At 17:23 28/07/2005, you wrote:

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: jeremy.naylor(a)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

Ian McDonald wrote:

I would suggest sending a polite e-mail to the minister at: dcunliffe(a)ministers.govt.nz

I have just done this myself.

Oh, you as well? ;) -- Juha

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.

Blair Harrison wrote:

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

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:rdingwall(a)gmail.com] Sent: 28 July 2005 8:33 p.m. To: Blair Harrison Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] [FW] Re: Interesting articles from Beehive

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 On 28/07/2005, at 7:59 PM, Blair Harrison wrote:

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

Juha Saarinen wrote:

...

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------

Paul Brislen wrote:

...

I'm sorry but has the Minister read his own Commissioner's rulings?

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

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

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

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:nznog(a)jedi.school.nz] Sent: 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

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 22:05 +1200, James Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:32:32PM +1200, Richard Dingwall wrote:

...

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