RE: [nznog] [FW] Re: Interesting articles from Beehive
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:nznog(a)jedi.school.nz] Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2005 9:09 p.m. To: Richard Dingwall Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] [FW] Re: Interesting articles from Beehive Richard Dingwall wrote:
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 _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
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.. ;-)
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 06:51 +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:
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."
participants (3)
-
Jeremy Strachan -
Matthew Poole -
Nathan Ward