Sign up with Google
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2003
- Messages
- 66,740
-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Telkom and IS peering link debacle
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
There was once an emerging ISP, Global, based in Rivonia, they got squeezed out
when Telkom just refused to provide additional cable capacity at the same.
Eventually selling to MWEB was the option.
Same trick different time.
Seems like instead of liberalising the country Telkom is going to throttle it
until all pipes lead to Telkom only.
when Telkom just refused to provide additional cable capacity at the same.
Eventually selling to MWEB was the option.
Same trick different time.
Seems like instead of liberalising the country Telkom is going to throttle it
until all pipes lead to Telkom only.
There is only one pipe when it comes to Telkom, and that's exactly where they can shove their business. Their lack of respect for people is absolutely staggering, and they DO reaslie what they're doing.
But the wheel turns and I hope to g0d that they are going to get a bliksiming soon.
But the wheel turns and I hope to g0d that they are going to get a bliksiming soon.
I thought the problem was Telkom pulling bandwidth from IS over the peering link. Because IS have 80% of the content, and Telkom have the majority of ADSL users trying to pull that content. Therefore I thought it was SAIX users who noticed a degradation when accessing IS, not the other way around.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 14,805
Don't take my word for this, AFAIK the congestion is as a result of higher [than before] volumes of traffic from the SAIX end of the peering link, which is causing congestion for anyone using the IS backbone trying to get to the SAIX end of the peering link - reason being that IS upgraded their end of the peering link for more capacity a long time back, and SAIX refuses to match this on their end, so SAIX customers win, IS customers lose...
Basically same ol same ol - Telkomonopoly's anti-competitive way of doing business...
Basically same ol same ol - Telkomonopoly's anti-competitive way of doing business...
but isn't the link bi-directional? I thought it was a 142mb link in both ways. I heard the problem was that SAIX pulling from IS was the congested part, and therefore it should be up to SAIX to pay for upgrading the link. But SAIX were insisting that IS foot the bill.
From what I understand, peering is strongly centered around which side is pulling the most.
From what I understand, peering is strongly centered around which side is pulling the most.
Last edited:
Sneeky
Honorary Master
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 12,129
Yup, a really nice read thx.
A suggestion,,,
I think it would be great if we gave Telkom the oppertunity to respond to these MyAdsl news reports/articles in the interest of comprehensive journalism.
ie Prior to publishing on the web, give 'Vapi' a call or email and ask him for comment, perhaps give him a day or so to conjure up a response then let rip, if he doesnt respond by the deadline then just say that 'Telkom was approched for their side of the story but declined to comment'.
Just and idea.
A suggestion,,,
I think it would be great if we gave Telkom the oppertunity to respond to these MyAdsl news reports/articles in the interest of comprehensive journalism.
ie Prior to publishing on the web, give 'Vapi' a call or email and ask him for comment, perhaps give him a day or so to conjure up a response then let rip, if he doesnt respond by the deadline then just say that 'Telkom was approched for their side of the story but declined to comment'.
Just and idea.
cybercloud
Active Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 87
They can't work with e-mail, they wouldn't "abuse" their own lines now would they?
WickedWeasel
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
- Messages
- 538
Its quite an problem.
SAIX wont upgrade the link and IS wont pay to upgrade the link. Its quite simple, people come into the DSLAM, then the need to get to another network namley IS, so if IS wants them to come onto there network they should bare half the cost of the peerlink upgrade which is the precedant in all other countries, IS is just using the Telkom is a bad person stunt to keep having to pay out some cash.
SAIX wont upgrade the link and IS wont pay to upgrade the link. Its quite simple, people come into the DSLAM, then the need to get to another network namley IS, so if IS wants them to come onto there network they should bare half the cost of the peerlink upgrade which is the precedant in all other countries, IS is just using the Telkom is a bad person stunt to keep having to pay out some cash.
Btw, Telkom are apparently asking IS to pay R3m / month to upgrade the peering link, according to another IOZ post
==============================================================================================
As I have always understood it, international standards are that when a big ISP (like IS) has lots of content (eg web services hosted by their clients eg the banks), other smaller ISP's (like Telkom/SAIX) come to a peering arrangement with them.
I understand that the way pricing is settled is to examine the traffic between them.
If the traffic is even - ie both ISP's have a similar volume of users accessing content on the other ISP's network, then neither levies a charge on the other, and they share the cost of the link, which is then provisioned to eliminate any congestion.
If most of the traffic is coming from one of the ISP's user's accessing information on the other ISP's content, then a charge is levied on the ISP with the paying users who need access to the content. There are conventions on how the charge is arrived at and it is based on the balance of use. Once again, the convention is that the peering link is always provisioned so that there is no congestion, as it is in the interest of the paying partner to ensure that their users have free access to all content.
In this case, there are lots of Telkom/SAIX paying clients, and Telkom/SAIX, to improve their service to these clients, wants to give them fast access to the IS content.
For years IS has tuned a blind eye to the fact that they could be charging Telkom/SAIX for providing their clients access to the IS content. There is little if any content on the Telkom/SAIX side that IS clients need to access, so the benefit is very much one-sided - in favour of the clients that Telkom collects fees from.
But now Telkom/SAIX is not only refusing to share the cost, they are apparently demanding that IS pays THEM for peering! The peering link is currently heavily congested and Telkom not only refuses to upgrade it, but intend to close it down.
This will mean that all traffic between SAIX and IS will be routed Internationally, onto the Internet at large, and back to South Africa. It's ludicrous, but that's Telkom.
I would think that if both parties are ISPA members (not sure about SAIX), ISPA should be able to censure Telkom in some way, even if it is by making a public statement that ISPA regrets Telkom's anti-social behaviour, and that it believes Telkom is in the wrong.
Hopefully if the peering link is closed, there will be enough of a public outcry from Telkom Internet and SAIX users to pressurise Telkom into reinstating it.
The trouble is that it will probably damage IS as much as Telkom - not only will the public be confused and possibly view it as a spat between two unbending peers (bad PR for IS and unfair in the extreme given the circumstances and history), but large IS clients (once again eg banks) may start taking their own peering bandwidth with Telkom/SAIX at a cost and downgrade their IS bandwidth.
(By the way, Telkom's justification for shutting down the peering point is that traffic from the SAIX DSL user accounts that IS has sold on their behalf is coming across the peering point to IS to access content, and through some twisted logic, believe that this is IS' responsibility to pay for!)
==============================================================================================
As I have always understood it, international standards are that when a big ISP (like IS) has lots of content (eg web services hosted by their clients eg the banks), other smaller ISP's (like Telkom/SAIX) come to a peering arrangement with them.
I understand that the way pricing is settled is to examine the traffic between them.
If the traffic is even - ie both ISP's have a similar volume of users accessing content on the other ISP's network, then neither levies a charge on the other, and they share the cost of the link, which is then provisioned to eliminate any congestion.
If most of the traffic is coming from one of the ISP's user's accessing information on the other ISP's content, then a charge is levied on the ISP with the paying users who need access to the content. There are conventions on how the charge is arrived at and it is based on the balance of use. Once again, the convention is that the peering link is always provisioned so that there is no congestion, as it is in the interest of the paying partner to ensure that their users have free access to all content.
In this case, there are lots of Telkom/SAIX paying clients, and Telkom/SAIX, to improve their service to these clients, wants to give them fast access to the IS content.
For years IS has tuned a blind eye to the fact that they could be charging Telkom/SAIX for providing their clients access to the IS content. There is little if any content on the Telkom/SAIX side that IS clients need to access, so the benefit is very much one-sided - in favour of the clients that Telkom collects fees from.
But now Telkom/SAIX is not only refusing to share the cost, they are apparently demanding that IS pays THEM for peering! The peering link is currently heavily congested and Telkom not only refuses to upgrade it, but intend to close it down.
This will mean that all traffic between SAIX and IS will be routed Internationally, onto the Internet at large, and back to South Africa. It's ludicrous, but that's Telkom.
I would think that if both parties are ISPA members (not sure about SAIX), ISPA should be able to censure Telkom in some way, even if it is by making a public statement that ISPA regrets Telkom's anti-social behaviour, and that it believes Telkom is in the wrong.
Hopefully if the peering link is closed, there will be enough of a public outcry from Telkom Internet and SAIX users to pressurise Telkom into reinstating it.
The trouble is that it will probably damage IS as much as Telkom - not only will the public be confused and possibly view it as a spat between two unbending peers (bad PR for IS and unfair in the extreme given the circumstances and history), but large IS clients (once again eg banks) may start taking their own peering bandwidth with Telkom/SAIX at a cost and downgrade their IS bandwidth.
(By the way, Telkom's justification for shutting down the peering point is that traffic from the SAIX DSL user accounts that IS has sold on their behalf is coming across the peering point to IS to access content, and through some twisted logic, believe that this is IS' responsibility to pay for!)
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2003
- Messages
- 66,740
Hi SneekySneeky said:
We have tried so many times to get comments from Telkom regarding our news stories without success that it is not worth wasting our time any more. They only respond when it is positive or something they have prepared. After the ICASA hearings they are not even inviting us to their press briefings any more. I will obviously discuss this with the new CEO...
It is as though Mr. Vapi thinks he is punishing us for the ICASA Findings Report and the subsequent bad press for Telkom. If they could only figure out that it is because of this lack of service and communication that we went to ICASA in the first place. I think Telkom might even consider sending out press releases, holding press briefings and talking to journalists a ‘selfless service’ to the community. And something they will discontinue (like their ADSL threats) if you don’t play by their rules.
I hope you understand how I feel
Regards,
RPM
WickedWeasel
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
- Messages
- 538
In the TIT for TAT world, Telkom gave smaller ISP's higher cap accounts to sell to Kill the uncapped solution from IS.
Given that IS provides content, SAIX should pay for the peering link upgrade, howevers here is there attitue,
If you want IS content then IS must pay for the upgrade or come to SAIX for content, I have seen some big players move away from IS to SAIX just so that there servers actually get some decent speeds to ADSL users. So if IS wants to protect there bigger customer whats 3m a month in terms of a company Like IS to beet Telkom at there own GAIN.
And no Telkom are not part of ISPA, nor do the peer at JINX
Given that IS provides content, SAIX should pay for the peering link upgrade, howevers here is there attitue,
If you want IS content then IS must pay for the upgrade or come to SAIX for content, I have seen some big players move away from IS to SAIX just so that there servers actually get some decent speeds to ADSL users. So if IS wants to protect there bigger customer whats 3m a month in terms of a company Like IS to beet Telkom at there own GAIN.
And no Telkom are not part of ISPA, nor do the peer at JINX
However, IS could also start pushing their own ADSL as having the advantage of higher speeds to 80% of South Africa's internet content - all the banks, etc, etc. That article was written before IS were allowed to provide their own ADSL. But I'm not sure how much of IS' ADSL is on their network, and how much still relies on Telkom (and the peering link bottleneck)