On 01/08/2012, at 2:43 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling <joel(a)aenertia.net> wrote:
On 1 August 2012 16:21, Matthew Moyle-Croft
I think you mis-understand the whole purpose (perhaps Dean can put his
slides up somewhere) .
Purpose of? AKL to SYD?
I don't think this is about international
capacity per-se, but quicker, faster, better links to AU - there are
more CDN's there, it's easier to negotiate contracts for an 'Oceanic'
market segment with the big content pushers.
PacFibre was going to deliver slightly quicker to USA from AKL but I doubt it'd have
been quicker from AKL to SYD or enough for even the finance people to notice!
I certainly understand the reason to get TO Australia from Auckland for content - I'm
about to work for a large content provider who has started pushing some of it from Sydney
To quote Dean "We want to appear as a State of Australia, not a Suburb of LA"
Wasn't there just another 200G pipe to US announced there last week from AU?
iiNET bought 200G of waves from SCCN.
Am aware of AXIN, but IIRC wasn't the major backer of Pacific Fibre
PAC-NET, I would have through there are different politics involved;
but I don't pretend to have the foggiest.
Not sure. Haven't heard much about it since that announcement.
If there were three providers to AU I think we might stand a chance of
having on-negotiated competition out of AU which we can pitch into to.
It's seemingly quite difficult just to get one more - demand is small. Although
advantage of another SYD to AKL cable is to allow low latency protection as currently if
SCCN's SYD to AKL segment has an issue then SYD to AKL goes via Hawaii and Fiji as the