| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 50693 | 2004-10-29 05:28:00 | Telecom to Port Shape New Plans? | Ashley Matthews (550) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 285958 | 2004-10-29 09:26:00 | A response I received from Telecom about latency issues a few months back was along the lines that they are concentrating on delivering a product to satisfy the customer's needs as far as surfing and email goes. They didn't consider latency under 200 an issue, moreover the download speed was the area they wanted to concentrate on, and therefore "delay-sensitive" applications such as gaming wouldn't be prioritised. Wonder why, then, in their latest adverts they are promoting blistering speed for gamers (the one on tele when the kids has to get offline), and in print in a "Beginners Guide to Broadband" they are also promoting high speed access to get better performance on games?? |
Jester (13) | ||
| 285959 | 2004-10-29 19:15:00 | PROFIT. by deception. | barmypom (6048) | ||
| 285960 | 2004-10-29 21:17:00 | The cost of bandwidth (the instantaneous data requirement, not data throughput) was given in another post. The owners of the Southern Cross Cable (not Telecom) apparently want about $16.6 million for each 155 Mb data circuit to the US. Thats only 605 connections at 256k, so you do the sums. Even to Australia its $5.2 million. If you can prevent huge peaks in data requirements by port shaping, the costs can be held to a reasonable and affordable level. The average use of each connection allows many more than 605, but not if they all use P2P and 24/7 downloading. Without any such shaping control, none of us could actually afford the data charges involved as it would require many more circuits to handle the peak traffic, compared to that needed for the average traffic. But the circuits would have to be paid for irrespective of their use. All utilities need to maximise the utilisation of an asset. So, I am all for any port shaping. Without it there is a high probability I cannot afford the data charges that will be averaged out over all users. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 285961 | 2004-10-29 21:44:00 | > Restriction of the speed of certain ports, eg P2P, > FTP, Gaming will be slowed down so regular web > traffic gets priority Thats easily fixed. Just use a different port for the P2P. Some programs allow using any port you like so pick one they wont shape and away you go. |
Big John (551) | ||
| 285962 | 2004-10-29 22:19:00 | > The owners of the Southern Cross Cable (not Telecom) > apparently want about $16.6 million for each 155 Mb > data circuit to the US. Thats only 605 connections at > 256k, so you do the sums. Even to Australia its $5.2 > million. GF, it was my understanding that Telecom is a major shareholder in companies that in turn jointly own Southern Cross Cable. Is that not correct? Aside from that, I'm a little confused as to the current need for modifying data throughput as connections increase in number: Is there now a higher percentage of heavy users, gamers, etc, that require more rigorous control than before, I would have thought that as higher speed connections became more mainstream that the, early adopter enthusiast, user would in fact have less impact overall? Does the profitability of providing data decrease as market penetration increases? I know the cable is a finite resource but, aren't we a long way from reaching it's limits? Cheers Murray P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 285963 | 2004-10-29 23:33:00 | As far as I know the ownership of the Cable by country (from published data) is: New Zealand (Telecom NZ public ownership)) 11.0% North America (Teleco's which may include some overseas Telecom shareholding) 32.5% U.K. 25.7% Australia 23.9% Other 7.0% Telecom's 1998 annual report gave a 22% stake only, in total. The way I see it, is that the greater the uptake of ADSL, the more opportunity there is to create higer peak demands on data. Thats a standard and proven model I believe. Its supply and demand in an unrestricted market. The question is, should those demands be "moderated" to minimise the effect on "normal" web and email traffic, or should everyone pay the average cost depite the use type. Electricity companies have done this since 1955, using "ripple control" to manage the demands and lower the average cost. If you want uncontrolled electricity it is available, but at a much higher than average price. Port shaping is a similar concept as I see it. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 285964 | 2004-10-29 23:54:00 | Godfather, What you say is correct. As normall Teiescam advertising is promoting 1 impression, and the fine print , and relaity of what is really received, is something quite different. What is needed is more understanding/education, then people will finally be able to see these scam promos for what they are and just ignore them. D. |
drb1 (4492) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||