MWEB peering cuts ‘a storm in a teacup’ says MTN Business

fragtion

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2004
Messages
2,778
Go Mweb! Guess who I'm going to be doing my 'Business' with? Mweb, because they focus on greatER value - uncompromised service at a lowER cost, achieved by eliminating un-necessary greed-costs such as local peering, and that saving is passed on to the consumer =)
 

vdda

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
29
Sad Panda

I really hope that the ISPs will come to this 'tea' party. I tried playing a game on the Twilight server last night (via vodacom's 3G). Usually I get a ping of around 100ms; but now it 'performs' at 300ms+. I'm sad. So sad :crying:
 

DagegeN

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
1,315
I cant believe MTN just openly confessed that all they care about is profiting from what ever source they can get and not the consumer. Yes it is business, but they have no ethics. I hope Telkom's 8.ta gives them hell..

Thats why i am no longer a MTN abused cunstomer
 

Tick

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
664
MTN Business dismisses MWEB’s decision to cut its paid transit links as insignificant, arguing that free peering should only take place where it is mutually beneficial

Disgusting MTN, disgusting! Why don't you explain how it makes sense that you charge more for local "transit" than international traffic costs! Think about that for a second. And now these vile people try cast MWEB as the bad guys, and some people fall for the bullsh-t rhetoric. I'm sommer going to move some of our customer hosting accounts away from MTN Business (Hetzner), because these people make me sick, and I am not going to give money to people who make me sick.
 

Slobber

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
154
Another thing to blame for their high latency. A smokescreen.

+1. You wouldn't notice higher latency on MTN connecting to Mweb, it's already pathetic. MTN Fix your business model you Telkom wannabes.

@vdda: Make sure the host of your game isn't on Mweb if you're playing dota/war3.
 
Last edited:

Shayd

Expert Member
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
3,243
They way I see it the business pays the hosting company to serve their content and my isp is paid by me to connect me to that content. The hosting company charging my ISP to connect is simply profiteering plain and simple.

Did quite a few trace routes to the major sites in SA last night(only slept at 7am this morning), by and large only Standard bank seems to be hosted by a non-peering company. I don't think MTN is thinking this through, not only are they expensive for connectivity but they are going to be providing a lower quality of service to a hell of a lot of people who are using MWEB.

My feeling is a lot of guys are going to be leaving you MTN.

Anybody know why Vodacom isn't peering, they don't seem to have a damn thing on their network! I couldn't even find reasonably obscure sites on their network. ME thinks they just lazy.

Anyhow I am taking bets as to who cracks first, my money is on Telkom. Yes Telkom stop laughing, consider that MWEB is currently their largest IPC client by a long way and they probably have a couple of other services with MWEB too. They others have no real business relationship with MWEB so they might take a while.

In Closing, RUDI my BOOOOOOOOOOIE!!!! Nice one china!:D
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
48,783
Im not going to be hosting at Hetzner until they find a bandwidth provider that pairs. That way I can make the playing fields more equal just as MTN wants it. No more Hetzner for me for now.
 
Last edited:

Shayd

Expert Member
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
3,243
MWEB Business entry level Server Hosting product: R 683 p/m
Server Hosting Lite
 No set-up fee
 Intel Xeon X3430 (8M cache, 2.40 GHz)
 4GB 1066 DDR3 ECC RAM
 2 x 500GB SATA hard drives; 7200rpm
50GB Traffic quota (Additional traffic is charged at R0.02 per MB)

http://www.mweb.co.za/productspricing/Hosting/ServerHosting.aspx

Hmm R680 instead of R3500, should be moving even without this peering BS. So change to MWEB and get yourself a 4Mb Unshaped Uncapped with some small change for free.
 

Shayd

Expert Member
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
3,243
Im not going to be hosting at Hetzner until they find a bandwidth provider the pairs. That way I can make the playing fields more equal just as MTN wants it. No more Hetzner for me for now.

Anybody get the feeling it's not necessarily a good idea for MTN to be arrogant blatantly money grubbing bastards to the MyBB community? Sorry Hetzner we know you have no control of this but you are going to bleed a bit now.
 

uduwar

Active Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
80
Well I am kinda hoping that MYBB moves from Hetzner, Put a little more pressure on the fools (Being MTN that is) !
 

lucifir

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2004
Messages
3,479
Anybody get the feeling it's not necessarily a good idea for MTN to be arrogant blatantly money grubbing bastards to the MyBB community? Sorry Hetzner we know you have no control of this but you are going to bleed a bit now.

but they do have control ... they just need to move away from mtn :)
that should give mtn a wake up .... so the more ppl that move from hetzner/mtn the better ... just make sure to tell them y u leaving :)
 

Johand

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
1,709
According to Thompson, the information he has suggests that any traffic sharing between MTN Business and MWEB will be very skewed, which means that it will not be mutually beneficial to both parties to peer.

Thompson however added that if MWEB boosts the content on their network – which in turn would result in more equitable traffic flow – they will definitely look at free peering between the two ISPs.

This is EXACTLY the crap that MWEB tries to stop. The big networks tell everybody to grow the content on their own networks before they will allow peering - BUT for smaller networks to grow content they need bandwidth which they have to pay the big networks for, which is not economical, and hence they can't grow their network's content. It is a mechanism to keep the status quo, and prevent new/smaller entrants access to the market.

The definition of mutually beneficial is also pretty vague to me - if their is no transit involved the term is meaningless. Anybody hosting a service pays for the bandwidth used, and everybody that use a service pays for the bandwidth they use. If a service is not willing to pay for their part of the bandwidth, then they should not offer the service. Anybody hosting on the MTN network PAYS for the bandwidth, any client on the MTN Network PAYS for the bandwidth. For MTN to charge for bandwidth for which the host or the client already paid for amounts to double charging...

EDIT: It would have been wonderful if the Competition Commission had teeth in the telecoms sector.
 
Last edited:

Tick

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
664
I cant believe MTN just openly confessed that all they care about is profiting from what ever source they can get and not the consumer.

Yeah, they've basically stated outright that they would rather profiteer at the expense of their own customers user experience. I hope their chickens come home to roost.


Thompson further pointed out that free and open peering typically does not come with any service guarantees

Translation: We simply refuse to provide quality at a peering point? What's stopping them from doing so? Nothing but greed. There is no rule of the universe that you can't provide quality at a peering point unless a so-called "service guarantee" is paid for.

Tell me MTN, if this is really a 'storm in a teacup' i.e. by definition something small of little consequence, then why not just peer? And I still want to know how you justify charging more for local transit than international connectivity costs.
 
Last edited:

Nortic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
189
African parasite logic:

MWEB: MTN give me two and I'll give you one.
MTN: No thanks
MWEB: Greedy Profiteering Scum!
MTN: WTF?
 

Tick

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
664
African parasite logic:

MWEB: MTN give me two and I'll give you one.
MTN: No thanks
MWEB: Greedy Profiteering Scum!
MTN: WTF?

?? MTN wants to charge more for local transit than routing internationally. So MWEB chooses international connectivity. Then MTN complains! It's not rocket science.
 

Nortic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
189
MWEB should have at a minimum started with a paid peering agreement where they pay the difference at the cost of transit less a reasonable discount. Once this is in place they can work on producing more content.

The way I see it, their uncap business model is putting them under pressure, they need to take drastic action and make decisions in a panic.

Bottom line, MWEB needs MTN,VODACOM,IS to bail them out.
 

Drunkard #1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,668
Anybody get the feeling it's not necessarily a good idea for MTN to be arrogant blatantly money grubbing bastards to the MyBB community? Sorry Hetzner we know you have no control of this but you are going to bleed a bit now.

No control my ass. With Neotel, DFA, IS, iBurst, Telkom and the cellular providers all willing to provide backhaul (not to mention the option of giving a few wuggers a blank cheque and asking them to link the two sites), Hetzner can peer with MWeb just like everyone else does. Hopefully they're considering this option, because it'll be a nice kick in the balls for MTN, if all Hetzner's traffic to MWeb goes direct to them, rather than over the MTN network.
 

VioAdmin

Expert Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
2,724
Yeah, they've basically stated outright that they would rather profiteer at the expense of their own customers user experience. I hope their chickens come home to roost.

Translation: We simply refuse to provide quality at a peering point? What's stopping them from doing so? Nothing but greed. There is no rule of the universe that you can't provide quality at a peering point unless a so-called "service guarantee" is paid for.

Tell me MTN, if this is really a 'storm in a teacup' i.e. by definition something small of little consequence, then why not just peer? And I still want to know how you justify charging more for local transit than international connectivity costs.

+1!!!

MTN has strong ties with Telkom so I am not surprised at this statement. We will see what VodaCom has to say.

F!UK MTN and their CEO, a complete scum bag. Open Peering would be beneficial to us CONSUMERS but MTN does not give a sh!!t about that. Karma does exist.

Staying away from anything relating to MTN! It's really just Cell C and MWeb who seem to be trying something positive for the consumers these days.
 
Top