ICASA ADSL Draft Regulations

[jabulani]

Well bowl me over, if it isn't another warm fuzzy post from Karnaugh !

 

[Slooth]

RPM? You think this is good for anything? I thought you were an educated person.

I believe that started the ball rolling... sad it was started in such a manner.

 

[snoopy_inc]

Hehe, and who are you and what is your oppinion based on? Another MyADSL thumb suck to be proposed to ICASA for implementation?

Lets assume that everyone uses their 10GB cap and nothing more (a conservative estimate)
Thats one million customers, using 80 Gbits. Dividing that over an average month.
(1000000*10*8)/(30*24*60*60) = 30Gbit/s

SAIX has a combined total of aproximately 1.2Gbit/s of international bandwidth, and even less than that is assigned to ADSL. Thats quite a shortfall, even if you were to take switching into account.

So true but we dont have 1,000,000 we have roughly about 110,000 adsl users. and rising.
so lets calc that again using the same equation. AND ITS WORKS OUT considering that IS is going to be having 1GB in place from feb onwards.

 

[Debbie]

Theoretically all the authority in the world but I guess the courts have the ultimate say...

ICASA actually doesn't have the ultimate say. Ivy has to approve everything ICASA does.

 

[Bobb]

I agree. Submissions to ICASA need to be made ASAP. I have already made my lengthy submission via Email on Friday and recieved confirmation of reciept.

 

[Veneficus]

They need to set a maximum pricing on the ISP charges

Because what would it help if they drop the line charges and now only give a 10GB capped account but charge R800 from the ISP’s for it?

That would make our ADSL account R1000 for a 10GB account.

Also the maximum 384k upload is a bit low.

Rather specify a minimum per account.
Say
64k up for 256k down
128k up for 384k down
256k up for 512k down
512k up for 1024k down

From what I see they also do not mention shaping?
They need to specify un shaped only accounts

other than that I'm happy

 

[Moederloos]

From what I see they also do not mention shaping?
They need to specify un shaped only accounts

I'm in a bit of a hurry now, but I do remember something about all protocols having equal priority (ie no shaping will be allowed).

Will look it up later if no one else does before I get back.

 

[AntiThesis]

How'd you miss the shaping?

They propose that no distinction is made between shaped and unshaped accounts and that no ports shall have priority.

 

[Scooby_Doo]

SAIX has much more that 1.2 gigabits per second... lol. idiot they have close to 30 gigabits a second. Show me some proof other wise. The undersea cables are 120 gigabits persecond... IS is upgrading their sat links to 1 gigabit per second early next year. Karnaugh i guess ur not an educated man.

 

[Veneficus]

ah sorry missed that one

was in a bit of a hurry reading it (hectic @ work)

 

[mancombseepgood]

Deja Vu

Having one of those moments... you know... just remembering the last time Telkom and ICASA spoke... and spoke... and spoke... until they were tired of speaking... then everyone went back to the way things were....

 

[Ivork]

Telscum Blacklist

Can someone please explain what are the advantages of having a fixed IP?

Zip! Zero! Ziltch!

I already tried running my own mailserver useing Dynamic DNS and pointing the MX records to the dynamic address. Couldn't figure out why some many messages got returned.

Guess What...

The BASTARDS at Telscum have seen fit to blacklist every IP address in their DSL pool. The address assigned to your DSL router is worth jack now.(because they know the static address can be overcome these days)!

SO to answer your question - very little.

 

[mancombseepgood]

I think what Ivork is saying is...

Ok, it is quite likely that Telkodemonopoly do not bother getting client assigned IP addresses removed from Spamhaus.org etc lists, but that would actually mean, that having a fixed [i.e. static] IP address is then essential if you want to do anything DNS & hosting related over ADSL.

That all SAIX Ip's could be blacklisted, including fixed? This would be typical...

 

[Karnaugh]

<my_personal_opinion>FACT: Telkodemonopoly do not [yet] offer static IP addresses with SAIX backboned ADSL, why? - to protect their extremely expensive legacy Diginet product - forcing those that need a static IP address to go for the even more expensive [than ADSL] Diginet product.

No, thats your opinion, not a fact. SAIX do not offer a static IP because it would quite obviously break their capping system. That said, I don't think there is grounds for any complaint since IS do offer static IP products at allot less than diginet for the speed, so people are quite easily able to use that - which comes with 4 or 5 static IP addresses.

My personal submission to ICASA IRO the draft ADSL regs, will be to recommend that international norms are followed for static IP addresses - optional extra, but ensure that Telkodemonopoly is only allowed to charge a nominal additional fee to those that need a static IP address.</my_personal_opinion>

You can save wasting their time by just saying "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I want ADSL like they have in USA/UK"

 

[nOhIwAy]

mmmmmmmmmmm,

(ic to ICASA) - "I want adsl like the americans"

(ICASA to ic) - "er, could you be a bit more specific, like er,..... you want static IP."

(ic to ICASA) - "I think IS is better they have static IP"
(ICASA to ic) - "er, Mr. ic this submission is about telkom, yes ?"

 

[jabulani]

Karnaugh said:

No, thats your opinion, not a fact.

I believe ic was stating:

Telkodemonopoly do not [yet] offer static IP addresses with SAIX backboned ADSL

Is that not true? IE: a "fact"?

Karnaugh said:

You can save wasting their time by just saying "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I want ADSL like they have in USA/UK"

Personally I find that statement just plain rude. And quite erroneous to boot. At least TRY to understand the comments posted before you reply. Otherwise, if you are just trying to flame, why not get some tips at:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/01/12/how_to_write_a_flame/

Maybe try spreading some positive vibes for a change.

 

[nOhIwAy]

Hi ic, agreed....

my post was a reply to Karnaugh's which I read to mean :
If IS provides static IP why complain about Telkom, just go to IS.

 

[Karnaugh]

SAIX do not offer a static IP because it would quite obviously break their capping system.

Perhaps you all missed that.

What Karnaugh doesn't get, is that I would switch [and others too I'm sure] to ISDSL, if there were no peering war between IS and Telkodemonopoly's SAIX department, but I use ADSL for business, which means I don't have the luxury of becoming an innocent victim of the peering war...

You openly financialy support the very thing you're claiming to hate. This non-sense of "peering war" is rather unfounded, it causes equal problems for both ISPs, unless you're worried about your pings to SGS in which case I find your "business" argument laughable. Please explain how a little bit of extra latency between IS and SAIX (in the direction of IS) effects your business.

And now I suspect you'll delete my post because its "off topic" (where I assume "off topic" means I didn't get down on my knees to worship you and agree with you)

 

[jabulani]

Karnaugh wrote:

Originally Posted by Karnaugh
SAIX do not offer a static IP because it would quite obviously break their capping system.

Perhaps you all missed that.

Perhaps you missed the "fact" that many of us think caps are cr@p. If getting static IPs means getting rid of caps, then that is two for the price of one!

And if they are running systems that require disconnects or dynamic IPs just to enforce their cap, then maybe they have really cr@p cap systems!!

/Jabulani p's on caps!

 

[nOhIwAy]

Originally Posted by Karnaugh
SAIX do not offer a static IP because it would quite obviously break their capping system.

Well then they should change the CAP system, just like everyone else in the world
and the static IP problem would be resolved, just like anywhere else in the world.

reminds me of the horse and wagon