New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Privatization, damn it.
Indeed,
Network in China was monopolized by the government's relatives
Network in China was monopolized by the government's relatives
True. Indeed, if you refer to my prior post of different prices, they are still least expensive.
Well. Mobile Internet is a whole different story. There are so many bottleneck that drive up the price and ability to server the bandwidth.
Well. Mobile Internet is a whole different story. There are so many bottleneck that drive up the price and ability to server the bandwidth.
Well, considering the pricing of cable connection (mentioned above, excluding setup cost if any), most people here mainly use mobile internet. $10-$20 is the average spending on internet connection.
Yes, an offtopic since we're talking about VPS.
Mobile internet plans, on USB Stick to my laptop (I'm pretty mobile anyway).
Yes, it's a developing country. In the capital city, minimum wage is $225/month -that is after recent increase of 45% which caused debates, etc.
@DalComp I am always wondering why Mobile Internet becomes more accessible than cable internet in terms of digital divided. The cost of mobile internet should be higher than cable as the cost is higher. Maybe the way of pricing them, by traffic rather than hour/flat rate.
@pubcrawler you could chime in.
It makes me more like a social science guy than a nerd.....
@dnwk
Mobile, hmm, it's pretty much overselling as they are allowed to advertise "up to x mbps" which is shared by a ton bulk of people. It's normal for an end-user to actually get only 10-50kbps. Those service providers have probably owned their towers and hardwares already. An upgrade would affect both phone and internet subscribers, two hits for one stone.
Cable = more investments/costs on infrastructure, plus the hassles (thus, cost) for setting up the lines for every new subscriber. Well I implied earlier the widest coverage is held by a gov-owned company, so pricing is perhaps related to this lack of competition. If more private firms are daring to make those investments, maybe prices would be in better direction.
Yeah supposedly cable would deliver better connection, but the initial investment is likely the highest hindrance.
I guess your carriers get free wireless spectrum. Spectrum is one of most costly stuff for wireless company. There are only that many "Good" spectrum out there. It is most crucial factor that limits bandwidth for mobile internet.
How many "Good" spectrum you got basically decide how fast your user could go. No matter how many investments you spend on towers.
Sadly, this isn't the case. They even need to compete each other to get those wireless spectrum through bidding process from government.
Time Warner sell 10/1Mbps at USD $30 [$35 now, just raised price last year]
Yeah, CHT's retail price is really not that expensive, that's exactly the problem I was referering to:
Retail price: CHT < US ISP
Wholesale price (paid peering price): CHT >> US ISP
Which is not something CHT should do as a dominant telecom provider. CHT raises other competitors' cost by charging them absurdly high peering fees, and reduces their profits by lower its own retail prices, effectively stifling competition, so the telecom market will evolve according to CHT's planning.
I think the current situation is more of a result from unfamiliarity with market evolution. The government thought telecom liberalization would lead the market to the right direction. Yeah, several competitors emerges, but none can challenge CHT, partly due to CHT's clever market practices above. Now the government is trying to remedy the market by regulating the wholesale prices of telecom interconnections (like peering).
This problem is not unique to Taiwan. Incumbent providers in every country will try to maintain their dominance through practices like high peering charge. If we can not solve this, cheap internet services like VPS in the US will not happen in the East Asia region.
@chihcherng I got your point. One question, could other carriers get their own fiber to Japan or HongKong to do their own peering? (e.g. I know there was a company called reach.com that provider underlying bandwidth for a lot of asian carriers. I think now it is pacnet. but now sure.)
Yes. This is one biggest cost of a wireless carrier. Therefore it reflected on prices.
To exchange traffic with CHT through foreign ISPs is possible, but Japan and Hong Kong are not known for cheap bandwidth.
An alternative to direct peering with CHT is through transit in the US, and it might be cheaper considering CHT's high peering price. But this will incur the transmission delay across Pacific ocean twice. While not important for common Internet usage, that might prove fatal in an online game scenario.
Yes, there are many providers with fiber (and/or waves) to/from HK/Taiwan.
What is cheap price for you? ($7/m?)
@DewlanceVPS can offer great promo in India!
For Hk/JP, if you peer with local carrier, it won't cost a lot. If you peer with International carrier. It do costs a lot as reason mentioned previously,
@unused Pse PM me an offer for both 128 and 256MB
@netadmin - apologies for the confusion. I don't offer any online related services, I just browse LET for personal enjoyment.
Most large Japanese ISPs will tell you to take a hike for open-peering arrangements.
Why peer when you can sell transit? <-- The principle most of APAC operates on.
lol...
Me Too...
Barely usage my VPS (1 in total).
We provide Linux/Windows VPS at Rs.630/m but server located in US.
I have a few customers in India, most of are really good and only few Indian customers call me and ask me too many questions(30 to 50 questions)