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

TwoCents1000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
198
MWEB is being extremely disingenuous here and have successfully hidden their internal issues behind a so-called "crusade for the consumer".

There is no such thing as 'free and open peering'. Open maybe. Free? Never.

I challenge MWEB to answer this question:

Are you willing to peer with a smaller ISP who has limited content on his network (say less than 5Mbits) and are you willing to pay 50% of the infrastructure cost to put the peering in place?
 

RoganDawes

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,212
MWEB is being extremely disingenuous here and have successfully hidden their internal issues behind a so-called "crusade for the consumer".

There is no such thing as 'free and open peering'. Open maybe. Free? Never.

I challenge MWEB to answer this question:

Are you willing to peer with a smaller ISP who has limited content on his network (say less than 5Mbits) and are you willing to pay 50% of the infrastructure cost to put the peering in place?

If that ISP has a connection to CINX/JINX, I see no reason why MWEB would not peer with them. It's not like it will cost MWEB any more than it does currently.
 

JacoMuller

New Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
9
Are you willing to peer with a smaller ISP who has limited content on his network (say less than 5Mbits) and are you willing to pay 50% of the infrastructure cost to put the peering in place?
Actually we do already. It wouldn't be financially feasible to do a 1 to 1 peering at such low volumes, but this is exactly what Internet Exchanges like JINX and CINX were designed for.
 

Nortic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
189
Tick, w1z4rd, itwriter and others that want to understand this a bit better...

1) MWEB does not pay MTN anything at all. MWEB pays their transit providers (e.g. SAIX,IS,NEOTEL,International Tier1 ISP's) to fetch the content from MTN. Keep this in mind
2) The MTN network provides MWEB with more traffic than what MWEB offer in return. MWEB 'cant'/'wont' provide statistics to support their free peering claim (Phantom content?).

99.9% of the time networks like MTN and MWEB are congested in the inbound direction. Their user base out weigh the hosting base. What they serve is a fraction of what they consume. Again this means MTN pays 0 to get the content to MWEB and vice versa. MWEB will now need to fetch this content over their international links, which as they claim is cheaper than local transit. If true this is a Win-Win scenario since MTN will save costs as well and MWEB is to blame. Since MWEB provides less content MTN is less concerned about the impact of the International link. Mweb would be more concerned since a lot more MTN traffic will transfer their most probably already congested inbound international links. So peering wars, initiated by the smaller player, in this case MWEB, is going to be hard one to win and might do them more harm than what they can inflict. Thats why they say Content is King.

Is free peering a bad thing? No, not at all, but the timing and approach could have been much better. Personally I think Mweb should have engaged the other providers earlier and said: 'Ok, the phantom content we were hyping was just a bad joke, but lets peer anyway and we will pay you for the difference at the price we pay for transit less a 60% discount (80%?)'. Once the peering and cost saving is in place they can work on producing more content by cutting hosting fees further. More hosting clients equal more revenue + less peering cost.

In this case MWEB receives an immediate win, take the two for one example. Even if they paid the transit cost without a discount, they would slash their transit cost in half. e.g instead of paying e.g saix for 100mb of transit, they now pay MTN for the difference, in this case 50mb.

Bottom line again, MWEB needs to cut costs and need other players to come to their rescue.

So really, who is being greedy here?
 

Alestorm

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
1,143
Bottom line again, MWEB needs to cut costs and need other players to come to their rescue.

So really, who is being greedy here?

Doesn't it cut costs for everyone who peers openly, both smaller ISP's than MWeb and all the big players if everyone peers? Then it also benefits the consumers with lower hosting/transit prices and better latencies.

So why shouldn't this happen, what is stopping MTN from peering for free in the J/CINX's where they both already have equipment? I see that MWeb would benefit more from this than MTN, but wouldn't MTN benefit if they could swing the whole industry to free/open peering?

Also is it not more a case of choosing between the two ideologies for peering, i.e totally free or content is king, rather than MWeb vs MTN in terms of content. MTN should really be joining MWeb, IS , WebAFrica, Cybersmart and everyone else peering openly at C/JINX.
 
Last edited:

Drunkard #1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,668
Tick, w1z4rd, itwriter and others that want to understand this a bit better...

1) MWEB does not pay MTN anything at all. MWEB pays their transit providers (e.g. SAIX,IS,NEOTEL,International Tier1 ISP's) to fetch the content from MTN. Keep this in mind
2) The MTN network provides MWEB with more traffic than what MWEB offer in return. MWEB 'cant'/'wont' provide statistics to support their free peering claim (Phantom content?).

99.9% of the time networks like MTN and MWEB are congested in the inbound direction. Their user base out weigh the hosting base. What they serve is a fraction of what they consume. Again this means MTN pays 0 to get the content to MWEB and vice versa. MWEB will now need to fetch this content over their international links, which as they claim is cheaper than local transit. If true this is a Win-Win scenario since MTN will save costs as well and MWEB is to blame. Since MWEB provides less content MTN is less concerned about the impact of the International link. Mweb would be more concerned since a lot more MTN traffic will transfer their most probably already congested inbound international links. So peering wars, initiated by the smaller player, in this case MWEB, is going to be hard one to win and might do them more harm than what they can inflict. Thats why they say Content is King.

Is free peering a bad thing? No, not at all, but the timing and approach could have been much better. Personally I think Mweb should have engaged the other providers earlier and said: 'Ok, the phantom content we were hyping was just a bad joke, but lets peer anyway and we will pay you for the difference at the price we pay for transit less a 60% discount (80%?)'. Once the peering and cost saving is in place they can work on producing more content by cutting hosting fees further. More hosting clients equal more revenue + less peering cost.

In this case MWEB receives an immediate win, take the two for one example. Even if they paid the transit cost without a discount, they would slash their transit cost in half. e.g instead of paying e.g saix for 100mb of transit, they now pay MTN for the difference, in this case 50mb.

Bottom line again, MWEB needs to cut costs and need other players to come to their rescue.

So really, who is being greedy here?

When I see this much text, I immediately think "he's talking ****, if he was telling the truth, his post would be concise."

And I was right!
 

RoganDawes

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,212
Doesn't it cut costs for everyone who peers openly, both smaller ISP's than MWeb and all the big players if everyone peers? Then it also benefits the consumers with lower hosting/transit prices and better latencies.

So why shouldn't this happen, what is stopping MTN from peering for free in the J/CINX's where they both already have equipment? I see that MWeb would benefit more from this than MTN, but wouldn't MTN benefit if they could swing the whole industry to free/open peering?

I guess the last remaining questions are:

How much is MTN now paying in international transit for traffic from MWEB customers? Is it more than MWEB is paying for the same traffic? And is what MWEB is currently paying for international transit for that traffic more or less than what MTN was demanding for local peering?
 

Tinuva

The Magician
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
10,808
MTN/IS/SAIX the big 3 already peer with each other in multiple locations, so technically MTN doesn't really benefit at all, since to them its free already anyways. It will however cost them time to set up and debug problems.
 

davemc

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
6,518
99.9% of the time networks like MTN and MWEB are congested in the inbound direction. Their user base out weigh the hosting base. What they serve is a fraction of what they consume. Again this means MTN pays 0 to get the content to MWEB and vice versa.
I am confused, if "MTN pays 0 to get the content to MWEB and vice versa" then nobody is paying.

I have read your explanation 7 times and I still cannot understand it. I guess I had better go back to comprehension school, soz.
 

Nortic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
189
I am confused, if "MTN pays 0 to get the content to MWEB and vice versa" then nobody is paying.

They pay for transit, but due to the nature of their networks (end users) they pull far more traffic than they serve. E.g ADSL is asymmetrical and a user typically download more than what they host, but these transit links we are talking about are symmetrical. For this reason they have far more than ample resources left to send traffic over the transit provider. Therefore, it cost them virtually nothing to send traffic out their networks towards each other, even if its internationally (dont confuse sending and receiving). The cost determining factor is the amount of 'transit' MWEB need to buy to receive traffic over the transit link from MTN.

In the 'two for one' example, MWEB needs to buy 100mbps while MTN needs to buy 50mbps.

The important factor is the inbound traffic, since the smaller player pulls more traffic, they are worse affected.
 

davemc

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
6,518
Thanks.

In your example, the smaller player is MWeb, because MWeb has all these users using up network resources that are available from MTN.
HOWEVER - Is it possible that this logic is critically flawed? :
The people who are hosting the content on MTN infrastructure WANT all the MWeb users to be able to view the hosted content, in fact, they expect this to be part and parcel of the hosting agreement.

or am I missing the bus by a beer?
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,563
Well I wont be hosting anything at Hetzner as they use MTN, and Nordic highlights how if a company like MTN has a lot of content, they should be allowed to screw over the little people. So my stand now is to support only networks that offer open peering when it comes to my hosting.
 

sjm

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
1,008
Tick, w1z4rd, itwriter and others that want to understand this a bit better...

2) The MTN network provides MWEB with more traffic than what MWEB offer in return. MWEB 'cant'/'wont' provide statistics to support their free peering claim (Phantom content?).

I would think that with DSTV online etc, MWEB either is or will soon be the biggest provider of content
 

sjm

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
1,008
I guess the last remaining questions are:

How much is MTN now paying in international transit for traffic from MWEB customers? Is it more than MWEB is paying for the same traffic? And is what MWEB is currently paying for international transit for that traffic more or less than what MTN was demanding for local peering?

If my understanding is correct, MTN is on SAT3 / SAFE (maybe also getting onto the newer cables) whereas Mweb is Seacom. If this is the case then with Seacom being cheaper, it's cheaper for Mweb to do this than it is for MTN (for the same volume of traffic).
 

Nortic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
189
From the perspective of a hosting client at hetzner: You are paying for a specific amount of bandwidth a month to deliver your content to your page viewers. This figure is determine based on the cost of the traffic. If Mweb and MTN peers you will be paying less, great. Now the next question is how much and where will this cost saving go to:

Lopsided Free peering: The majority of the cost saving goes to MWEB. The people that are viewing your content, which you are paying to provide them. Communism
Paid peering: The benefit is fairly split. Mweb adsl users get a fair slice of the pie and the hetzner hosting clients get a cut for their content, which brings the cost of hosting down even further. Capitalism

Hetzner clients should hope they get the fair deal.
 

TheRoDent

Cool Ideas Rep
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
5,713
Are you willing to peer with a smaller ISP who has limited content on his network (say less than 5Mbits) and are you willing to pay 50% of the infrastructure cost to put the peering in place?

MWeb peers free of charge at the major South African INX's and they carry the burden of the infrastructure costs to the INX.

What more do you want?
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,563
From the perspective of a hosting client at hetzner: You are paying for a specific amount of bandwidth a month to deliver your content to your page viewers. This figure is determine based on the cost of the traffic. If Mweb and MTN peers you will be paying less, great. Now the next question is how much and where will this cost saving go to:

Lopsided Free peering: The majority of the cost saving goes to MWEB. The people that are viewing your content, which you are paying to provide them. Communism
Paid peering: The benefit is fairly split. Mweb adsl users get a fair slice of the pie and the hetzner hosting clients get a cut for their content, which brings the cost of hosting down even further. Capitalism

Hetzner clients should hope they get the fair deal.

I took you seriously before you used the word communism. KEEP FEAR ALIVE! (to make more profits). Seriously... a loaded word like communism. Anyways, lets try keep it rational, dont go all Glenn Beck on me.

The thing with hosting with Hetzner. The hoster is paying to host the site. So bing... cash! Then the downloader is paying to download the data. Bing.. cash!. So basically two people have to pay twice to access the data. Looks like the top ISPs are making cash, selling the same product to a person twice. Yet the data only moves once...

I host a file.exe on my MTN/Hetzner website.. a MTN user comes onto my website and downloads my file.exe. MTN just scored two payments for the same bandwidth.
 
Last edited:

Nortic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
189
MWeb peers free of charge at the major South African INX's and they carry the burden of the infrastructure costs to the INX.

What more do you want?

"5. A monthly hosting benefit fee of R40,000 (excl. VAT) applies to the host of JINX, and a monthly hosting benefit fee of R30,000 (excl. VAT) will apply to the host of CINX"

It be nice if ISPA drop the ridiculous hosting fees.
 

Nortic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
189
Seriously... a loaded word like communism
I agree, its a loaded word, a bit harsh, but demanding something for free and throwing toys around in order to get it, is from another century.

I host a file.exe on my MTN/Hetzner website.. a MTN user comes onto my website and downloads my file.exe. MTN just scored two payments for the same bandwidth.
Just for argument sake the cost of 1Gb transit is R9 and the cost of local is R1 and you have an equal balance of 50/50 then the total cost of 1GB is R5. The hosting provider takes R5 and add their margin. This is an over simplification, but thats the concept.
 

Alestorm

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
1,143
"5. A monthly hosting benefit fee of R40,000 (excl. VAT) applies to the host of JINX, and a monthly hosting benefit fee of R30,000 (excl. VAT) will apply to the host of CINX"

It be nice if ISPA drop the ridiculous hosting fees.

When they say the "host of" do they mean every company that hosts there? Doesn't really sound like it. I don't know anything about the INX's, but it could easily cost at least R30/40 000 a month to keep them running, and they don't have many clients from their website, only 16/26 in Cape Town/Joburg.
 
Top