The thing I love about this list is how many people state opinions as facts
Of course I am probably guilty of this myself!

I would point out, however, that the 2001 OECD report, that I got from
this userlist, stated that only two countries were offerring broadband
pricing with different national/international rates. Mind you at that stage
not many countries were offerring usage at all. Interesting to see that
Telecom was a world leader in this, and the world is starting to follow.

Even American companies are starting to suggest usage restrictions.

However this is besides the point. Putting an engineer perspective on this,
an ISP receives all of their National IP traffic over a single pipe from
Telecom.
For National traffic it goes into their Customer Premises Router and is
immediately turned around again and goes back into the Telecom network.
Their international traffic goes through their international backbone
carrier at
a really high cost. Therefore to an ISP the cost differential between
National
and International is significant.

To Telecom, and probably to a lesser extent for TelstraClear (whose network
is far more centralised), their network has to deliver all National and
International
traffic to an ISP. Therefore the cost of transporting it is the same. This
includes the
access network, ATM, RAN, etc. I have no idea of the cost but I the
difference
between national and international traffic is a lot smaller (just in case
some bozo
misinterprets this I am not saying they are the same, just a lot less).

Of course this is speculation, and a rather moot point. I can't see why
people at home
would notice differential pricing. Given that most traffic is international,
the increase
from 600 free Megabytes to 1000 free megabytes was far more financially
attractive
than simply reducing the cost of national traffic (at 10-20% national, even
making
national free it would only have freed up 60-120 international megabytes
instead
of 400). This may be a selfish view but the majority of jetStream users are
in the
same camp (even if they do not realise it)

regards,

Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Phillips" <steve@focb.iconz.co.nz>
To: <adsl@lists.unixathome.org>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Re: JetStream pricing for national versus international traffic

> Rubbish,
>
> New Zealand has had National/International/Local traffic differentiations
> for the past 10-12 years (at least), this has been a necessity since the
> International links were so expensive (anyone recall the $12/meg
> international charges back in the days where NZ hung off a 14k4 modem ?
:-) )
>
> When telecom brought out the DSL product it was pointed out to them that
> they needed to differentiate between national and international, telecom
> however knew best and decided instead to bill off octets in/out. I recall
> at least one ISP even offering to help them get differentiation between
> national and international traffic working, they refused. ISP's also
wanted
> to wholesale the DSL product and manage their own charging, again, telecom
> refused, infact, they also managed to squeeze a smaller player out of the
> market who was starting down the DSL road at that time as well (the name
> currently escapes me), when the word "monopoly" was used telecom pointed
> out that because paradise offered cable broadband services this was not
the
> case, and the other player left the market.
>
> the 128k offering was not welcomed by ISP's, but they were cornered into
> offering it or loosing out on market share. Most (if not all) ISP's
> recognised that this was going to be a product offered at a loss, but
> unless they wanted to see Xtra/Telecom control the entire residential DSL
> userspace they had to offer it and hope that the pricing to themselves
> would get better. (it has to some extent due to international bandwidth
> price drops yet is still impractical today due to circuit costs and users
> leeching)
>
> Back in '98 telecom were given options, to ignore them and continue on a
> pricing pattern that had never been used in NZ _was_ a design flaw, and to
> argue that dialup was the only other option is a farce, back then there
was
> DDS, ISDN, Frame Relay, Radio, Fibre (Dark Fibre too till telecom squashed
> that one) and a host of other connection options.
>
> So how much revenue do they want to collect before they decide to rebuild
> their network and offer wholesale DSL to ISP's so that prices can be set
by
> the people actually providing the connectivity to the rest of the world ?
> the answer ? "all of it", Telecom have no incentive to rebuild anything..
>
> --
> Steve.
>
> At 09:40 26/08/2002, peterjet@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >You also have to consider what is an anomaly.
> >
> >When JetStream was introduced it was designed as a high
> >speed replacement for dialup, including the ISP selection
> >option. At that stage all bandwidth was managed by the ISP
> >but subsidised by Telecom (who collected usage).
> >
> >Paradise introduced national/international charging
> >(probably the second company in the world to do this after
> >finland). This was very unusual but a service differentiator.
> >
> >JetStream Starter was introduced both to increase user
> >numbers for Telecom, but also under pressure from ISPS who
> >wanted to manage usage. The reason that usage restrictions
> >have come into place on JetStream Starter is that ISPs
> >realised how impractical flat rate was (Paradise understood
> >from day one). Most still work on the principle that the
> >high-users are subsidised by the low-users.
> >
> >As JetStream billing is done by PPP session it is impossible
> >for Telecom to differentiate national vs international. They
> >need to rebuild their network to do this. You may argue this
> >is a design flaw but in 1998 (when JetStream was designed)
> >the only model was dialup and nat/internat was unknown.
> >
> >They are unlikely to rebuild their network without
> >increasing their revenue (and most people want nat/internat
> >to get cheaper service!) so this probably fits into the
> >'get over it' bucket for now.
> >
> >regards,
> >
> >Peter
> > >
> > > From: Sascha Beaumont <sascha@squiggle.gen.nz>
> > > Date: 2002/08/10 Sat PM 05:36:10 GMT+12:00
> > > To: adsl@lists.unixathome.org
> > > Subject: Re: JetStream pricing for national versus international
traffic
> > >
> > > > So how can we
> > > > bring pressure to bear on Telecom to correct this glaring anomaly
and
> > > > differentiate between national and international traffic in their
pricing
> > > > model for full rate JetStream customers?
> > >
> > > We cant. And we wont. Unfortunately.
> > >
> > > I dont even know if telecoms network would sustain the load that would
> > > be put on it by such a change. The other problem when people have such
> > > low download limits of 1Gb if they hit on a .nz site to download
> > > something and that .nz site is hosted overseas, they will complain to
> > > telecom yet it is entirely their fault.
> > >
> > > I can't even imagine the skyrockting usage of p2p.net.nz if you could
> > > have affordable/cheap/'free' full rate transfers around new zealand.
> > >
> > > Compared to the other options available for 2Mbit+ connections in NZ
> > > Jetstream is very reasonably priced. Telstra Clear offer broadband
> > > connections, 2Mbit (256k up) cable access or Tempest 2Mbit burstable
> > > connection.(delivered via wireless, dsl, whatever depending on your
> > > exact needs.) TelstraClear with paradise are the only one of the low
> > > cost providers that differentiate between national and international
> > > traffic... and by capping upstream to 256k they limit the possible
> > > damage to their network by bandwidth hogging users and their peer to
> > > peer filesharing.
> > >
> > > JetStream Home1000 - $89
> > > Paradise Broadband Max 2mbps - $93 + $17 modem rental = $110
> > > Tempest1000 - $199 + $50 router rental = $250
> > >
> > > There is no incentive for Telecom to change their pricing model. We
only
> > > saw datacaps introduced to the 128k Jetstream Starter connection by
ISPs
> > > after the problems introduced by p2p filesharing.. a gigabyte a day in
> > > the extreme curcumstances... imagine if that were to become a gigabyte
> > > an hour because you could get unmetered full rate local data
transfers.
> > >
> > > Bandwidth in NZ is expensive, Jetstream provides affordable
connections
> > > to home users and business who want to download that 5Mb email
> > > attachment now, who dont want to wait for that webpage to load. If the
> > > system is open to abuse, that abuse will happen. Anyone disagree?
> > >
> > > Sascha
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
> > > see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
> > > and various documents.
> > > To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@lists.unixathome.org
> > > with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message
> > >
> > >
> >
> >--
> >This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
> >see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
> >and various documents.
> >To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@lists.unixathome.org
> >with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message
> >
>
> --
> This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
> see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
> and various documents.
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@lists.unixathome.org
> with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message
>
>

-- 
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list. 
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ, 
and various documents. 
To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@lists.unixathome.org 
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message