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

Gatecrasher

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
6,653
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.

It doesn't wash, sorry. Those providing the content pay their provider for their hosting infrastructure and for traffic to and from their website. Those consuming the content pay their ISP costs. If the content hosting provider network and ISP network have connections to the same INX, there is no reason on earth why either party should pay the other for the traffic. Their respective customers have already paid for transit of the data over their respective networks.
 

Ant_Brooks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
174
"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.

While I can certainly understand why those hosting fees appear ridiculous, the intention is actually for them to increase the fairness for the ISPs using the INXes. Only the ISP hosting a particular INX pays that fee (not anyone else using the INX). The logic is that everyone else has to pay money to install or lease a high-speed connection to the INX, while the hosting ISP just needs a bit of Ethernet cable to connect, since, well, they are hosting the INX. Thus the host has an (arguably) unfair advantage, and the fee exists to try and make things a little fairer for the other users. Those amounts do get reviewed every few of years and have come down a lot since 1996, but I'm aware that they do look a little odd to anyone who isn't familiar with the history of the INXes in South Africa and the reasons for the charges.
 

Drunkard #1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,668
"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.

Are you stupid, or trolling? Because that comment just voided the tiny amount of credibility to had left. Those fees apply to the physical host of JINX and CINX. IS hosts JINX, so their only cost to connect is some "cat 5", as the router is in the same building. MWeb operates from another part of the city, they have to pay for backhaul to JINX. The hosting fees mentioned here are purely to equalise the cost of connecting to JINX, otherwise every ISP would set up there own INX and no-one would peer with anyone.
 

Steelclaw

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
11
Wait... what?

International peering is free - but it is not congested.

Local peering is not free - but it is congested.

Anybody care to explain this?
 

johnelis

Active Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
69
Come on M-Web we need you to put your money where your mouth is, you have told us your costs will be lower, what can we expect 30% lower costs, no you said local cost you more, come on give us 50%, show them what you are made of.
 

TJ99

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
10,737
Come on M-Web we need you to put your money where your mouth is, you have told us your costs will be lower, what can we expect 30% lower costs, no you said local cost you more, come on give us 50%, show them what you are made of.

Hahaha fail troll is fail
 

johnelis

Active Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
69
Apologies, could not help the "Troll" comment, but lets face it guys, if MWeb is genuine surely we should get at least some cost benefit.
 

DavidP

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
347
Flawed concept

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.

Not so. MTN hosting customers pay to transmit data as much as MWEB customers pay to receive it. Unequal traffic flow does not indicate any thing other than the majority type of customer on each ISP. ie hosting clients vs access clients.

MTN needs to get its data to the access clients as much as MWEB's access clients need the data.
 

AfricanTech

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
37,260
Apologies, could not help the "Troll" comment, but lets face it guys, if MWeb is genuine surely we should get at least some cost benefit.

Alternatively, take the savings and reinvest it to give us more for the same price - so give us 512 for the price of 384.
 

Hotmetal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
123
Apologies, could not help the "Troll" comment, but lets face it guys, if MWeb is genuine surely we should get at least some cost benefit.

You sir, are a troll. Trying to change your phrasing but saying the same useless jibber jabber == Troll. This is not about costs. Uncapped is already at a great place money wise. If the savings is used to buy more capacity on Seacom and/or lower contention rations, we all win. Even if none of it happens, we still all win. Paying less for local transit means smaller ISP's can be competitive, have less startup/running costs and can "be sustainable". More competitive prices from smaller ISP's means bigger ISP's will have to lower their prices.
 

johnelis

Active Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
69
You sir, are a troll. Trying to change your phrasing but saying the same useless jibber jabber == Troll. This is not about costs. Uncapped is already at a great place money wise. If the savings is used to buy more capacity on Seacom and/or lower contention rations, we all win. Even if none of it happens, we still all win. Paying less for local transit means smaller ISP's can be competitive, have less startup/running costs and can "be sustainable". More competitive prices from smaller ISP's means bigger ISP's will have to lower their prices.

Do you really trust any of these service providers to give you more capacity? So is everyone who does not trust the service providers to pass on cost savings a troll?
 

Hotmetal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
123
Do you really trust any of these service providers to give you more capacity? So is everyone who does not trust the service providers to pass on cost savings a troll?

No, only you are a troll (which has just signed up for a mybb account) that is trying to defend Telkom and thus you're making retarded comments to try and get the change the perception / angle that you're coming from. Very easy to see you're a troll by reading the first 10 posts you've made.
Nothing to see here, keep on moving.
 

johnelis

Active Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
69
No, only you are a troll (which has just signed up for a mybb account) that is trying to defend Telkom and thus you're making retarded comments to try and get the change the perception / angle that you're coming from. Very easy to see you're a troll by reading the first 10 posts you've made.
Nothing to see here, keep on moving.


Funny how one cannot go against the flow without being labeled. Believe me I have no elegance to Telkom other than the fact that my ADSL connection (when it is working which it is not at the moment, they say it is planned maintenance), is pretty much better than 3G and all the other stuff out there. My opinion is simply that I do not believe the agenda here is totally straight.
 

Nortic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
189
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!

Just the one liner kind? Please take the time to demonstrate your intellectual prowess and wisdom on the subject.
 

johnelis

Active Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
69
Just the one liner kind? Please take the time to demonstrate your intellectual prowess and wisdom on the subject.

Yep, you are also going against the flow here, you must also be a troll.

Thank you, I found your post most informative.
 

Nortic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
189
While I can certainly understand why those hosting fees appear ridiculous, the intention is actually for them to increase the fairness for the ISPs using the INXes. Only the ISP hosting a particular INX pays that fee (not anyone else using the INX). The logic is that everyone else has to pay money to install or lease a high-speed connection to the INX, while the hosting ISP just needs a bit of Ethernet cable to connect, since, well, they are hosting the INX. Thus the host has an (arguably) unfair advantage, and the fee exists to try and make things a little fairer for the other users. Those amounts do get reviewed every few of years and have come down a lot since 1996, but I'm aware that they do look a little odd to anyone who isn't familiar with the history of the INXes in South Africa and the reasons for the charges.

Thanks, laps in concentration, after reading the policy again, it makes perfect sense now.
 

Nortic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
189
It doesn't wash, sorry. Those providing the content pay their provider for their hosting infrastructure and for traffic to and from their website. Those consuming the content pay their ISP costs. If the content hosting provider network and ISP network have connections to the same INX, there is no reason on earth why either party should pay the other for the traffic. Their respective customers have already paid for transit of the data over their respective networks.

Well Mweb and MTN have had presence at JINX for a while now without peering. There must a reason.

You are right in saying that both clients have already paid for the traffic, but at a specific rate. The problem comes in when one side is going to receive a big cost saving while the other not really.

Consider this: 'Your neighbor says, you have to give him a lift 4 days of the week and he'll give you a lift 1 day of the week. If not, he'll make living in the neighborhood crappy for everyone.' Paid peering says ok, peering could be mutually beneficial for both of us, but lets go halfies on the 2 days difference. Your logic on the other hand says, well you were going to drive to work anyway, so you should give him a lift.

Going back to the two for one example. If MTN serves 100mb and MWEB serves 50mb, the difference is 50mb. MWEB has to cover the bill to receive the 100mb before peering. To make it real, lets say its R1000 per mbps. If MTN says, at least pay the difference at transit less 50%, it would mean MWEB has to pay for 50mb at 50% of the normal transit cost. This means after peering MWEB only pays 25% of the original R100k they were paying or in other words R25k after peering. MWEB received a 75k benefit out of the deal. MTN on the other hand where paying 50k for 50mb. After peering this 50k cost is written off and they receive the R25k difference fee, which equals to a R75K benefit to MTN.

More plainly and concise I cannot put it.

IMHO I dont think the providers will give in to MWEB's demands easily unless they pull a lot more content out of a hat from somewhere. Their stunt might give them a better paid peering rate, which I think is what they are really after.
 

Steelclaw

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
11
Shame... poor BEE okes does not want to lose a source of revenue... they don't want to lose their padded salaries...
 
Top