[AusNOG] Fwd: [Internet Australia - members] Net neutrality

[Mark Smith]

On 24 Nov 2015 20:15, "paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au" <
paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> I think maybe we need to look at other models which are working and
determine where the issue lies.
>

Maybe it wasn't obvious from my first email.

The main issue is specifically and exactly, what is "network neutrality"?

Until everybody agrees with and uses the exact same definition of the term,
the conversation with go in circles, as it has done for at least the last 5
to 8 years.

Who knows what Ziggy is taking about when he says "network neutrality "?
QoS, "fastlanes", ...?


> Is it backhaul congestion ?
>
> Is it backhaul cost ?
>
> Are OS providers offering more interesting options for time of day
bandwidth or other options for customers ?
>
> Do they prioritise their traffic and provide customers better QOS on
sensitive data like voice and video at the expense of other traffic ?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Tony
Miles
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2015 6:50 PM
> To: Mark Smith
> Cc: AusNOG Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Fwd: [Internet Australia - members] Net neutrality
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Nov 2015 8:49 AM, "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve+ausnog at theispguy.com>
wrote:
> >
> > So,
> >
> > Ziggy wants to have a discussion about Net Neutrality.  Well, he should
join Ausnog where everyone is and have that discussion.
> >
>
> Define network neutrality. Is it
>
> (a) applying QoS, so that latency sensitive apps get priority over bulk
throughout apps?
>
> (b) artificially creating congestion so that then you can force content
providers to pay you to make their content uncongested? ("Fastlanes")
>
> (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)
>
> (d) blocking a content provider's website, then ransoming access to your
customers' eyeballs?
>
> I'm comfortable with (a), but not with the rest. So am I for or against
"network neutrality"?
>
>
>
> I would tend to agree with what you're comfortable with.
>
>
>
>
>
> From my experience there are three ways to deal with congestion:
>
> 1. Add more bandwidth so that there is no longer congestion points
>
> 2. Apply QoS so that more important things get use of the limited
bandwidth
>
> 3. Ignore it - it's a totally best effort type of service
>
>
>
> 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 ?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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 ?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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 ?
>
>
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> Tony.
>
>
>
> (sorry no real answers, just putting some of my thoughts down)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20151125/9a5b0a1c/attachment-0001.html>