Island Life: Internet the way you want it
89 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
It looks like local councils, even fairly right-wing ones, are coming to the same conclusion.
-
You'd think it was local body election year!
-
Well Rod's blog silently swallows my postings so I guess I'll have to vent here ....
I completely agree with Rod - like a slowly growing number of people I live in NZ and work elsewhere (in the US) - I'm an exporter, I export my labour (don't get me started on exchange rates ....) - I live on California time and go to work 'on the net' - the pay is good but the hours suck, especially in the winter. I depend on being able to log into the machines at work, and VOIP (I have a US phone number that answers in NZ)
From my point of view there are four issues
- the least important, to me anyway, is 1) bandwidth - I just have to pay the $$$ to get the Gb/month I need, cheaper would be nicer but I can survive
- more important to me are 2) reliability/redundancy, I live in Dunedin and a one guy backhoe can (in fact has) stop me earning instantly - (and make me look like a backwoods rube in front of my coworkers)
- and 3) short term congestion - we seem to suffer bouts of dropped packets where stuff just goes away - if you've called into a meeting via VOIP and the upstream starts to garble people just turn you off - instant marginalisation
- and most important 4) latency - I know there's not much I can do with the speed of light across the pacific (~130mS) - but it looks like I'm losing 40-50mS inside of Telecom's ATM - this means that the VOIP I use day to day sucks just a little bit worse - logging into work my keystrokes slow, I'm just that little bit less productive - having my ISP put local routers in my local exchange would probably fix a lot of this. Sure latency is something that gamers usually seem to care about but there's lots of the rest of us who feel its bite every day
Finally I think there IS already just the network that Rod's talking about, govt funded even ..... at least something to build a greater infrastructure on - the new University net is I understand being built on existing dark fibre and would probably make a great start for just this sort of expansion - in fact I get the impression that its powers-that-be may already have such plans ....
-
Finally I think there IS already just the network that Rod's talking about, govt funded even ..... at least something to build a greater infrastructure on - the new University net is I understand being built on existing dark fibre and would probably make a great start for just this sort of expansion - in fact I get the impression that its powers-that-be may already have such plans ....
There's a wrinkle there with TelstraClear ownership, if I understand it correctly. Juha, can you throw some light on that?
I'd also throw this in: would the govt-owned rail network be of some help to Rod's plan?
-
I should add that here in Dunedin we have an ideal infrastructure for fibre-to-the-curb for much of the city - the old, now unused coal-gas mains - or we would except that apparently the city sold them to Telecom for 1$ a while ago (probably so that Telstra would get them) - AFAIK they're not being used except for maybe downtown a bit - time for a bit of eminent domain to get them back (for $1!) and actually starting to use them
-
So long as any govt-owned network is run on a MUSH network methodology, I think this would be a great idea.
MUSH (municipal, university, school, hospital) networks work best when they're set up by non-telcos. I spoke with Bill St Arnaud from Canada about this a couple of years ago at a TUANZ event - he said the regional councils gave the money to the companies that owned diggers. They laid the fibre, cutting deals with MUSH participants to give them free internet access for life. It works like this - when you lay a fibre bundle in a trench, the fibre is often the cheapest component in the network. So instead of putting in five fibres, you put in an extra one and simply give that to the school/hospital/whatever for their own use. A single fibre would give any school more capacity than it would ever need.
In fact, some schools would then lease unused capacity on their own fibre strand back to the network manager who would on-sell it (along with the remaining strands) to businesses. The schools would, in some instances, actually make a profit from having broadband!
I think the TelstraClear thing is simply leasing capacity on TC's existing network. While TC has a lot of fibre spare between the main centres, it's not as good a deal in the long term as buidling our own fibre network.
More on Bill and his MUSH here at Computerworld
-
Light up some of that murky fibre...
It's interesting to read the material on the REANNZ site which proudly proclaims the following:
REANNZ (Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Ltd) is the Crown-owned company set up to establish, own and operate a high-speed telecommunications network for the research and education sectors.
Our $43 million plus contributions and user-pays charges from academia and CRIs bought a high-speed network, albeit very belatedly? Well, I'm not quite sure about that, because according to this PDF document REANNZ is just leasing capacity on KAREN, a network built, owned and operated by... step forward, TelstraClear and Sytec!
Nationally REANNZ has leased a wavelength of light from TelstraClear to carry data traffic between dedicated KAREN switches and routers in each region. Internationally, REANNZ uses capacity from Verizon Business.
An Aussie company owns the national network, and REANNZ sends the data overseas across a US company's fibre. Humm.
-
Finally I think there IS already just the network that Rod's talking about, govt funded even ..... at least something to build a greater infrastructure on - the new University net is I understand being built on existing dark fibre and would probably make a great start for just this sort of expansion - in fact I get the impression that its powers-that-be may already have such plans ....
The Advanced Network? That's an interesting story. The original MORST proposal was for a much more open club: a gigabit network in which local businesses could be stakeholders alongside universities and research institutions.
Two things saw that rolled back to a more private club. One: Telecom screamed blue murder about being competed against with public money. And to some extent, Two: the research camp felt more comfortable with a non-commercial advanced network in line with overseas models.
Telecom doesn't really want to part with dark fibre - it wants to form part of the network with its own managed services, which rather defeats the point. It's intriguing the extent to which this is really a physical problem: you just need lots and lots of fibre, enough for everyone to run their own services the way they want.
Other countries (say, Canada) wound up with substantial over-capacity after the tech bust, as a sunk cost. We didn't, which means we bloody well have to build it.
Even if Telecom can fix its traffic management on Go Large, we still have a problem, because the kind of things it's reserving the right to throttle - Skype, P2P and, soon, Joost - are the kind of things the rest of us want to work well.
NB: Other people know a lot more about the Advanced network than I do. If anyone wanted to drop in with a more informed discussion of the issues, I'd be grateful.
-
One of the main issues, for NZers wanting to exchange data with other NZers has nothing to do with capacity. There is shitloads of that.
It has to do with the very well documented and very well understood fact that two main Telecos, Telecom and Telstra refuse to play nicely on the data exchanges.
That is why Radio NZ place servers in the *USA* to deliver streaming audio to Xtra and Telstra clients. That is why YouTube would not have been invented here.
Yes, it *is* stupid, very stupid, and that is why Rod is talking about nationalisation. The property pincher that he is.
-
I think Telecom was mostly upset that TelstraClear got the money and used it to extend its fibre network so that it goes by some large, high-value customers now. Like the CRIs and universities.
In the past, only Telecom could service those...
-
While competition in general is good, the Internet is a collaborative and cooperative environment and as such a special case.
Telcos often try not to collaborate and cooperate with competitors (see the US Peering Wars for examples) on purpose. The idea is to munt the experience for competitors' customers in the hope that they'll switch allegiance... but, that ignores what makes the Internet so useful, namely free and fast access to every part of it.
-
It also ignores ease with which one or two players can totally dominate the NZ market place, both horizontally and vertically - hence the failure Rod talks about.
-
You'd think it was local body election year!
Dude! Your Gravatar turned up!
-
Yeah - actually it did turn up shortly after I posted yesterday. First time I neglected to associate it my email address, after that was rectified... Thunderbirds Were Go.
FATnastic!
-
/me quickly Adblocks Andrew's Gravatar in FF to speed up loading of PA System.
-
I'm considering changing it to a 3mb picture of my cat...
-
Whist I am in PA mode Sam Vilain has several posts on Internet Peering and a possible solution:
We work together but that doesn't stop me from agreeing with most of his posts on this issue, even when he's channeling Ayn Rand.
Money shot:
How can you sell an "internet" connection if the vision that underpinned the founding of the internet is not just flaunted, but poked with a sharp stick and then squirted with juice from a bent lemon peel?
-
Maybe Sam thinks it's about Internet PERLing...
:]
-
While it's not so much related to the problems with NZ telcos, this piece by John Naughton in last Sunday's Observer suggests another good reason for the nation to own some of the infrastructure that has become so strategically important.
Another article suggests that 27 per cent of Swedish broadband users get fibre to the door.
Roll on that day here. Couldn't get audio on 10 attempts to skype to the UK last night, thanks to my crummy 'Go Slow' connection.
-
Oh, before I forget: one missed opportunity for NZ was that we (us, the state, etc) didn't build the Southern Cross Cable entirely or partly. It's making money, so it would've been a self-financing investment.
Unfortunately, it didn't happen because of ideological reasons.
-
shortontimetoreadwilljusttalk
was with telstra, and loved it. had used woosh and ihug since coming back to nzl and both were, in a word, dodgy.
won't use telecom on principle.
moved house, but have no cable (heritage building). so, have to go back to ihug. they said, "5-7 days till installation".
but no. telecom said, "fuck that, we'll install the line when WE want to".
12-14 days to installation, and still waiting.
che <----- is not a happy camper.
-
Because I've moved house a lot, and want to have my own internet access in various workplaces, I've stuck with Woosh. It's much more reliable now than it was a year ago, but it's <i>not</i> "broadband".
-
Che: Ring Telstra and say "Telecom and iHug say 12-14 days, how fast can you do it?" It's amazing how a technician frees up when you mention the competitors.
It's how I got (admittedly cable) internet in 3 days.
Tom, bro, it ain't html :)
-
Ring Telstra and say "Telecom and iHug say 12-14 days, how fast can you do it?" It's amazing how a technician frees up when you mention the competitors.
that's exactly why i went ihug, telstra had said TWENTY DAYS to get a line connected, and ihug (under)promised 5-7.
it's becoming like the 80s again.
how the hell can a company make 3-digital million in profit, but not offer a service agreement worth a goddamn?
w.a.n.k.e.r.s
-
The worst part is that you live in the middle of our CAPITAL CITY!!!
If you lived in the back-blocks and had just built a house 5-days walk from civilisation I'd be a little forgiving to Telecom. I support anything that kicks bad service in the butt.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.