figuratively speaking) to get those local standards applied?

The position we're in here is that the market CANNOT sort it out, at least on a macro scale.

No arguments from me here my friend. Maybe we're just talking about the mother of all service level agreements - but one that can be measured, and is practical and has penalties (i.e just like the game you refer to above). cheers jamie