Hiya, After bailing our Telecom account manager up about the latest excuse as to why Telecom are not willing to peer, it came back that the Tax Dept are claiming that the people peering at APE are committing tax fraud due to the traffic traveling across the APE link having a real dollar value associated with it. Telecom claim that the Tax Dept have contacted everyone about this issue and that we should all be paying each other for the privilege of peering in order to recover the costs associated with traffic across APE. Then each of us should be paying GST on the traffic to/from each of our peers. Can anyone out there verify this latest myth ? :-) We are apparently going to get an answer to this latest problem within the next 90 min's, I wonder what the next excuse will be.. To date (since I took over from Tony on the "beatup the account manager about peering" a few weeks ago) I have had: * There are legal issues * There is a contract you need to sign which we cant show you as Telstra and Clear said it was rubbish * We have the connectivity up there but are not allowed to use it yet (ironically this was a few hours after the post showing the interface traffic stats) * We are considering dropping the domestic service offering as it's not viable * The tax dept wont allow us (or anyone else) to peer as they require us to pay GST on the traffic I must say, if nothing else its entertaining watching the excuses.. -- Steve. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
At 2:42 pm +1200 5/16/01, Steve Phillips wrote:
* The tax dept wont allow us (or anyone else) to peer as they require us to pay GST on the traffic
Do you pay GST on bartered goods? As GST always sinks down to the bottom of the food chain (the final consumer of the goods), I can't see the point in two non-consumers swapping equal value tax invoices. Common sense would suggest that generating paperwork, with no actual difference in the amount of tax paid to the government, is a waste of everyone's time. But it IS the Government we're talking about, so I will ban myself from posting to this list for a few weeks, for putting "Government" and "Common Sense" in the same sentence. -- Andrew P. Gardner barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP? We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare? Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Andy Gardner wrote:
At 2:42 pm +1200 5/16/01, Steve Phillips wrote:
* The tax dept wont allow us (or anyone else) to peer as they require us to pay GST on the traffic
Do you pay GST on bartered goods?
Not wanting to divert the debate off topic, but legally, yes, you are required to pay GST on bartered goods. If you provide goods or services and associate a value with those goods and services, then there is an obligation to pay GST. If you traded with me 50Kg of Mexican jumping beans for a sheep, I would have to pay GST on the value of the sheep and you would have to pay GST on the value of the jumping beans.
As GST always sinks down to the bottom of the food chain (the final consumer of the goods), I can't see the point in two non-consumers swapping equal value tax invoices. Common sense would suggest that generating paperwork, with no actual difference in the amount of tax paid to the government, is a waste of everyone's time.
So true. Two companies who enter into a contra arangement (legally should) go through the process of swapping GST cheques, and the subsequent payment/claim for GST with IRD - despite the fact that the net tax effect is nil. But I am not at all sure if the "APE" situation is even a contra deal. It is, afaik, an arrangement by which carriers can channel data. It is an expedient arrangement by which the parties derive a mutual advantage. No-one is providing a good or a service. Is that correct? Keith Davidson --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Steve Phillips wrote:
After bailing our Telecom account manager up about the latest excuse as to why Telecom are not willing to peer, it came back that the Tax Dept are claiming that the people peering at APE are committing tax fraud due to the traffic traveling across the APE link having a real dollar value associated with it.
* boggle *
Telecom claim that the Tax Dept have contacted everyone about this issue and that we should all be paying each other for the privilege of peering in order to recover the costs associated with traffic across APE. Then each of us should be paying GST on the traffic to/from each of our peers.
Can anyone out there verify this latest myth ? :-)
Stop me if I'm being too technical, but it's Bollocks. I never heard ANYTHING about this when repeatedly dealing with Telecom to set up IHUG's 100Mbit link to APE, even though we discussed at the time ditching the Netgate link because of it. I discussed an upgrade of Callplus' link to APE with multiple vendors recently, including Telecom, and never was _tax_ mentioned at ANY time, even though, once again, it called into question the ongoing viability of Callplus' connection to Netgate. Callplus/Attica have not been contacted by the tax dept about this. IHUG hadn't either, by the time I departed from it. This is the first time I've heard this particular argument being made. Sheesh. Back in the 80's and 90's, I used to dial up my friends modems directly to exchange information (FIDO and NNTP stuff, usually) - I guess I'll owe some back-taxes for not using pacnet, huh?
We are apparently going to get an answer to this latest problem within the next 90 min's, I wonder what the next excuse will be..
My guess: Penguins on the SCSI bus. JSR -- John S Russell | "What the hell is he building in there... Operations Manager | he has a router...and a table saw..." Attica/Callplus NZ | - Tom Waits, Mule Variations --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, 16 May 2001, J S Russell wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Steve Phillips wrote:
After bailing our Telecom account manager up about the latest excuse as to why Telecom are not willing to peer, it came back that the Tax Dept are claiming that the people peering at APE are committing tax fraud due to the traffic traveling across the APE link having a real dollar value associated with it.
They've been kicking this one around for some time now. I've seen a copy of their proposed peering agreement which has precisely this sort of stuff in it. Given that no other ISP appears to have been told by the IRD that this is an issue it smells like a way for Telecom to avoid peering with zero sum settlements. I'd say they're betting on pushing people into a regime that says, "We'll charge you x cents for every Mb you take from us. You can charge us y cents for each Mb we take from you". Naturally this will be constructed so that the net result is that TSNZ makes money here. Sounds depressingly like the phone interconnect agreements they had with other NZ providers doesn't it? --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
"Andy Linton" said.....
Naturally this will be constructed so that the net result is that TSNZ makes money here. ^^^^ Ahem. You meant TCNZ surely Sir?
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
At 3:41 pm +1200 5/16/01, Sid Jones wrote:
"Andy Linton" said.....
Naturally this will be constructed so that the net result is that TSNZ makes money here. ^^^^ Ahem. You meant TCNZ surely Sir?
Probably meant Microsoft. The M's not that far from the T on the keyboard, especially for pudgy fingers. -- Andrew P. Gardner barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP? We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare? Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:49:21PM -0500, Andy Gardner wrote: The M's not that far from the T on the keyboard, especially for pudgy fingers. Nit... only on dvorak, not on qwerty --cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Sid Jones wrote:
"Andy Linton" said.....
Naturally this will be constructed so that the net result is that TSNZ makes money here. ^^^^ Ahem. You meant TCNZ surely Sir?
Oops, brain on auto => slip of the fingers! TCNZ, TSNZ, it isn't always Clear who the large telcos are! (:-) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Given that no other ISP appears to have been told by the IRD that this is an issue it smells like a way for Telecom to avoid peering with zero sum settlements. I'd say they're betting on pushing people into a regime that says, "We'll charge you x cents for every Mb you take from us. You can charge us y cents for each Mb we take from you". Naturally this will be constructed so that the net result is that TSNZ makes money here.
Sounds depressingly like the phone interconnect agreements they had with other NZ providers doesn't it?
Surely there isnt that many networks still connected to NetGate domestic? Their domestic service has been pretty shagged for a long time now, and I would have thought that there were many other providers offering domestic access much cheaper? How long will it take to simply squeeze them out of the domestic market anyway? I don't know much about anyone else, but I am seeing many more AS-paths through APE and WIX than I am from AS4648. Observe: gibson:~# rsh -l admin cr1.akl.attica.net.nz sh ip bgp paths | awk '{ print $5 }' | grep -v 5594 | sort | uniq -c 1 1 17412 25 4648 44 4768 11 4770 26 7657 15 9325 1 9436 20 9439 1 9559 1 9560 8 ? 1 Path 9 i So, basically I am seeing 25 distinct AS-paths behind AS4648 (NetGate) 44 from Clear, 26 from IHUG, etc. Looks to me like it's in Telecom's best interests to peer with (the royal) us, and not the other way around. Cheers. James Tyson --- Samizdat New Media Solutions --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, 16 May 2001, James Tyson wrote:
So, basically I am seeing 25 distinct AS-paths behind AS4648 (NetGate) 44 from Clear, 26 from IHUG, etc. Looks to me like it's in Telecom's best interests to peer with (the royal) us, and not the other way around.
Given the level of complaints from disgruntled NetGate customers, and the few from customers of AOL/Clear/TSNZ, I had already concluded that TCNZ really needed to see the light and peer with the royal we, or their customers would slowly leave and peer directly at APE/WIX themselves. The longer Telecom leaves it, the worse it's going to get for them... Time for a rousing chorus of some Billy Bragg anthem, me thinks :-) Cheers Si --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Steve Phillips wrote:
Telecom claim that the Tax Dept have contacted everyone about this issue and that we should all be paying each other for the privilege of peering in order to recover the costs associated with traffic across APE. Then each of us should be paying GST on the traffic to/from each of our peers.
Next they'll say this mailing list is a tax dodge so people can avoid spending money on consultants fees and vendor support. -- 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
:: Next they'll say this mailing list is a tax dodge so people can avoid :: spending money on consultants fees and vendor support. Holy sh!t... I'd better unsubscribe from all the mailing lists I'm on... Wonder what the IRD would make of PC World's PressF1 service (that is how it's labelled) then? -- Juha --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
I wonder how happy the IRD will be if asked to pay such a charge on their own data? Perhaps their provider should discuss this with them.... :-) I agree with Andy - this looks too much like another interconnect agreement attempt. Gordon Smith Network Operations Manager MoreNet Ltd. Fingerprint: 4093 91BC 0055 46B9 1B1A EDBA 45AD 2381 7B1D E4BE --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:42:19PM +1200, Steve Phillips wrote: After bailing our Telecom account manager up about the latest excuse as to why Telecom are not willing to peer, it came back that the Tax Dept are claiming that the people peering at APE are committing tax fraud due to the traffic traveling across the APE link having a real dollar value associated with it. SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND NOBODY ELSE!!! THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND MAY CONTAIN NO FACTS WHATSOEVER. IN FACT CONSIDER THIS PURE FANTASY FOR A RAVING LUNATIC. I heard this... and was very surprised when I heard it. I made enquiries with lawyers and accountants and the advice I was given (verbally, nothing in writing) was indeed that it was not something they had ever heard of... and neither had various people at the IRD it seems when I called, and when I explained it to them they didn't seem to think it would apply or even be worth their effort getting involved with. Not only this, the IRS in the US and similar organizations elsewhere in the world don't seem to want to be involved either... the only place that does seem to care is Australia from (I believe) a precedent set by Telstra Australia many years ago it seems, so no big surprises there, and the only reason they care there is because peering costs money, something that makes sense if you are then incumbent and largest carrier in one of the few countries that has more expensive and more poorly run networks than NZ. Telecom claim that the Tax Dept have contacted everyone about this issue and that we should all be paying each other for the privilege of peering in order to recover the costs associated with traffic across APE. Then each of us should be paying GST on the traffic to/from each of our peers. Who from the tax department contacted who? Someone at TCNZ needs to supply names please? And then the person(s) from IRD should explain why nobody from IRD and no tax consultants have ever heard about this. Not only this, the whole concept of place monetary value here is completely stupid... who pays who? If you are an ISP you will have a different idea than if you are a hosting company.... what's more, how do you decide on a value on the data here? How to you measure it? Do packet headers count? What about DoS attacks? What about varying rates for different traffic types? What about different times of the day? How about charging more for packets that had to traverse further through your network? How about charging less for those packets which took longer to arrive because of queuing? Maybe NNTP traffic is over lower value because most gets thrown away? Maybe HTML pages are of higher value than images? Maybe images with flesh tones should have a higher value than those without? If you accept peering is a best effort zero-settlement bilateral agreement for the interests of customers of both networks then the above issues go away. Neither party gains a significant competitive advantage over the other, they both 'win'. Most importantly, the CONSUMER and PUBLIC AS A WHOLE wins. We are apparently going to get an answer to this latest problem within the next 90 min's, I wonder what the next excuse will be.. And they said what? * There are legal issues And they are? Who from the crown or state can stipulate these? * There is a contract you need to sign which we cant show you as Telstra and Clear said it was rubbish If this was indeed the case (remember, I am speaking for myself here), then presumably there were reasons as to why representatives from these companies said this? Is there not a more recent document that takes into account the issues raised? * We have the connectivity up there but are not allowed to use it yet (ironically this was a few hours after the post showing the interface traffic stats) <mumble> traceroute <mumble> <mumble> anyone on this list got a TCNZ connection of some kind? <mumble> DSL would do <mumble> * We are considering dropping the domestic service offering as it's not viable Sure, customers only want to see US sites, they never want domestic traffic. Email with attachments should take hours to arrive. Especially that to and from government departments. The most cost effective way to send data between large NZ carriers is via the US. * The tax dept wont allow us (or anyone else) to peer as they require us to pay GST on the traffic On traffic sent or received? How much? Presumably we can claim against this the cost of metering it? This will almost certainly exceed any tax on perceived value. I would argue if the IRD ever does state charging is a good idea, then people should filter out the network 203.97.170.0/23 and any subnets thereof :) --cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
:: SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND NOBODY ELSE!!! THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND :: MAY CONTAIN NO FACTS WHATSOEVER. IN FACT CONSIDER THIS PURE FANTASY :: FOR A RAVING LUNATIC. Don't call Steve a "raving lunatic"... he's been known to be quite lucid inbetween pub opening hours. ;-) :: they had ever heard of... and neither had various people at the IRD :: it seems when I called, and when I explained it to them they didn't :: seem to think it would apply or even be worth their effort getting :: involved with. Oh, excellent. Chris tipped off the IRD. Aaaaccckk.... :: Not only this, the whole concept of place monetary value here is :: completely stupid... who pays who? If you are an ISP you will have a :: different idea than if you are a hosting company.... what's more, :: how do you decide on a value on the data here? How to you measure it? :: Do packet headers count? What about DoS attacks? What about varying :: rates for different traffic types? What about different times of the :: day? How about charging more for packets that had to traverse further :: through your network? How about charging less for those packets which :: took longer to arrive because of queuing? Maybe NNTP traffic is over :: lower value because most gets thrown away? Maybe HTML pages are of :: higher value than images? Maybe images with flesh tones should have a :: higher value than those without? I trust Doc Cullen isn't on the subscriber list? He's after a few good ideas to boost funding for overseas holidays^Wfact-finding missions for MPs. :: If you accept peering is a best effort zero-settlement bilateral :: agreement for the interests of customers of both networks then the :: above issues go away. Neither party gains a significant competitive :: advantage over the other, they both 'win'. Most importantly, the :: CONSUMER and PUBLIC AS A WHOLE wins. That's a "fringe benefit" isn't it? Taxable at 39%. -- Juha --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Hey has anyone out there sucssesfully gotten a Telecom R2 E1 to stand up on an AS5300 with the intention of taking data calls? We're trying to set one up here and I can get the interface to stand up but it's giving me heaps of Line Code Violations and won't take incomming traffic. I think I must have something wrong. If anyones managed this before I'ld really appreciate suggestions or a section of config illistrating the config for the E1. Might be usefull for others as well since Cisco seem to be pushing hard for the dial-up market. Ta in advance. Chris Rigby Senior Systems Engineer IHUG - Into the Internet --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
It may be the line code needs to be changed from the default of HDB3 to AMI
?
Keith Davidson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Rigby"
Hey has anyone out there sucssesfully gotten a Telecom R2 E1 to stand up on an AS5300 with the intention of taking data calls?
We're trying to set one up here and I can get the interface to stand up but it's giving me heaps of Line Code Violations and won't take incomming traffic. I think I must have something wrong.
If anyones managed this before I'ld really appreciate suggestions or a section of config illistrating the config for the E1.
Might be usefull for others as well since Cisco seem to be pushing hard for the dial-up market.
Ta in advance.
Chris Rigby Senior Systems Engineer IHUG - Into the Internet
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
I would argue if the IRD ever does state charging is a good idea, then people should filter out the network 203.97.170.0/23 and any subnets thereof :)
Um, what about just 203.97.170.18/32 why pick on all the rest of our web customers ;) Did you mean 138.235/16 ? --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:42:24PM +1200, Sid Jones wrote: Um, what about just 203.97.170.18/32 why pick on all the rest of our web customers ;) Did you mean 138.235/16 ? Possibly... actually, they have poisoned 210.48.103.0/24 too :( Is nobody safe? --cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Is this Tax Dept as the IRD, or Tax Dept as in "some internal pack of tax accountants at Telecom" ? On Wed, 16 May 2001, Steve Phillips wrote:
Hiya,
After bailing our Telecom account manager up about the latest excuse as to why Telecom are not willing to peer, it came back that the Tax Dept are claiming that the people peering at APE are committing tax fraud due to the traffic traveling across the APE link having a real dollar value associated with it.
Telecom claim that the Tax Dept have contacted everyone about this issue and that we should all be paying each other for the privilege of peering in order to recover the costs associated with traffic across APE. Then each of us should be paying GST on the traffic to/from each of our peers.
Can anyone out there verify this latest myth ? :-)
We are apparently going to get an answer to this latest problem within the next 90 min's, I wonder what the next excuse will be..
To date (since I took over from Tony on the "beatup the account manager about peering" a few weeks ago) I have had:
* There are legal issues * There is a contract you need to sign which we cant show you as Telstra and Clear said it was rubbish * We have the connectivity up there but are not allowed to use it yet (ironically this was a few hours after the post showing the interface traffic stats) * We are considering dropping the domestic service offering as it's not viable * The tax dept wont allow us (or anyone else) to peer as they require us to pay GST on the traffic
I must say, if nothing else its entertaining watching the excuses..
-- Steve.
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
* We are considering dropping the domestic service offering as it's not viable * The tax dept wont allow us (or anyone else) to peer as they require us to pay GST on the traffic
Umm.. try and account for Multicast Traffic 100% . If everyone at APE is Multicast enabled/connected who "owns" the data ??? Thanks Craig.. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (14)
-
Andy Gardner -
Andy Linton -
Chris Rigby -
Chris Wedgwood -
Craig Whitmore -
Gordon Smith -
J S Russell -
James Tyson -
Juha Saarinen -
Keith Davidson -
Sid Jones -
Simon Blake -
Simon Lyall -
Steve Phillips