<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Or maybe we live on a massive Island with a tiny population a long way from the rest of the Internet, and that might not scale like some other markets?</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">The is also the expectation that the NBN will somehow be cheaper than existing products despite being a new physical build and more bandwidth.<br><div><br></div></div><div><br>On 24 Nov 2015, at 19:51, "<a href="mailto:paul+ausnog@oxygennetworks.com.au">paul+ausnog@oxygennetworks.com.au</a>" <<a href="mailto:paul+ausnog@oxygennetworks.com.au">paul+ausnog@oxygennetworks.com.au</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In many overseas markets now people have been dealing with higher bandwidth for a number of years yet still seem to offer lower prices than I think would be possible here.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I think maybe we need to look at other models which are working and determine where the issue lies.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Is it backhaul congestion ?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Is it backhaul cost ?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Are OS providers offering more interesting options for time of day bandwidth or other options for customers ?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Do they prioritise their traffic and provide customers better QOS on sensitive data like voice and video at the expense of other traffic ?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Looking deeper into other markets may shine some light on this, but I think the simplest answer for us right now is that bandwidth is just too expensive still, and nobody except the big guys can afford the amount of bandwidth that they really need to satisfy all of the customers without their costs blowing out and making them unprofitable/unviable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">It seems that most of the smaller providers in many OS areas make their money filling the gaps that the big guys leave with fixed wireless opportunities, there are providers who only do that in small towns and areas which need capacity and the big guys either won’t build because of cost or can’t be bothered because there isn’t enough customer base, this happens here as well of course, but I don’t think on the same sort of scale that there is in other countries.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I know we do QOS within our network to prioritise voice traffic, our customers are all business customers so for the small amount of effort it is for us we do it, we don’t have capacity issues though but it’s there if it needs to be, but at the end of the day unless the customer is using us for voice then they are still just fighting everybody else out there for Internet bandwidth, QOS on our network won’t make one ounce if difference to them at the end of the day.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> AusNOG [<a href="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Tony Miles<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 24 November 2015 6:50 PM<br><b>To:</b> Mark Smith<br><b>Cc:</b> AusNOG Mailing List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [AusNOG] Fwd: [Internet Australia - members] Net neutrality<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Mark Smith <<a href="mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com" target="_blank">markzzzsmith@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p><br>On 24 Nov 2015 8:49 AM, "Skeeve Stevens" <<a href="mailto:skeeve%2Bausnog@theispguy.com" target="_blank">skeeve+ausnog@theispguy.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> So,<br>><br>> Ziggy wants to have a discussion about Net Neutrality. Well, he should join Ausnog where everyone is and have that discussion.<br>><o:p></o:p></p><p>Define network neutrality. Is it<o:p></o:p></p><p>(a) applying QoS, so that latency sensitive apps get priority over bulk throughout apps?<o:p></o:p></p><p>(b) artificially creating congestion so that then you can force content providers to pay you to make their content uncongested? ("Fastlanes")<o:p></o:p></p><p>(c) providing some content providers advantages over others, that is also to your benefit, such that their content is more attractive to customers, disadvantaging their competitors? (e.g., zero metering one but not all VoD content providers traffic)<o:p></o:p></p><p>(d) blocking a content provider's website, then ransoming access to your customers' eyeballs?<o:p></o:p></p><p>I'm comfortable with (a), but not with the rest. So am I for or against "network neutrality"?<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I would tend to agree with what you're comfortable with.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">From my experience there are three ways to deal with congestion:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">1. Add more bandwidth so that there is no longer congestion points<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">2. Apply QoS so that more important things get use of the limited bandwidth<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">3. Ignore it - it's a totally best effort type of service<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Right now option #2 isn't viable, there is no end to end QoS mechanism in place and it's unlikely there will be. How do you make QoS work in a house where you have 2 users on a voice/video call (over IP to random/different OTT providers) as well as a couple of OTT video streams at the same time and then maybe some torrents hammering in the background ?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Which leaves the remaining options (#1 & 3). Ignoring it is always an option, but seems likely that users are going to keep whining about drops in voip/video/streaming during peaks times. As an RSP, ignore it too much and your users will start to look elsewhere, which might solve the congestion issue, but probably isn't a viable long term business plan.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">So the single viable option to congestion is to increase the available bandwidth so that there is more headroom. If it's the last mile that is congested, the option is fairly simple, user needs to upgrade to a higher access speed plan (if available !). If no higher speed plans, then user is SOOL and needs to manage their own usage a bit better (throttle those torrents!). If the congestion is elsewhere in the network then the crux of the problem is - who pays ?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">User doesn't want to pay more because they pay $x/mon for a tail of some speed + some volume of GB per month. If they aren't exceeding their quota then user asks "why should I pay more to get the same amount of stuff" ? We all know users (in general) don't understand CVC/backhaul contention and peak usage times, etc, they just want their streaming voip/video to work. RSP doesn't want to pay for upgrades, because they aren't getting any associated increase in revenue from users so any increase in costs means less profit for RSP (and we can all agree that is bad !) RSP might try to lower costs on existing bandwidth (renegotiate contracts) to fund bandwidth upgrades, but with NBN there is little/no scope for this to happen. RSP can't charge users more, doesn't want to lower profit ratios, so points finger at only remaining possibility - content provider. Content provider doesn't want to pay any more to fund RSP upgrades because it isn't their network/problem.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I don't know what the answer is, but with CVC charges at a per mbps price, the problem isn't going to go away due to the disparity in pricing structures between buying and selling bandwidth. If NBN lower their CVC charges the problem might go away for some period of time until congestion builds up again, but it will return. Perhaps we will see a return of the peak/off-peak type plans (where peak is fairly narrow between perhaps 1800-2300) to indicate to users that there is a premium for bandwidth at certain times of the day and so that increases to their "peak" quota actually fund a better experience at that time of day ? Maybe the whole thing is just an issue of scale and as more places are brought on to NBN the scale of CVC/POI ratios will increase to a stage where peak congestion isn't an issue ?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">regards,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Tony.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">(sorry no real answers, just putting some of my thoughts down)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>AusNOG mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>