-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Google Maps vs Waze vs Apple Maps vs physical paper maps?
MWEB refuses to pay for IP transit anymore
- Thread starter jes
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ip transit mweb refuse to pay
Go MWEB!
I hope this works. See, all you Negative Nancies who said that proper (uncapped) internet connections are "unsustainable in the current environment"... This is one of the steps they are taking to change that environment. They started by dramatically lowering their costs to sign up more users, until they are big enough to be able to really change something. Seems they feel they've reached that point, and are starting to shake things up.
This is what having vision means, not squeezing the customer for every cent like the current monopolies, but rather moving to a business model that's closer to the rest of the world. Better for us, and I'm sure they'll make lots more money off it in the long term as well.
All the best, hope it doesnt backfire. Hell if we're lucky, we might soon be paying only 5 to 10 times what the first world does for internet access.
I hope this works. See, all you Negative Nancies who said that proper (uncapped) internet connections are "unsustainable in the current environment"... This is one of the steps they are taking to change that environment. They started by dramatically lowering their costs to sign up more users, until they are big enough to be able to really change something. Seems they feel they've reached that point, and are starting to shake things up.
This is what having vision means, not squeezing the customer for every cent like the current monopolies, but rather moving to a business model that's closer to the rest of the world. Better for us, and I'm sure they'll make lots more money off it in the long term as well.
All the best, hope it doesnt backfire. Hell if we're lucky, we might soon be paying only 5 to 10 times what the first world does for internet access.
screamingelectron
Member
As I understand it, peering happens at the INX, whether it's free or not.
screamingelectron
Member
From the Wikipedia article:
Gatecrasher
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,727
- Reaction score
- 624
This should be fun...
Oreomitch
Senior Member
Instead of seeing ISPs making money from peering (transit) costs....think of it as ISPs saving money (which hopefully with reduce the cost of bandwidth further)
psavv
Active Member
Sounds familiar
Isn't this the same as the Interconnect fees that Cell-C tried to get MTN/Vodacom to abolish.
Whatever happened with that. My call fees didn't go down, and life as we know it still continued.
Isn't this the same as the Interconnect fees that Cell-C tried to get MTN/Vodacom to abolish.
Whatever happened with that. My call fees didn't go down, and life as we know it still continued.
gregmcc
Honorary Master
Nice one!!
Hmmm..... maybe I missed something important, but if you are talking about Cell phone interconnect charges, then Cell-C was trying to get asymmetric interconnect charges enforced, but not in the direction that you think. They actually wanted to receive more money for calls terminating on their network (and pay less for outgoing calls), claiming that the other two operators were "historically advantaged" by the higher interconnect rates in the past.
They may offer a good deal on HSPA+ bandwidth, but this does not mean they are angels ....
MWEB, on the other hand, seems to have turned over a new leaf. Good stuff!
Last edited:
F1ve_Claw
Expert Member
Go Mweb, we believe in you 
who.is.michael
Expert Member
Really dislike MWEB, but have to give it to them on this one.... Well done!
(provisory: all facts not yet known)
(provisory: all facts not yet known)
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
Well done Mweb. Now let's see some of the other ISPs also jump on the bandwagon and support Mweb in this.
There is strength in numbers. Telkom can take their ridiculous charges and shove them.
There is strength in numbers. Telkom can take their ridiculous charges and shove them.
D.B.Cooper
Expert Member
Maybe a poll on this thread would be a good idea:
a) Telkom etc cuts Mweb off
b) Mweb CEO forced to do serious back-peddling on earlier statement
c) Power-users suddenly faced with massive latency jumps ship in droves
d) all of the above
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Ripping-off the consumer is like the national sport of companies here, and I don't see them willingly dropping a lucrative source of revenue just like that. I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but I don't know... we'll see in a few weeks.
a) Telkom etc cuts Mweb off
b) Mweb CEO forced to do serious back-peddling on earlier statement
c) Power-users suddenly faced with massive latency jumps ship in droves
d) all of the above
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Ripping-off the consumer is like the national sport of companies here, and I don't see them willingly dropping a lucrative source of revenue just like that. I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but I don't know... we'll see in a few weeks.vzta22
Well-Known Member
I just love MWEB's guts, but this looks good on paper. I don't see it sustaining MWEB in the long run if the big ISPs stick to their guns and refuse to peer for free (which in my view they will). MWEB will be in for a rough ride, and the question is who's gonna give in first?
Not me, we are in for the win
If Mweb refuse to pay then they wont get any service. If Mweb dont deliver to there customers the customers will leave mweb, so yeah they trying to push in the right direction but it will never happen because they have a product that they sell and the consumer buys.
In the end it has nothing to do with what the Mweb CEO says coz they rely on MTN/Telkom for everything. Its an absurd statement to be honest.
Its like all of us saying, we will not pay a single cent for Telkom not delivering proper ADSL speeds, so you dont pay your bill and what happens, no internet for you.lol glhf
In the end it has nothing to do with what the Mweb CEO says coz they rely on MTN/Telkom for everything. Its an absurd statement to be honest.
Its like all of us saying, we will not pay a single cent for Telkom not delivering proper ADSL speeds, so you dont pay your bill and what happens, no internet for you.lol glhf
tjunyat
Senior Member
Fantastic to hear! Can't wait to see the benefits of this!
Do you have a list of ISPs you already have settlement free peering with so we know who the good guys are?
AndrewAlston
Group Head of IP Strategy – Liquid Telecommunicati
Firstly, I commend MWEB for having the guts to take this stance, its a very tough stance to take and the effects of it will be rather interesting.
There are a few possibilities as to what could happen here.
A.) The other ISPs back down and peer with them, either via PNI (Private Network Interconnect) or via one of the exchanges. This would be the ideal situation in a perfect world.
B.) The other ISPs refuse to peer with them, and the traffic starts to flow via international pipes, latencies go up, and potentially traffic congestion on international pipes happens. The extent of congestion would be interesting to see, and is going to be very largely dependant on the traffic ratios between MWeb and those ISPs. If Mweb is pushing large amounts of content, the other ISPs are more likely to back down (Since most South African networks tend to be eyeball, that is, they pull more than they push and they have capacity available in the outbound direction on the international circuits, and hence can absorb the change). If Mweb is pushing it however, the other ISPs will have to get the content from the internationally, that will congest already heavily loaded international links and the chances are Mweb will win.
C.) The other ISPs decide to play hardball and simply blackhole Mweb on their international links, effectively segmenting them and denying Mweb users access to their networks entirely (and vice versa)
In the event of C happening, who wins will come down to which sides customers scream the loudest.
Again, this whole situation however goes to further highlight what I said in the article published by My Broadband on the 23rd of January this year. Content is king, because he who has content dictates the extent of the peering relationship. If you have the content, you will get peered, if you don't, you're likely to end up paying for it. I would wonder if other services (and I haven't bothered to look) would be affected by this (News24/Media24/Other Naspers services), because if they are, it would certainly strongly swing this fight in favour of Mweb.
I might point out that (C) has happened before in global internet terms, when Telia and Cogent de-peered, and even though Telia was buying transit from 701 (I believe), there was a blackhole in place and the two networks refused to talk to each other on a global scale. This caused a rather large segmentation of the net. Another example of a major de-peering battle was when Cogent and Level3 depeered for a while, and since both are global tier-1 and don't buy transit, the internet got rather effectively split in two for people who werent multi-homed.
The peering wars have been common place in international markets for years, it was only a matter of time before they began here, and I don't think this will be the last such fight, we may see a lot of this to come in the future.
TENET as an organization by the way has always taken the stance that it will peer with any legitimate organization with its own ASN and its own IP blocks, providing that the peering party meets us at a recognized exchange point, or alternatively covers the costs involved in reaching us at a point that isn't a recognized exchange point where we have presence. We believe very strongly in free and open peering.
The other question involved in all of this is what is going to happen about paid peering in this country. At current, I'm not aware of any paid peering relationships, generally ISPs share the costs of interconnecting circuits, but not on actual traffic. I may be wrong on this however, as such paid peering agreements are generally fairly veiled in secrecy. Personally though, I think that paid peering is a very flawed model, and would resist any form of paid peering with anyone.
Interesting times.... roll on the peering fights that have been occuring world wide for years
There are a few possibilities as to what could happen here.
A.) The other ISPs back down and peer with them, either via PNI (Private Network Interconnect) or via one of the exchanges. This would be the ideal situation in a perfect world.
B.) The other ISPs refuse to peer with them, and the traffic starts to flow via international pipes, latencies go up, and potentially traffic congestion on international pipes happens. The extent of congestion would be interesting to see, and is going to be very largely dependant on the traffic ratios between MWeb and those ISPs. If Mweb is pushing large amounts of content, the other ISPs are more likely to back down (Since most South African networks tend to be eyeball, that is, they pull more than they push and they have capacity available in the outbound direction on the international circuits, and hence can absorb the change). If Mweb is pushing it however, the other ISPs will have to get the content from the internationally, that will congest already heavily loaded international links and the chances are Mweb will win.
C.) The other ISPs decide to play hardball and simply blackhole Mweb on their international links, effectively segmenting them and denying Mweb users access to their networks entirely (and vice versa)
In the event of C happening, who wins will come down to which sides customers scream the loudest.
Again, this whole situation however goes to further highlight what I said in the article published by My Broadband on the 23rd of January this year. Content is king, because he who has content dictates the extent of the peering relationship. If you have the content, you will get peered, if you don't, you're likely to end up paying for it. I would wonder if other services (and I haven't bothered to look) would be affected by this (News24/Media24/Other Naspers services), because if they are, it would certainly strongly swing this fight in favour of Mweb.
I might point out that (C) has happened before in global internet terms, when Telia and Cogent de-peered, and even though Telia was buying transit from 701 (I believe), there was a blackhole in place and the two networks refused to talk to each other on a global scale. This caused a rather large segmentation of the net. Another example of a major de-peering battle was when Cogent and Level3 depeered for a while, and since both are global tier-1 and don't buy transit, the internet got rather effectively split in two for people who werent multi-homed.
The peering wars have been common place in international markets for years, it was only a matter of time before they began here, and I don't think this will be the last such fight, we may see a lot of this to come in the future.
TENET as an organization by the way has always taken the stance that it will peer with any legitimate organization with its own ASN and its own IP blocks, providing that the peering party meets us at a recognized exchange point, or alternatively covers the costs involved in reaching us at a point that isn't a recognized exchange point where we have presence. We believe very strongly in free and open peering.
The other question involved in all of this is what is going to happen about paid peering in this country. At current, I'm not aware of any paid peering relationships, generally ISPs share the costs of interconnecting circuits, but not on actual traffic. I may be wrong on this however, as such paid peering agreements are generally fairly veiled in secrecy. Personally though, I think that paid peering is a very flawed model, and would resist any form of paid peering with anyone.
Interesting times.... roll on the peering fights that have been occuring world wide for years