By 
I've long argued that we need to fix International to make the boat go faster. Faster and cheaper international broadband would mean our kids have the same learning opportunities as children in the USA, any business could build deeper relationships with overseas customers by being able to do multi-party video calls, we could attract talented people her to live local and earn global - to name just a few benefits.
I've never believe that just fixing Fibre to the Home (FTTH) would work. In fact without fixing International FTTH is probably a waste of time.
Tonight I ran some speed tests to see how fast my FTTH connection was locally, compared to connecting to Auckland and connecting to Silicon Valley. Here's what I found ...
I think explains why, while things are no doubt a bit better and more reliable with fibre, it doesn't really change the experience when communicating to where 95% of our Internet content comes from and where business is. Skype still sucks often, GotoMeeting is patchy and slow and forget Google Hangouts.
If FTTH is no better than DSL (copper) and we haven't introduced new content like TV and movies for people to substitute their satellite TV spend I fear that the UFB initiate is poised to flop. Simply there is no reason to pay for it.
Sadly the generous 1.5B spend on FTTH while well intentioned is misplaced. Fixing international (which we are trying to do with Pacific Fibre) is what we as an island nation should be really focussed on.
That is why I was disappointed with the Commerce Commission report which said ...
41. As discussed in Issues Paper 1, the price of international connectivity has fallen significantly since 2008 as the wholesale market has become more competitive. The price of international connectivity may continue to fall further with continued upgrading of capacity, competitive pressure on the wholesale market, and two possible infrastructure new entrants (Pacific Fibre and the joint venture between Axin and Huawei Marine).
42. While the high price of linkages has historically led to restrictive data allowances, this situation is rapidly changing (see discussion of data caps below). The Commission does not anticipate that international transit will be a major issue restricting the uptake of high speed broadband services.
Argh!!
At dinner with ICT Minister Amy Adams a week ago she said that 'My officials tell me we don't have an international broadband issue'. I have to ask if Ministers actually understand how we are using the Internet and how business works these days.
So what am I doing?
- We are trying to get Pacific Fibre done. We're making good progress
- I've had a number of Ministers in to explain what we're doing at Xero as an example. We're at 200 people now and hope to add another 100+ in the next year. We're proving what you can do with the Internet. Ross Patterson (The Commissioner) is in next week and we should have Amy in over the next few weeks.
- Pushing for things we can do under the current model. For example Crown Fibre Holdings could complete their wholesale rate card and put out a tender for International bandwidth so that all New Zealanders could get blazing fast international when they connect to Fibre. Southern Cross would win some, we'd win some and we'd be off to the races. That would be great for Chorus and Telecom as well. (Isn't it nuts that Southern Cross is held under Telecom so that if a new retail telco wants to connect to customers over UFB they have to buy International off their competitor?)
It would help if others can make some noise as well. International fibre for me is the biggest game changer we could do as a country. It benefits all.
We need it.
12:43, 25.05.2012
As has been pointed out elsewhere, your result has more to do with limitations of the TCP protocol and physical distance than bandwidth.
Have a read of this excellent analysis:
http://dts.net.nz/blog/why-are-your-international-speeds-slower-than-national/
Over a TCP connection, total bandwidth is ultimately limited by the latency of the connection – which is a function of the speed of light and how quickly each repeater, router and switch can forward your request. Latency to SF is generally >100ms, so getting 5Mb/s is really pushing the limits of what is possible.
Building a new pipe doesn’t help solve the problem you’ve described above, so it would be good to see what else Pacific Fibre aims to do in this area – for example, around promoting alternative protocols like streaming p2p video and SPDY.
13:34, 25.05.2012
You have fibre to the home? Where… And those speeds look very good especially on the upload side – double the local CIV.
I am getting Telstra warp speed back on at home soon. Am Hoping I will still have 68mbs to oz.
Agree wholeheartedly on the need for nOuse as well. Are you coming to Nethui again?
13:51, 25.05.2012
My speedtest download 3.29, upload .42 mb/sec, ping 873 ms. That’s on Farmside satellite: I pay for 4mbps download. No choices in my rural area.. this is the reality for me and my neighbours.
I’ve heard you speak in Invercargill, Rod, and wish your project well.. regards CJMcKenzie
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1970289121.png
15:50, 25.05.2012
TCP/IP is a convenient excuse used by ISP to explain why an internet connection is slow internationally, when in truth their network is usually congested.
If a combination of TCP/IP and latency were the only reason for these results the following would be true,
- My speed to Australia would be significantly higher than the US at 30MS to Sydney vs 150MS to San Jose (the Southern Cross main exit point). Tests reveal the speeds are the same because the limitation is the international B/W.
- My speed to Australia at 30MS and my Speed to Wellington 19ms should be similar. (similar latencies) Wellington was almost 10 times faster
- My internet would always run at a constant speed. Reality is it goes fast and slow during peak times.
None of the scenarios above have anything to do with the limitations of TCP/IP.
TCP/IP can be tweaked (LFN) to eliminate this being the issue, but if you tweak this the internet will work in a problematic fashion because others have it set at the standard.
To use the analogy of roads: Assume TCP/IP sets an artificial speed limit of 100Km/h as in the case of NZ roads. When no-one is on the Auckland Motorway, the law suggests that I should continue to operate at 100Km/h even though I could go faster. In essence I could push the 100km/h law (Just as I can tweak the window size for TCP/IP) but it may cause repercussions if others are on the motorway. If everyone else is operating their vehicle at 100Km/h it will not be as easy to operate my vehicle at a faster speed.
Now consider the Auckland Motorway at rush hour….…and imagine I have a Bugatti Veyron.
The guy at the Bugatti shop keeps telling me that my car will do 431km/h, and shows me the data from the racetrack. The geek at the garage says my speed is slow because I’m using it on the Akl motorway where I can only go 100Km/h and he confuses me with goobledegook about gear ratios, engine torque and fuel mixture. The reality is were still only going 5km/hr on the Newmarket flyover and no one is acknowledging the motorway is broken.
UFB is underway and the Govt is building 4 million new onramps onto the Motorway.
16:26, 25.05.2012
Mark: Since the technical limitations of TCP/IP (which I’ll readily admit I don’t fully understand) are “just an excuse”, does this mean that when Pacific Fibre is up and running, and ISPs have things sorted out (including giving you guys a big chunk of coin for international capacity) things will be better?
If 5mbps is a technical limitation and I’m already getting 5mbps sitting in Dunedin with by 180ms ping then surely things won’t improve. Any activities I do online (let’s take using Xero as a pertinent example) will still take close enough to exactly the same time as they do now won’t they?
16:53, 25.05.2012
Don’t get too hung up on ping times for “typical” content, there are better protocols for latency sensitive services (video/voice). I’m glad to see TCP/IP has been raised as a consideration here but I’m with Mark on this debate…. case and point is the fact that I’ve enjoyed 80Mbps + to USA and Australia on many occasions from my office here in Hamilton. Yes the ping time goes up but as correctly mentioned in comments above, this is a law of physics issue – don’t get hung up on it.
I get these speeds because I ask for them from our upstream providers (and pay for them), the reality is that the bandwidth (speed) is available and it needs to be made more affordable so that the whole country can benefit.
In short, the limitation on what bandwidth I get Internationally versus Nationally has very little to do with ping times.
19:59, 25.05.2012
Until connectivity is ubiquitous and free from the artificial scarcity model the telcos employ to protect their ass ets we’ll struggle.
We have to do the best we can, and laying fibre eliminates the copper thin pipe.
Local content within a country means fewer imports from others, but fat pipes between nations is also a goal.
Everyone has to keep the faith, and keep building for our future and the generations to come.
Like eating an elephant.
One bite at a time.
16:52, 30.05.2012
TCP seems to work just fine, as I discovered with some help from Measurementlab: http://blogs.pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/tech-guy/2012/03/pumping_ultrafast_packets.html
Adding international bandwidth won’t help however if one end of the logical TCP connection isn’t playing ball – and this is very common.
19:02, 06.06.2012
It’s in point of fact a great and helpful piece of info. I am satisfied that you just shared this helpful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.