ComCom targets international broadband bottleneck
International data is twice as slow as local data, the Commerce Commission says in its latest quarterly broadband survey. The finding will put heat on the 50% Telecom-owned Southern Cross Cable - New Zealand’s only internet pipe to the outside world.
The commission also finds congestion in domestic backhaul and speed fading the further users are from Auckland - where the international cable lands.
Commerce Commission telecommunications branch director Osmond Borthwick says the latest report shows “that a lack of sufficient capacity on national and international connections is a major constraint on further improvements to the speeds that can be achieved by consumers. The commission will continue to monitor the effect of these constraints.”
The commission is required by the Telecommunications Act (2001) to monitor broadband performance. And each quarter, benchmarking company Epitiro and market researcher IDC carry out a survey on its behalf.
International websites take twice as long to load
The latest instalment of the broadband survey finds that average national speeds range between 1.9Mbit/s and 4.8Mbit/s (depending on ISP). But if you’re downloading from an international website, speed drops to an average of 0.6Mbit/s to 0.9Mbit/s for non-cached data, or 0.5Mbit/s to 1.9Mbit/s for cached data (where popular downloads are mirrored on a local server).
Southern Cross Cables Ltd, the company that owns the Southern Cross Cable Network, has repeatedly told NBR that it has no capacity issue, at all.
However, ISPs including WorldXChange and Orcon have continually groused about the prices charged by Southern Cross and the companies that sell access to the cable (including Telecom Wholesale, Verizon International and PacNet) are too high. To get the best deal on international data, a company must sign a multi-year, multi-million dollar deal - not something that suits New Zealand ISPs. The upshot: ISPs don't buy as much international bandwidth as they might.
Southern Cross pointed out to NBR that it dropped pricing 44% concurrent with its latest capacity upgrade late last year. Telecom Wholesale head Matt Crocket, who sits on the Southern Cross Cables board, tells NBR that while access to his company’s cable may be more expensive than cables in the northern hemisphere - up to 10 times more expensive, in analyst Paul Budde's estimation - it’s the world's second longest cable network, with many segments deep, remote and expensive to maintain.
Team West Indies
On the regulatory front, the debate is largely academic.
Southern Cross Cables Ltd - 50% owned by Telecom, 40% by SinTel and 10% by Verizon - is incorporated in Bermuda, safely beyond the Commerce Commission’s jurisdiction.
And while the previous government toyed with the idea of backing a second transtasman cable - likely to be built by state-owned Kordia (in partnership with Australia’s Pipe Networks) under a tender managed by a second state entity, Reannz - it never went anywhere. And early this year, communications and IT minister Steven Joyce scotched the tender altogether.
Joyce sees potential for "new cable"
So can Southern Cross sleep happily? Not quite. On June 25, Mr Joyce - who has previously told NBR he would listen if Kordia mounted a business case, told the commerce committee:
“Commercial developments around a new transtasman cable have been continuing, and we’ve been following these, encouraged by the commercial interest and efforts being made. So we may see a further private investment in the transtasman, or certainly in the international cable environment.”
Watch this space.
Read the commission's full New Zealand Broadband Quality March 2009 report here.
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit














Comments and questions9
The cable is not the problem especially with the upgrade and everyone knows this except ComCom and Epitiro
Its a hard life for ComCom a toothles mandate to investigate and recommend overidden by ministers who should really just act on the recommendation.
Fear is the key fear that commercial fear instilled by the telcos..Labour bowed to this fear lets hope that National has a backbone..
Unbelievable that the recommendations might take almost a year to be put in place...
Wonder if this country has discovered IT yet???
Its clear that some stronger mandates need to be provided to Com Com and that a miniosters right to intervene should be subject to a slect committiee scrutiny or would this also hamstring the process - perhaps then its better to just wait......
The best ComCom CEO was forced out becuase she took her role seriously - so is Com Com now more toothless than ever...the answer is about to emerge...
Its an inditement that we should provide ComCom to ensure markets perform "well" and then undermine their contribution...
This farcical ComCom reporting with little action has been going on for too long...
When a report comes out the recommendations should be taken seriously and acted upon with gusto to drive the benfits through to the economy - this is the crux of the matter...
NZ desperately needs an efficient and low cost operating environment - if regulation will get us there so be it - most other developed nations have also been forced to take this route...
The naysayers always point out regulatory failure but hide the actual benefits delivered..
I challenge you go through the 8 years that NZ Comms/2 Degrees has been trying to gain commercial access to the market and you will undertsand that we needed reform and regulation 8 years ago...
The real problem disinformation from the Telcos and including political and commercial pressure to allow them to continue to rort extraordinary profits from ordinaruy Kiwis...
Dear Mr Joyce, you're talking about spending $1.5bn to overbuild existing infrastructure in New Zealand.
How about you shell out some of it on a second cable from NZ to Aus. Should only cost around $200m of your budget.
A second cable would be a waste of money also as it is not required. The current cable works fine and correct testing would show this
Our country with about 4 million people in the pacific has more in common with Samoa that it does with the UK or USA - still, everyone expects just what people have in the UK or USA...
It is fair to expect the same when ISPs/Telcos and Government continuously use terms and buzzwords such as 'World-Class' or 'Unlimited' (which then in the fine print is defined as '10GB monthly data allowance based on average usage pattern).
This kind of false advertising is fertile ground for those advertised 'world class' connections/prices and services.
If everyone actually advertised what they are offering then you'd have a point.
This is unfortunately not the case in NZ.
The Cable itself is not the problem, you are quite right.
However - the fact that Telecom NZ have the controlling monopoly with this cable & charge extortionate fees to access it - with no competition at all - is clearly not right.
A second cable would introduce more competion which is sorely needed & would hopefully, ultimately result in cheaper broadband for New Zealanders.
Everyone likes to have choices including for international capacity but an alternative supplier will not change the download performance seen by Epitiro or any consumer browsing the web. That performance of http is determined by the TCP-IP behaviour for high latency (long distance) interactions with web hosts. For Vista, XP etc beyond 100ms e.g. USA or 300ms Europe the browsing performance is determined solely by latency - not end to end bandwidth. An inconvenient truth for some who mix data caps/cost and download performance in the same sentence - they are different matters.
Something appears odd to me.
Based on ComComs own survey ..."average national speeds range between 1.9Mbit/s and 4.8Mbit/s ... downloading from an international website, ... average of 0.6Mbit/s to 0.9Mbit/s for non-cached data, or 0.5Mbit/s to 1.9Mbit/s for cached data (where popular downloads are mirrored on a local server)"
Now if its cached (on a local server), its not international (!). So we drop from 4.8Mbs (max) to 1.9Mbps (max) or a loss of about 60% of the 4.8Mbps speed and it has nothing to do with international!
In contrast moving from cached to non-cached (being truly international) drops the max from 1.9Mbps to 0.9Mbps or only about 20% of the original 4.8Mbps speed. More interestingly the (low) of cached (0.5Mbps) is LOWER than the 0.6Mbps reported for data that goes overseas (non-cached).
To me, it would appear that the (slow down) finger may be being pointed in the wrong place. Maybe ComCom needs to figure out what the ISPs are doing to have such an impact first!
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below