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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

-- \_ Roger De Salis rdesalis(a)cisco.com

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

[snip] Enough already. -- Juha Take off every sig! [/snip] A-frikken-men. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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......... richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

Quoting Don Stokes :

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. From Detroit to Toronto (London being about smack in between) is about as far as from Hamilton to Auckland.

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 Also all but one of these cities are in YankLand and thus means very little (other than free to air TV reception :-) for telco issues. 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... Also has weird weather and scads of corn (but not at this time of the year :-) SPH - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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

<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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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

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: simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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: simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 12:57 , Brian Gibbons wrote:

...

From: "Joe Abley" 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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 rodgerd(a)diaspora.gen.nz Why is it I can find sex toys but no socks? - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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-jame... -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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.

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

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 rodgerd(a)diaspora.gen.nz - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

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 majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog