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

TJ99

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
10,737
African parasite logic:

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

You: Random nonsensical gibberish
Everyone else: WTF are you talking about man?
 

vdda

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
29
@Slobber

I gather then that WA is also on MWEBs infrastructure (I joined a WAGE game and decided not to retry the game-by-presentation experience after that).

Where can I find out which ISPs are linked to MWEB?

Let the REVOLUTION begin!
 

Jacques

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
313
HETZNER Local (via London) hosting :D

I wonder how much MTN Business wants to keep that Hetzner Business?
 

Knersus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2004
Messages
400
HETZNER Local (via London) hosting :D

I wonder how much MTN Business wants to keep that Hetzner Business?

Yeah... I think everyone who is on Mweb should hit MTN sites hard and try to use as much data as possible, and vice versa, people on MTN should hit the Mweb networks (news24, etc). That way MTN will feel it on their international link. Mweb will too, but they sounds like they have planned for it already.
 

MFour

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
2,902
Interesting how companies try to hang on to "what was" and try to resist "what should be". Me thinks it's a lack of imagination that keeps most back from progress.
 

avir101

Active Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
37
Ok, i'm not as clued up as other guys on here with regard to peering...BUT...no business will do something that is not benificial to them.
Mweb has done alot in recent times to make affordable internet more accessible, BUT its not as if they did it out of the goodness of their hearts - they did it to gain market share and make a profit.
I'm not saying that open peering isn't a good thing, but not paying a cent to ISP's that don't peer with them seems like a great way to save money and add to the profit margin.
 

HavocXphere

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
33,156
(International) prices are 40% cheaper than local lines. That's scary
Telkom needs to stick their IPC costs somewhere.

According to Thompson this is standard practice internationally
:erm: Pretty much all of tier-1 internationally is based on settlement free peering.

Thompson further pointed out that free and open peering typically does not come with any service guarantees
:erm: The whole point of free & open peering is to connect everyone to everyone thus creating redundancy. You know....routing around problems....aka the internet. That way its not full of holes that need to be stuff w/ service guarantees.

Thompson said that MWEB has not been as pro-active as they could have been.
Not Pro-Active my ass. Lets review: MWeb launches uncapped & starts a peering war. MTN makes another Ayoba ad.:rolleyes:
 

itwriter

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
18
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.

I don't understand this logic. Surely most uncapped bandwidth is going to international.

Also, rememeber what a previous poster said: "What does it matter if there is a deficit? Free peering works both ways - why does it have to be a 1:1 thing?" Another poster also mentioned that when Google has peering agreements with other ISPs, both parties benefit, even if it's very far from being a 1:1 thing.

I might be completely wrong, in which case mea culpa, but I don't think you're being altogether honest, Nortic. Why are you defending MTN?
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
48,789
African parasite logic:

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

Thats a silly analogy. Firstly most of the civilized world has open peering. Secondly I refuse to pay MTN for a bit a cable to connect to their network. Screw that. Its in South Africa because the big providers are behaving like a criminal cartel that this is happening.
 

Slobber

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
154
@Slobber

I gather then that WA is also on MWEBs infrastructure (I joined a WAGE game and decided not to retry the game-by-presentation experience after that).

Where can I find out which ISPs are linked to MWEB?

Let the REVOLUTION begin!

WAGE is kindly hosted by Webafrica and WA are still peering with Telkom (which is how MTN connects AFAIK) so you shouldn't experience any issues playing on WAGE. If you're playing on WAGE type .checkme and it will show your ping to the wage host.

Not sure on other ISPs that piggyback off Mweb so to be safe, stick to IS/Telkom/Wage/WA/Afrihost.
 

The_Unbeliever

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
103,197
Not Pro-Active my ass. Lets review: MWeb launches uncapped & starts a peering war. MTN makes another Ayoba ad.:rolleyes:

Add to that the list of unhappy MTN clients complaining about billing issues and the such... Pro-active? Non.

Mweb is the one who (together with other ISP's) started to offer prices below R30 a Gig for us. MTN still clings to their old ways.
 

Tick

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
664
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.

And tell me, why "should" they if MTN charges them more for that local transit traffic than it would cost to route it a quarter way round the planet? Your reasoning is "hey MWEB you should pay more for less, because .. um, well, I don't know but hey you should". As a start, MTN could at least offer to match the cost of international traffic, don't go crying if you charge more than someone else and your customers choose a cheaper option instead. You think you/MTN have some magical entitlement to other peoples money? Unfortunately the big players apparently do think just that, because they have really had that for far too long in SA, and I guess some can no longer imagine a world where it isn't the case. Vote with your wallets, folks.
 
Last edited:

JStrike

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
12,454
WAGE is kindly hosted by Webafrica and WA are still peering with Telkom (which is how MTN connects AFAIK) so you shouldn't experience any issues playing on WAGE. If you're playing on WAGE type .checkme and it will show your ping to the wage host.

Not sure on other ISPs that piggyback off Mweb so to be safe, stick to IS/Telkom/Wage/WA/Afrihost.

Not that I care about playing computer games, but Web Africa and MWeb already have open peering between them, and have been peering for a while
 

donivon

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
43
down with parastic scum like MTN...

its time we all moved onto a new level where we build for the future instead of stuffing our pockets full at the expense of the the SA consumer. Enough it enough.

+1 to MTN
 

Murmaider

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
963
According to Thompson this is standard practice internationally to ensure that one provider does not subsidize transit of another provider.

I wish people would stop using this "oh this is fine, because they do it overseas" analogy.
What works overseas doesn't always work here and visa versa.
I don't see anything wrong in MWEB doing something which isn't of "international standard", you never know, they may just spark a new international standard.

I guess some companies are leaders and others are just followers.


EDIT : btw, the Vox Telecom network and it's branch off's are peering for free with Mweb from what I can see.
 

TJ99

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
10,737
Ok, i'm not as clued up as other guys on here with regard to peering...BUT...no business will do something that is not benificial to them.
Mweb has done alot in recent times to make affordable internet more accessible, BUT its not as if they did it out of the goodness of their hearts - they did it to gain market share and make a profit.
I'm not saying that open peering isn't a good thing, but not paying a cent to ISP's that don't peer with them seems like a great way to save money and add to the profit margin.


Completely agree with you, they are doing it to make money, I'm sure they've even said so. The difference is just that MWEB seems to have realised that giving customers what they want and can afford, and making profit, aren't mutually exclusive. If they can get better service levels and lower the high costs of local hosting, they'll get many more customers. Low margins high volumes, like the rest of the world. Happier clients, money for them, better internet penetration.
 

Tick

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
664
I wish people would stop using this "oh this is fine, because they do it overseas" analogy.

MTN are being disingenuous to dishonest with that claim anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network ... "A tier 1 network is an Internet Protocol (IP) network that participates in the Internet solely via settlement-free interconnection, also known as settlement-free peering." .. their website also states "MTN Business is a South African Tier-1 Internet Service Provider", lol.

Indeed whenever someone justifies something by saying "this is standard practice internationally", 9 times out of 10 you can bet it's something disgusting.
 

RoganDawes

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,211
DavidP said:
MTN's view that network traffic in one direction is not mutually beneficial is fundamentally flawed.

MTNS clients want the traffic to reach MWEB clients just as much as MWEB clients want MTN data?
Only if as many MWEB clients want MTN data as MTN clients want MWEB data. There has to be an equal amount in both directions.

I think the original contention was that MTN's clients (i.e. the people who pay MTN to host their servers) want the traffic to reach MWEB's client (i.e. the people who pay for their ADSL lines), just as much as mweb's clients want to reach the servers on MTN's network.

i.e. MTN hosting clients are paying MTN for their data to reach as many local users as quickly as possible.
 
Top