PDA

View Full Version : Help me understand the Southern Cross Cable



Chilling_Silence
18-12-2009, 02:54 PM
So let me get this right:
Originally supposed to provide 120gbps
Currently pumping out some 780gbps

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2817093/Southern-Cross-Cables-planning-new-Pacific-pipe

Is that NZ's only / main way for data coming in to NZ? There are no alternatives, correct?
Does anybody know it's approximate utilization, or amount of that 780gbps that has been "rationed" out (AFAIK it's sold on CIR throuput rate)?

Cheers


Chill.

Speedy Gonzales
18-12-2009, 03:05 PM
Looks like its going up to 1.2 TB in 2010 according to Wikipedia, and may go to 2.4. Looks like there maybe a competitor soon - Kordia Optikor (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/kordia-we-can-build-second-transtasman-cable-without-govt-help-112096?headsup=1). It maybe ready in 2011 (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/kordia-announces-result-and-plans-new-transtasman-cable-112058)

Chilling_Silence
18-12-2009, 03:07 PM
Ah but as of now that's the only *main* way to get data into NZ?

Speedy Gonzales
18-12-2009, 03:09 PM
From what Ive read yup it is as of now. as it says here (http://www.3news.co.nz/Underwater-broadband-cable-to-link-NZ-with-rest-of-the-world/tabid/421/articleID/116035/cat/908/Default.aspx)

New Zealand’s high speed internet connection to the rest of the world relies on one underwater cable – the Southern Cross, which links Auckland to the United States.

beeswax34
18-12-2009, 03:11 PM
Yup, one cable in and one cable out.

Trev
18-12-2009, 03:11 PM
I think there is another cable going through Aussie.
:)

wratterus
18-12-2009, 03:16 PM
780gbps really is sfa for a whole country. :ban

Terry Porritt
18-12-2009, 03:22 PM
Before Southern Cross the NZ Gateway was at Waikato University, originally around 2.4 kbps, then increasingas time went on. Even on the DSIRnet in the early 90s, connection very slow compared to now, domestically.
There were cables and also a satellite link to Hawaii, but I doubt if any of that is still working.

"Between 1995/1996 and 2001.

* Waikato no longer main connectivity. Rex Croft not looking after .nz. Telecom/Netway got it because nobody else wanted it."



http://www.wlug.org.nz/NewZealandInternetHistory

Chilling_Silence
18-12-2009, 03:35 PM
780gbps really is sfa for a whole country. :ban

Agreed.

Imagine everybody has 100mbps connections. That's jack all when you consider there are international websites hosted here, so lets say 3/4 of that is residential use, thats 585gbps for residential (Not including anything business at all in this matter), that means there's 5,850 homes that can have a 100mbps pipe...

Naturally it doesn't work out quite like my math shows, but yeah, it's SFA... And that's why I'm of the opinion the Govt is better off spending money to upgrade the international circuits than on making another fibre backbone across NZ. However, I may still be misinformed...

wratterus
18-12-2009, 03:45 PM
And that's why I'm of the opinion the Govt is better off spending money to upgrade the international circuits than on making another fibre backbone across NZ.
Exactly.

However, I may still be misinformed...

I highly doubt it. :p

Chilling_Silence
18-12-2009, 03:59 PM
...but surely if *I* know this, then Steven Joyce (ICT Minister) should also be aware of this ... ?

KarameaDave
18-12-2009, 04:15 PM
Perhaps He may have some hidden agenda?
FTTH is a waste of resources IMHO, a decent
number of alternatives seem to exist to me.
VDSL, cable etc. The dosh would be better spent
on another link, surely?

Sweep
18-12-2009, 04:24 PM
But did no person read the article CS linked to?

Down the bottom it says that SCC will increase the capacity to 1.24 Terabits per second next year. It also says that the current cable is fully paid for.

nate
18-12-2009, 06:34 PM
And that's why I'm of the opinion the Govt is better off spending money to upgrade the international circuits than on making another fibre backbone across NZ. However, I may still be misinformed...

Agreed.

There's no point upgrading the national capacity of NZ, when most of our data comes from overseas, and it's too expensive at the moment to purchase international bandwidth. There's plenty of capacity on the Southern Cross cable (which takes two routes to the USA for redundancy purposes), it's just too expensive.

Running our own cable to the USA would mean we could grab the traffic directly from the States, from within the States, and negotiate bandwidth with the big players without having to pay heavy 3rd transit fees.

/all my 2cents.

decibel
18-12-2009, 07:11 PM
...but surely if *I* know this, then Steven Joyce (ICT Minister) should also be aware of this ... ?

No - remember a while back when Telecom's DNS servers went down and prevented most of their customers accessing the Web? (both servers were on the same UPS)

There should have been heads rolling, but Telecom wriggled off the hook and blamed it all on Vector.
There was NO-ONE in government or the news media who had enough knowledge to challenge them over this.

decibel
18-12-2009, 07:16 PM
Running our own cable to the USA would mean we could grab the traffic directly from the States, from within the States, and negotiate bandwidth with the big players without having to pay heavy 3rd transit fees.

/all my 2cents.

We don't even need to run a cable all the way - Hawaii is sufficient.

There are plenty of cables/competition from Hawaii to California; it is just from Auckland to Hawaii where there is only one cable with consequently higher prices.

Chilling_Silence
18-12-2009, 08:58 PM
Any idea how much of that 780gbps is utilized or sold out?

somebody
18-12-2009, 08:59 PM
Ah but as of now that's the only *main* way to get data into NZ?

There are other routes via Australia which then go to hubs in Asia, before linking to the USA. These still rely on the SCC link between NZ and Aus though.

In terms of capacity, they are always quite cagey about revealing exact numbers, but the last time I spoke to someone in the industry they said it was at about 2/3rds of capacity.

Chilling_Silence
18-12-2009, 09:09 PM
I wonder if that's "2/3 is in-use on a daily basis" or "2/3 has been rationed out and we've got 1/3 left that COULD be sold out"

PCT Joe
18-12-2009, 11:17 PM
Not sure if this is quite on-topic but I think I remember national investing 1 billion into our broadband infrastructure, is this true and if so whats getting spent on what?

Chilling_Silence
19-12-2009, 08:01 AM
Yeah it's true, $1.5b.

Basically it's going to be invested on a repeat network, doing exactly what Chorus has already done. Same for many other providers such as Citylink, Vector etc, the NZ backend is already there.

See the first link in my sig for a quick run-down if this is the first you've really heard of it.

angry
19-12-2009, 10:08 AM
Chill,

Mention, yes mere mention of a competative cable trans tasman, has ALL READY reduced price on the scc.

A non Telescam controlled tt cable is the best option for this country.

A tt cable will link us to the other side of the loop. syndney up into asia and across the top of the pacific, and sydney to asia to europe and across the atlantic, also australia to sa and up the west cost and across the atlantic.

This is why Telescam dropped the data price as soon as they realised the trans tasman talk was POSSIBLY serious.

yes we know each other.

Battleneter2
19-12-2009, 11:49 AM
The SC Company is 40% owned by Telecom NZ and last time I checked has a ex Telecom NZ CEO.

Telecom still have a very strong monopoly on NZ broadband because of this, largely missed by our politicians and useless media focused only on the local loop and speed.

The very high cost on our data caps is yet another reason to hate that worthless turd of a company :P

angry
19-12-2009, 12:12 PM
" The SC Company is 40% owned by Telecom NZ and last time ==========company :P "

Yep, did you read/have you seen the articles on the new tt cable proposal.

I read it in the last couple of weeks, herald or Sunday star had some really interesting # on wholesale price decrease's since the project has been seriously mooted.

I believe in the end it will fly because some Aussie or Yank will see the opportunity.

A simpler and faster startup would be Govt fund a percentage to help startup then sell it off.

that is however is to obvious a productive use of public money, also improving services to said public and returning them a profit on sell off.

let alone providing a few jobs so, will never happen with so many hairy legged Helens still having a stranglehold on the bureaucracy.

Sweep
19-12-2009, 01:16 PM
From an article linked to above Telecom own 50% of SCC.

"The Southern Cross Cable cost around US$1.3 billion to build and was completed seven years ago. Originally designed to provide 120Gbit/s, the fully-protected cable system spans some 32,000 kilometres across the Pacific and is currently part-owned by Telecom New Zealand (50 percent), Singtel/Optus (40 percent) and Verizon Business (10 percent)."

PCT Joe
19-12-2009, 02:24 PM
Isn't chorus another SoE? I may be wrong?

somebody
19-12-2009, 02:48 PM
Isn't chorus another SoE? I may be wrong?

You are wrong.

Chorus is a the network arm of Telecom.

Chilling_Silence
19-12-2009, 09:42 PM
Time to get some media attention around this, I fail to see why the Govt should essentially waste $1,500,000,000 of taxpayers (Yours and mine) money, when it's not gonna do jack.

10 years from now when current ministers are long gone, people will look back and say "Well they screwed up, now time for us to clean up that mess and make a few more international routes like they *should* have 10 years ago".

Like seriously if the SCC was worth $1.2b back in the day, how much would another similar spec'd one cost to build in this current day and age? To run to Hawaii or Aus? No doubt less than the $10b odd that the total cost of this fibre rollout is likely to cost.

Heads in the sand much minister?

gary67
20-12-2009, 07:51 AM
Yep I think National should change there party name to Ostrich seems much more suitable

B.M.
20-12-2009, 08:31 AM
Yep I think National should change there party name to Ostrich seems much more suitable

To think we got rid of the other dickheads and got more of the same. :blush:
:rolleyes:

Battleneter2
20-12-2009, 08:56 AM
Time to get some media attention around this, I fail to see why the Govt should essentially waste $1,500,000,000 of taxpayers (Yours and mine) money, when it's not gonna do jack.

10 years from now when current ministers are long gone, people will look back and say "Well they screwed up, now time for us to clean up that mess and make a few more international routes like they *should* have 10 years ago".

Like seriously if the SCC was worth $1.2b back in the day, how much would another similar spec'd one cost to build in this current day and age? To run to Hawaii or Aus? No doubt less than the $10b odd that the total cost of this fibre rollout is likely to cost.

Heads in the sand much minister?

This SC cable monopoly has been discussed as long as I can remember in the broadband forums, I remember bleeting on about this maybe 8 years ago.

Telecom are able to provide rubbish unlimited services like Go Large and Big Time because they effectively price the other ISP out from doing the same. They never want these services running as you expect BECAUSE they make hundreds of millions on charging data (including SC Company)

somebody
20-12-2009, 09:04 AM
You have to take a look at this from a broader perspective - it's the last mile which is the most expensive and risky to build. That's why we've got tons of backhaul capacity across the country with a lot of fibre owned by Vector, FX Networks, Transpower and so on. It makes economic sense for companies to invest in these sort of links because the cost is relatively low (i.e. you don't have to dig up streets), and they can recover their investment by securing a few anchor tenants. On the other hand, the last mile is still undeveloped because companies are reluctant to bear the risk - that's where the Crown Fibre Holdings structure comes in, providing some form of certainty to private sector investors.

Transtasman cables are similar to the backhaul networks in the sense that their risk is lower, due to the ability to secure anchor tenants on long term contracts. They can also be built relatively quickly, as the civil works involved are minimal. It's something you can't do at a residential level.

Once the demand is there, ISPs and so on will start shopping around for international capacity (like they already do with backhaul). Companies like Vector and FX didn't always own nationwide fibre networks - once they saw an opportunity, they put their own money into investments, at zero cost to the taxpayer. The same applies to a transtasman link (or possibly a link to an Asian/Pacific hub) - when it makes sense to do so, someone will build it.

Let's also remember one important point: a lot of the opportunities presented by FTTH can (and should) be implemented locally, rather than sending gigabits of network traffic to the US and back. IPTV (streaming, high def on demand movies and tv shows), a variety of other hosted services which consume vast amounts of bandwidth are best implemented with content caches in New Zealand. Even if they only host 90% of the content locally, the amount of international bandwidth required is minimal. The relationship between increased last-mile speeds and required international capacity is not a linear one.

Taxpayer funds shouldn't be used to build the latest and greatest - rather, it should be used to stimulate the market so that the private sector will invest. That's what the FTTH proposal will do. When we can get the private sector (whether they are local or foreign) to use their money to service our needs, then it means taxpayer dollars can be used for more core services like health and education.

Thebananamonkey
20-12-2009, 10:44 AM
I find it helps doing a little research before speculating and telling the government how to do it's job. The govt employs thousands of analysts to make more than a cursory glance at the occasional article before advising the govt to throw billions of dollars away. They do this thing called research.


A quick search on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_submarine_communications_cab les) finds the following cables pass through NZ:

ANZCAN
PacRimEast
TASMAN2
Southern Cross

It's not quite a monopoly...

If I were involved in the BB program with the govt I'd definitely go for the low hanging fruit before laying tens of thousands of km's of submarine cable. A few hundred well chosen km's of terrestrial cable could make a huge difference for lots of NZ.

Terry Porritt
20-12-2009, 10:54 AM
I find it helps doing a little research before speculating and telling the government how to do it's job. The govt employs thousands of analysts to make more than a cursory glance at the occasional article before advising the govt to throw billions of dollars away. They do this thing called research.


A quick search on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_submarine_communications_cab les) finds the following cables pass through NZ:

ANZCAN
PacRimEast
TASMAN2
Southern Cross

It's not quite a monopoly...

If I were involved in the BB program with the govt I'd definitely go for the low hanging fruit before laying tens of thousands of km's of submarine cable. A few hundred well chosen km's of terrestrial cable could make a huge difference for lots of NZ.

But, I think only Southern Cross is an internet data cable, I think the others are for voice communications.

Erayd
20-12-2009, 01:22 PM
SCC runs voice as well.

That said... SCC is also the only high capacity link NZ has. There are a few others, but the available capacity is so low they don't even register.

Battleneter2
20-12-2009, 06:43 PM
soz dupe

Battleneter2
20-12-2009, 06:45 PM
I find it helps doing a little research before speculating and telling the government how to do it's job. The govt employs thousands of analysts to make more than a cursory glance at the occasional article before advising the govt to throw billions of dollars away. They do this thing called research.


A quick search on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_submarine_communications_cab les) finds the following cables pass through NZ:

ANZCAN
PacRimEast
TASMAN2
Southern Cross

It's not quite a monopoly...

If I were involved in the BB program with the govt I'd definitely go for the low hanging fruit before laying tens of thousands of km's of submarine cable. A few hundred well chosen km's of terrestrial cable could make a huge difference for lots of NZ.

The other cables are a fraction of the capacity of the SCC, I suggest you keep reading lol.

You have clearly never worked with analysts or project managers. They are inclined to stay inside the scope they are given, that scope is often set by those who are clueless.


As above the last mile is the most expensive, BUT there is no point all having fibre into our homes if we are still paying through our nose for data. The SCC cable needs competition from someone other than Telecom so competing ISP's have else where to go.

andrew93
20-12-2009, 07:47 PM
The other thing is that not all users of international traffic actually use international traffic. Where an overseas website has a local presence on the Akamai (http://www.akamai.com/html/technology/index.html) network, then only the first user to access that content is actually using international bandwidth. For instance, if there is an MS update, then the first user to access it within NZ, results in a sequence of events whereby the file(s) is transferred from the Akamai servers (usually Singapore) onto a local server for that first user. Thereafter, users in New Zealand will either get their update from that server or one of the other 'nodes' located within ISP's up and down the country. Akamai are pretty shy as to where their servers are located and how many there are .....but it's no real mystery. I believe sites like YouTube also use Akamai, such that we aren't all using international bandwidth when watching videos on YouTube.

Andrew

Interesting link :http://www.akamai.com/html/technology/dataviz1.html

decibel
20-12-2009, 08:56 PM
ANZCAN
PacRimEast
TASMAN2
Southern Cross

I think you will find that the only one of those cables still in use is Southern Cross.

Battleneter2
21-12-2009, 07:14 AM
The other thing is that not all users of international traffic actually use international traffic. Where an overseas website has a local presence on the Akamai (http://www.akamai.com/html/technology/index.html) network, then only the first user to access that content is actually using international bandwidth. For instance, if there is an MS update, then the first user to access it within NZ, results in a sequence of events whereby the file(s) is transferred from the Akamai servers (usually Singapore) onto a local server for that first user. Thereafter, users in New Zealand will either get their update from that server or one of the other 'nodes' located within ISP's up and down the country. Akamai are pretty shy as to where their servers are located and how many there are .....but it's no real mystery. I believe sites like YouTube also use Akamai, such that we aren't all using international bandwidth when watching videos on YouTube.

Andrew

Interesting link :http://www.akamai.com/html/technology/dataviz1.html


All our data is charged like its international, so if your point is we are being ripped off then sure I agree lol.

somebody
21-12-2009, 07:45 AM
All our data is charged like its international, so if your point is we are being ripped off then sure I agree lol.

If it was all international, rather than being cached, then we would be paying double what we're paying now for our broadband.

andrew93
21-12-2009, 08:23 AM
All our data is charged like its international, so if your point is we are being ripped off then sure I agree lol.

Sorry to disappoint but that wasn't my point. I doubt the Southern Cross cable could handle all of the simultaneous requests for international traffic going in and out of New Zealand if the content wasn't cached locally (here and overseas) or pushed through a network like Akamai.

The demand for bandwidth is only going to go one way, so there must be intelligent solutions to the problem. It's a bit like trying to force more traffic down a motorway; there are options other than putting in more lanes or another motorway.

When you say 'we are being ripped off', is that we as in the ISP's? Or we as in consumers?

Andrew

Battleneter2
21-12-2009, 10:27 AM
I am stating ISP's are paying excessively high charges for international capacity (they don't get charged in data blocks like consumers). ISP's then pass this charge onto consumers. I would have thought "we" was fairly obvious.


Lets not fuzzy this issue over with unnecessary fluff about caching, Telecom/SCCCN still have NZ Internet by the balls. Dont get me started on Telecom cabinetisation lol.

When I start seeing Data Charges substantially dropping ill be more than happy to entertain fluff about the wonders of caching.

andrew93
21-12-2009, 10:51 AM
Lets not fuzzy this issue over with unnecessary fluff about caching, Telecom/SCCCN still have NZ Internet by the balls. Dont get me started on Telecom cabinetisation lol.

When I start seeing Data Charges substantially dropping ill be more than happy to entertain fluff about the wonders of caching.

This isn't fluff. I'll give you a real life example. We were looking at using the Akamai service as a way of reducing the load / demand on our own servers and bandwidth. I can't go into too much specifics for commercial reasons but instead of serving huge (and I mean huge) volumes of video streams from our own servers each week, we would now upload less than 50 per week (directly to Akamai). The demand load would then be borne by the Akamai nodes around NZ and we would get at least 90-95% reduction in bandwidth requirements (not all of the bandwidth is used for serving video, it is also used by the entire organisation for everything else internet-related).

The concept is no different to international providers who have signed up with Akamai. When you get an MS update, where do you think the files come from? Redmond or your ISP? If you are with one of the larger ISPs then I will put money on the file having come from your ISP, if not then it would probably have come from a larger ISP within NZ given MS are part of the Akamai network. That download speed you experience is not constrained by the SC cable, the constraint (for my example) exists somewhere within NZ.

Yes I agree data charges are a crock, and IMO that is the fundamental issue with internet pricing for consumers in NZ. We have an all-you-can-eat plan with a really fat pipe so we don't care how many TB's we (or our viewers) use each week. However, ISPs charge consumers for data because they can't work out how to make money any other way, especially while Telecom is riding the pig's back and calling the shots. However, the point is the charges would be significantly higher if we didn't have caching, and other methods, for reducing international demand from within NZ.

Cheers, Andrew

Battleneter2
21-12-2009, 11:26 AM
Yes I understand how caching works thanks and have for a long time. Just not seeing any movement on data charges to consumers. There is no distinction between local and international traffic, so its just one excessive cost. As a consumer I dont care if its cached on the moon, I care about the $ I pay for data.


We agree its Telecom still calling most of the shots, I certainly dont blame other ISP's. Pricing has been Telecom's weapon of choice since the year dot, squeezing other ISP's as Government policy lags 5 years+ behind the current issues. Its a very dirty game that Telecom have been playing for a very long time.

somebody
21-12-2009, 01:33 PM
Lets not fuzzy this issue over with unnecessary fluff about caching, Telecom/SCCCN still have NZ Internet by the balls. Dont get me started on Telecom cabinetisation lol.

Do get started on cabinetisation - I'd like to hear what you dislike about it so much.

Terry Porritt
21-12-2009, 02:09 PM
Do get started on cabinetisation - I'd like to hear what you dislike about it so much.

There have been issues for some whose ISP is other than Telecom, (quite a few posted on Geekzone)

http://www.orcon.net.nz/about/article/cabinetisation_what_does_it_mean_for_orcon_custome rs/

For me all that happened was my router reports ADSL2+ but Orcon don't yet provide that because they do not have their equipment in the cabinet.

andrew93
21-12-2009, 04:03 PM
Just not seeing any movement on data charges to consumers. There is no distinction between local and international traffic, so its just one excessive cost.
Have you seen any movement in the wholesale prices for bandwidth? If you haven't then I'm curious why you are expecting movements in the retail prices....?


As a consumer I dont care if its cached on the moon, I care about the $ I pay for data.
Now I know that's incorrect. If Telecom owned the connection to the Moon then we would all be paying interstellar rates.*


We agree its Telecom still calling most of the shots, I certainly dont blame other ISP's.
So we can't expect anything to change unless something else happens. I haven't seen any major changes lately so I'm not expecting any change to happen by itself. In any case, Telecom is the incumbent, they own the market, they only need to play defensive strategy, so it's up to the innovators to come up with alternative solutions. Rather than complain about it (I'm not complaining), what do you propose is done about it?

The ISPs aren't helping themselves. This was my experience recently : I recently approached an ISP about a wholesale plan, and after telling the rep that we were not going to pay any data charges (given the content was geo-filtered/blocked), he wanted to quote for data charges! Some people just don't get it. The ISPs have to get smarter.

__________________________________________________ ______
Separate but related subject for Chill:

I didn't get into this for a Telecom-bash: the reason I posted was because (as somebody said) there is not a fixed relationship between internet users and international traffic. To divide the bitrate speed of the SC cable by an average user bitrate, is ignoring other factors (as has already been thrashed). The SC cable is not (yet) the rate limiting factor. It's more likely to be your own ISP, your set-up and/or proximity to an exchange or cabinet.

The 2nd biggest issue with the internet in NZ (other than data charges) is the shocking state of interconnectivity between ISPs. Creating more backbone choices within NZ may (hopefully) provide better connectivity/peering opportunities between ISPs. There is no point looking at international options until the national networks are fixed first. So I don't have an issue with investing in backbone and last mile technology - once we have our own house sorted, then we can look at international connectivity. Although APE and WIX are going some way to resolving the peering issues....

Battleneter2
21-12-2009, 07:17 PM
Have you seen any movement in the wholesale prices for bandwidth? If you haven't then I'm curious why you are expecting movements in the retail prices....?


Ka? I dont, I read back I dont see me saying I expect that.




Rather than complain about it (I'm not complaining), what do you propose is done about it?


Ummm well I am not complaining, I am discussing in a relevant thread titled "Help me understand the Southern Cross Cable", its just the way it is, I can't change that.



The SC cable is not (yet) the rate limiting factor. It's more likely to be your own ISP, your set-up and/or proximity to an exchange or cabinet.


lol well I never said it was but ill assume your answering someone else or preaching. You may also like to add, a lot of single source file servers have load balanced limited bandwidth themselves, so a slow speed may not be at your end.


Are we done? oh good :)

Agent_24
21-12-2009, 07:40 PM
Dig a big tunnel, and drive cars... as Andrew Tanenbaum put it "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."

Chilling_Silence
22-12-2009, 05:26 AM
It is currently now my ISP, however not when I was with Orcon on Purple+.

Almost always, anything national, both on my Orcon 4m/bit Purple+ connection, and my parents 15m/bit Silver+, AND both my Boss Orcon Platinum+ 14m/bit connection and his Telecom Pro 14m/bit, the limiting factor was always international traffic. That is unless you count Microsoft Windows Updates which are Akamai cached as you mentioned, then I was able to get those in at max line speed (It's handy having a router showing you realtime traffic statistics).

I could fire either of my NZ up my VPS (Located in either the ICONZ DC in AK CBD or Orcon DC in Takapuna) and easily max out the line speed doing http, ftp, html5video, scp, you name it! Internationally however it's another story, as soon as I load up my international VPS.
Transfer speeds between international and national VPS were great, however!

From a multitude of tests, I was able to determine:
The link between me and my VPS's in NZ was great
The link between my VPS's in NZ and my US VPS was also great
The link between me and any other host in NZ was great
The link between me and any host outside NZ that wasn't cached using akamai, sucked. Irrespective of ISP.

My guess on the cause at the time? The fact that the ISP doesn't have enough international bandwidth on the SCC.
Why did they not have enough?
Cost.
Why does it cost so much that they don't have enough?
Because it's the main / only real choice out there. There's tons of peering choices around NZ! In fact, as an ISP, if you want to peer with difference ISP's on a local level using different carriers to do-so, then you're absolutely free to do-so, and Telecom Wholesale seemed keen on the idea as far as I could see when I was on the recent Geek Exchange Tour.

So what gives?

andrew93
22-12-2009, 07:22 AM
I take your point Chill regarding your speed tests - my guess is relatively more capacity is set aside for businesses etc. where people aren't as cost concious. However, on the subject of peering I'm not sure all peering arrangements are made equal. ISPs have typically taken an approach of least cost when it comes to peering arrangements, for fear of 'back-wash'. Is it possible to test the data transfer speeds from different sites that are known to be hosted through differing ISPs? I'd be curious to see this test done using a number of ISPs too. Then we might be able to work out who has crapola peering arrangements.

Chilling_Silence
22-12-2009, 10:25 AM
Well I tested to both ICONZ and Orcon from Telecom, Orcon (+ Network in Te Atatu), Vodafone (RED network in Henderson), TelstraClear (On the Shore - ADSL1) and every single time it maxed the line speed out when coming from my VPS's nationally, but nowhere near it internationally.

Where's adslgeek when you need him ...

adslgeek
22-12-2009, 03:56 PM
LOL..The main reason for speed impacts is a couple of things

Certainly a number of ISPs simple do not buy enough international bandwidth for the customers they have and that is certainly can be a big factor. I don't have a clue what Orcon have as far as capacity, but if you are seeing International as slow, then it is a good idea to feed that back to them.

That is why you often read that say TelstraClear, Maxnet, Snap and Telecom seem to be reported as fast, and that is often as a result of that being an adequate purchase of bandwidth on a per customer basis.

Also the other way that ISPs can really improve speeds is through caching, and that certainly has a compound impact because it can dramatically increase the speeds of the most commonly viewed sites, as well as reducing traffic to those popular sites thus making the link less utilised thus faster.

Another commonly misunderstood issue with limiting throughput internationally can often be the TCP receive window (You can play around with this, and I am trying to build a server that can remotely test your MTU, MSS and TCP receive etc but my skills are not that good yet!) basically the speed that a packet getting back acknowledging the traffic sent can slow down the download speed as the far end is waiting on that reply.

And the speed of light through glass becomes the limiting factor rather than buying more bandwidth. That is why caching can be so good. People often forget the simple physics involved with us being at the bottom of the globe, and the content we want being on the other side of the earth..

Also I saw someone in this thread saying that the Southern cross has only 1 in and 1 out, this is not true at all, it has multiple fibres and they are in a double ring config.

http://www.southerncrosscables.com/public/Network/default.cfm

Southern Cross is not not heavily utilized, and it generally the ISPs that put a limit on how much they are prepared to spend.

I could then imagine that you then think ah! Well then there isn't enough competition in NZ then! But that is rubbish too as there are heaps of different bandwidth suppliers across NZ.

Another common misconception I hear bandied around is that NZ International is not competitive, but this same bandwidth is sold in Sydney at the same price as in NZ and they have a HEAP of competition there, and the price we in NZ get it is just the Sydney price plus the obvious cost of deliver of that last part of the tail to NZ.

decibel
22-12-2009, 05:51 PM
Also I saw someone in this thread saying that the Southern cross has only 1 in and 1 out, this is not true at all, it has multiple fibres and they are in a double ring config.

Yes, but it is still the one cable sheath owned by the one company and this allows SCC to charge what they like on those sections where there is no competitor.

Chilling_Silence
22-12-2009, 11:20 PM
So your suggestion to "speed up" NZ internet then is not the lack of international bandwidth, and another FTTN supplier almost seems redundant .. what do you think the Govt should do with it's billions?

Battleneter2
23-12-2009, 06:17 PM
So your suggestion to "speed up" NZ internet then is not the lack of international bandwidth, and another FTTN supplier almost seems redundant .. what do you think the Govt should do with it's billions?

There needs to be a 2nd competing cable to "help" bring down data charges and ISP's can increase there International capacity at a fair cost.

There is little point us having 100Mb/s+ fibre connections into the home if we are still paying hefty data charges. Of course cached local content is the same cost to the user as International.



basically the speed that a packet getting back acknowledging the traffic sent can slow down the download speed as the far end is waiting on that reply.

And the speed of light through glass becomes the limiting factor rather than buying more bandwidth. That is why caching can be so good. People often forget the simple physics involved with us being at the bottom of the globe, and the content we want being on the other side of the earth..


I agree, and this is one of the reasons using a single source to test like "Speedtest.net" is a bit of a joke.

Another way for users to get around this problem "now" is use a download accelerator to easily grab a file from multiple international sources much faster, 9/10 this works extremely well.

mikebartnz
23-12-2009, 07:51 PM
Agreed.

Imagine everybody has 100mbps connections. That's jack all when you consider there are international websites hosted here, so lets say 3/4 of that is residential use, thats 585gbps for residential (Not including anything business at all in this matter), that means there's 5,850 homes that can have a 100mbps pipe...

Naturally it doesn't work out quite like my math shows, but yeah, it's SFA... And that's why I'm of the opinion the Govt is better off spending money to upgrade the international circuits than on making another fibre backbone across NZ. However, I may still be misinformed...
Don't forget there is a lot of caching going on.

Sweep
23-12-2009, 07:57 PM
Admit it CS. It's not the lack of bandwidth but just the price.

Chilling_Silence
24-12-2009, 07:03 AM
But the root cause of the lack of it seems to be the price, yes?

Sweep
24-12-2009, 09:13 AM
Well as the SCC has been paid for it would make sense to lower the price for data much like removing the toll from a toll funded road.

Battleneter2
24-12-2009, 10:11 AM
Well as the SCC has been paid for it would make sense to lower the price for data much like removing the toll from a toll funded road.

Why would they want to do that when they still have a "Near" monopoly in NZ and Australia and they are in the business of making money?, not "feeling" there motivation lol.

Sweep
24-12-2009, 10:15 AM
Maybe if the data cost less we could get a better economy of scale as you would get more users.

But of course there is no motivation so I agree with you.

Chilling_Silence
24-12-2009, 01:41 PM
*apparently* only 6% of all users are still on Dial-Up:
http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/small-good-internet-service-3317694

That means that ~90%+ are on broadband. Those who aren't are either too poor, technology illiterate, technophobes, or have no real use for the internet (yeah right).

That means that it's not going to start costing less as masses come across from dial-up...
As it stands now, the rule is that high volume users are doing P2P / file-sharing. Of course there's exceptions to the rule, but generally if you're doing 150GB a month it's coz you're trading media somehow ...

Having a second provider may be good, but ultimately how cheap can it really be? End of the day ISP's still have a base charge that can't really be decreased much, as all ISP's have overheads like an 0800 number, and if they're reselling / wholesaling off Telecom then Telecom has equipment in the exchange which isn't cheap which must be paid off and then maintained. $145,000+ for each Whisper Cabinet / node isn't cheap... How would adding a second FTTN + Cabinet scenario enable that first one to be paid off faster, thereby "decreasing prices" for existing consumers?

KarameaDave
24-12-2009, 02:05 PM
Those who aren't are either too poor, technology illiterate, technophobes, or have no real use for the internet (yeah right).
A fair few of them will be in places like back home in Karamea.
Just no broadband if you are outside the town or off the main road:crying
For that matter there is no cellphone coverage either.
Which just leaves Dial up or Farmside.
(ever tried installing updates on dial up?:badpc:)
It is an unfortunate fact that small isolated places get left out in this country
unlike Aussie where they get subsidized(I think).
Hopefully the rural broadband initiative will rectify some of this. :thumbs:

Chilling_Silence
24-12-2009, 04:05 PM
Interestingly enough, Chorus aims to have more FTTN covering more of NZ by the end of 2011 than the Govt does in 10 years time!
They've also been making "alliances" with rural farmers and things, so where power dies to a cabinet, they'll get a local farmer to hook up their generator (If Chorus can't get out before the cabinets internal batteries run out), to power the device until they get there, to help keep broadband running.