I know why local contributes to the cap...

[DaveBuchanan1337]

<<begin pure speculation>>
It's all to do with contention ratios - I remember in the bad old days (about 4 weeks ago), before they added extra relays to Bryanston BS, how bad speeds were because of constant full bandwidth access.

There is a difference between Telkom's and iBurst's setups - while telkom's local switches are designed to handle FULL LOAD by all subscribers per local switch, ( which is why local bandwidth is uncapped ), iBurst oversubscribes users relative to the amount of bandwidth per base station relays, full load is impossible for all users per base station.

Seriously, you all know how much you would donwload from bittorrent and ftp.saix.net/pub/linux/distributions if you had no local cap...

 

[slimothy]

I wouldn't download a thing from torrents.x86.co.za because its slow. The reason local contributes to the cap is because iburst do not own a part of any of our major pipes, they have to buy bandwith from UUNET, local and international bandwith costs the same for iburst.

And there are other full towers that manage to give everyone 1mbit when they need it, so I dont think the Bryanston problems were due to contention, at least not soley.

 

[bb_matt]

Seriously, you all know how much you would donwload from torrents.x86.co.za and ftp.saix.net/pub/linux/distributions if you had no local cap...

Not that much to be honest, unless you collect data for a hobby !
Heck, I collect Beer Mats - I have done for years. Kinda goes along well with drinking in pubs !

About the only thing I would go for is music and video - but very specific stuff, things I've heard about that are supposed to be good. I read reviews on things before downloading anything - I'm not about to just download something just because it's there and because I can - that's just greedy !

The cap on most broadband now is way too small, but I don't think it can be unlimited either - 9 gig as a first step as a new default package - IOW, the same price as 3 gig now. Work from there.

That is realistic - it's big enough for power users, small enough to prevent heavy leeching and realistic given our telecomms situation.

 

[slimothy]

I collect Beer Mats

I collect beer, Matt

 

[nocilah]

i collect porn... oops did I say that out a loud...

actually I collect good music

 

[bb_matt]

I collect beer, Matt

hhehe - that's not a bad one ! - must remember that

 

[Arkadion]

I wouldn't download a thing from torrents.x86.co.za because its slow.

The reason they are "slow" is because we have been shaped, I used to get 120-130k/sec from TZN, and when i was on DSL , 54k/sec almost always.

Maybe if your gave me one of those magical proxies u keep talking about I could actually download faster than 1.5k/sec from local torrent sites Thats is , assuming, u werent talking krap

 

[slimothy]

well actually I'm talking about before we were shaped. If you got crap speeds with proxies, then guess what, you were using a crap proxy.

A good international close community will always be way faster, faster at getting the files, faster at spreading them and faster download because the seeds can upload much more.

 

[Arkadion]

Im also talking about before we were shaped. The speeds were awesome, strange you didnt have the same experience.

I was hoping you could provide me with at least [1] working proxy that will give me more than 3k/sec on average, seeing as not 1 of 30 from the recommended sites gave me more than 0k/sec.

 

[ic]

<<begin pure speculation>>
It's all to do with contention ratios - I remember in the bad old days (about 4 weeks ago), before they added extra relays to Bryanston BS, how bad speeds were because of constant full bandwidth access.

Not according to WBS - they repeatedly told me that Bryanston-BS was only around 50% to full capacity.

And there are other full towers that manage to give everyone 1mbit when they need it, so I dont think the Bryanston problems were due to contention, at least not soley.

Agreed, I don't think contention was the biggest problem with Bryanston-BS, it was primarily that the coverage area was changed, contention could have had a minor effect from time to time. *crossing fingers that Olivedale-BS NEVER goes down *

There is a difference between Telkom's and iBurst's setups - while telkom's local switches are designed to handle FULL LOAD by all subscribers per local switch, ( which is why local bandwidth is uncapped )

AFAIK it is true that ADSL has uncontended speed from ADSL modem to DSLAM, however after the DSLAM port, the contention starts...

iBurst oversubscribes users relative to the amount of bandwidth per base station relays, full load is impossible for all users per base station.

Nothing is impossible, including the possibility that you are on the right rail track - not necessarily heading in the correct direction, but I am also speculating .

Seriously, you all know how much you would donwload from torrents.x86.co.za and ftp.saix.net/pub/linux/distributions if you had no local cap...

I wouldn't download a thing from torrents.x86.co.za because its slow.

Besides which, WBS could just dynamically shape local P2P to death if it started affecting other customers, uncapped != unshaped.

The reason local contributes to the cap is because iburst do not own a part of any of our major pipes, they have to buy bandwith from UUNET, local and international bandwith costs the same for iburst.

That I seriously doubt, local must cost a fraction of the price of international bandwidth - remember all the peering links .

Ok, that's posts #1 & #2, should I read the rest...?

 

[Major Boredom]

That I seriously doubt, local must cost a fraction of the price of international bandwidth - remember all the peering links .

Depending on how they purchase their bandwidth from UUNET.
They might be paying a flat rate regardless of whether it is national or international.

 

[ic]

Depending on how they purchase their bandwidth from UUNET.
They might be paying a flat rate regardless of whether it is national or international.

True, they could be, but seeing as there is evidence of beancounter influence with packages & bandwidth etc, I think they would've been savvy enough to negotiate a contract with different rates for local & international - one would hope that's what they did.

Besides, if the contract with UUNET SA is not exclusive (i.e. WBS are free to purchase bandwidth from other suppliers) then WBS could probably create their own peering links by sticking up microwave links, or get ICASA permission to lay their own fibre links like Vodacom, MTN & CellC are allowed to do.

 

[Major Boredom]

or get ICASA permission to lay their own fibre links like Vodacom, MTN & CellC are allowed to do.

Are they allowed to do that ? WHen I was still involved with that side of it in Telkom , they were renting 2mb , 8 mb and 31 mb pipes from Telkom. Granted that was a long time back ( a good number of years) , but i was not aware they could provision their own infrastructure for the links.

 

[Major Boredom]

True, they could be, but seeing as there is evidence of beancounter influence with packages & bandwidth etc, I think they would've been savvy enough to negotiate a contract with different rates for local & international - one would hope that's what they did.

I hope to hell they had that foresight.

This is the only reason I see that they could be hesitant about allowing uncapped local access.

 

[TheCynick]

Are they allowed to do that ? WHen I was still involved with that side of it in Telkom , they were renting 2mb , 8 mb and 31 mb pipes from Telkom. Granted that was a long time back ( a good number of years) , but i was not aware they could provision their own infrastructure for the links.

Isn't one of the major components of the so-called "liberalisation" allowing the mobile carriers to self-provide?

 

[slimothy]

it costs the same, it must do. Maybe they can get away with thier internal traffic being cheap but when it comes to the internet I'm sure it costs the same to them or they would have had a different package to reflect that to get the edge over other ISPs

 

[ic]

Are they allowed to do that ? WHen I was still involved with that side of it in Telkom , they were renting 2mb , 8 mb and 31 mb pipes from Telkom. Granted that was a long time back ( a good number of years) , but i was not aware they could provision their own infrastructure for the links.

Isn't one of the major components of the so-called "liberalisation" allowing the mobile carriers to self-provide?

Yes, as of 1st February 2005, Vodacom, MTN and CellC are allowed to roll their own infrastructure instead of being forced to use that of Telkomonopoly. I seriously recommend following the threads in the MyADSL News & Announcements forums - we forumites have been doing lots of consumerism there & pushing ICASA for all sorts of revolutions .

As for WBS being allowed to do the same, debatable - but I think they could easily get permission from DoC/ICASA - especially when you consider that WBS managed to get permission to put in a completely new [to SA] radio network that did not need Telkomonopoly fibre linking base-stations to the Telkomonopoly backbone - that is actually a quiet revolution for SA & DoC & ICASA considering that the laws entrench Telkomonopoly's monopoly status & mention the word "Telkom" all over the place.

Added: How was that different to Sentech getting permission for the MyWireless network? - Sentech is 100% owned by government (para-statal) and Sentech already had licences due to its long history in being the carrier for terestrial TV signals & radio as well.

 

[jmn]

...but I think they could easily get permission from DoC/ICASA - especially when you consider that WBS managed to get permission to put in a completely new [to SA] radio network that did not need Telkomonopoly fibre linking base-stations to the Telkomonopoly backbone -

... and they have the lotto network to a large extent also on radio.

 

[slimothy]

yeah um if they cant sort out stuff liek the cap then I don't want them responsible for managing thier own bandwith infrustructure. I say leave it to the dudes at UUNET

 

[Major Boredom]

Yes, as of 1st February 2005, Vodacom, MTN and CellC are allowed to roll their own infrastructure instead of being forced to use that of Telkomonopoly. I seriously recommend following the threads in the MyADSL News & Announcements forums - we forumites have been doing lots of consumerism there & pushing ICASA for all sorts of revolutions .

LOL , I am new on MyAdsl, so yeah , I am catching up on the various forums.
I also want to host a few beers for some of you so I can see what u look like at some stage.
Dunno if that is a good or bad thing.