Broadband Quality War: Are you a winner or a loser? IESL Auditorium, Colombo, Sri Lanka April 29, 2009

Transcription

1 Broadband Quality War: Are you a winner or a loser? IESL Auditorium, Colombo, Sri Lanka April 29,

2 1. Trends identified from QoSE testing 2. Policy interventions based on research 2

3 Trends identified from QoSE testing Fixed Broadband in Colombo 3

4 Download speed: Feb 2008 Relatively healthy in ISP domain 2,000 Download speed (kbps) 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, SLT (2 Mbps) Colombo Dialog (2 Mbps) Colombo

5 Download speed: Feb 2008 poor in local domain Download speed (kbps) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, SLT (2 Mbps) Colombo Dialog (2 Mbps) Colombo

6 Download speed: Feb 2008 poorer when accessing INT sites Download speed (kbps) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, SLT (2 Mbps) Colombo Dialog (2 Mbps) Colombo

7 Download speed: From Feb 2008-Feb 2009 Not too different in ISP Download speed (kbps) 7

8 Download speed: From Feb 2008-Feb 2009 Improved in local Why? 2,000 Download speed (kbps) 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, SLT (2 Mbps) Colombo Dialog (2 Mbps) Colombo SLT (2 Mbps) Colombo Dialog (2 Mbps) Colombo

9 Download speed : From Feb 2008-Feb 2009 Improved in INT Why? Download speed (kbps) 9

10 Trends identified from QoSE testing Fixed Broadband in Dhaka 10

11 Download speed: From Oct 2008-Feb 2009 Dropped in ISP Download speed (kbps) Sirius (256 kbps) Dhaka SKYbd (256kbps) Dhaka Sirius (256 kbps) Dhaka SKYbd (256kbps) Dhaka

12 Download speed: From Oct 2008-Feb 2009 Dropped in INT Download speed (kbps) Sirius (256 kbps) Dhaka SKYbd (256kbps) Dhaka Sirius (256 kbps) Dhaka SKYbd (256kbps) Dhaka

13 Trends identified from QoSE testing Fixed Broadband in Chennai and New Delhi 13

14 Download speed: Feb 2008 Feb 2009 Over-delivery in ISP Actual as a % of stated 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% % of Advertised in 2008 % of Advertised in 2009 Actual as a % of stated 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% BSNL (2 Mbps) Chennai Airtel (512 kbps) Chennai % Airtel (256 kbps) Delhi MTNL (256 kbps) Delhi Airtel (256 kbps) Chennai BSNL (256 kbps) Chennai

15 Download speed: Feb 2008 Feb 2009 Over delivery in INT % of Advertised in 2008 % of Advertised in 2009 Actual as a % of stated 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% Actual as a % of stated 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 8:00 11:00 15:00 18:00 20:00 23:00 0% BSNL (2 Mbps) Chennai Airtel (512 kbps) Chennai Airtel (256 kbps) Delhi MTNL (256 kbps) Delhi Airtel (256 kbps) Chennai BSNL (256 kbps) Chennai

16 Trends identified from QoSE testing The BIG picture Fixed Broadband in Chennai, Colombo, Dhaka and New Delhi 16

17 Prices* Monthly rental (USD) Packages * Monthly rental (without tax) of selected packages ; not a direct comparison as other conditions apply. 17

18 Download speed: Feb ISP Sri Lanka: Good speeds but false advertising Actual % of Advertised Download speed (kbps) Actual as a % of stated 18

19 Download speed: Feb 2009-INT Sri Lanka: Good speeds but false advertising Actual % of Advertised Download speed (kbps) Actual as a % of stated 19

20 Return Trip to INT: Feb 2009 Yet to meet Singapore (IDA) standard ms 300 ms 20

21 Jitter pinged to INT: Feb 2009 Almost within acceptable levels ms 50 ms 21

22 Packet Loss pinged to INT: Feb 2009 Almost within acceptable limits 3% 22

23 Trends identified from QoSE testing HSPA in Colombo 23

24 Prices* Monthly rental (USD) Packages * Monthly rental (without tax) of selected packages ; not a direct comparison as other conditions apply. 24

25 Download speed: Feb 2009 ISP Actual % of Advertised 25 Download speed (kbps) Actual as a % of stated

26 Download speed: Feb 2009 INT Actual % of Advertised 26 Download speed (kbps) Actual as a % of stated

27 Return Trip to INT: Feb 2009 Yet to meet Singapore (IDA) standard ms 300 ms 27

28 Jitter pinged to INT: Feb 2009 Not too different from fixed ms 50 ms 28

29 Packet Loss pinged to INT: Feb 2009 Not too different from fixed % 3% 29

30 Policy interventions based on the research 30

31 Sri Lanka: Response to the paper on NATIONAL BACKBONE NETWORK 31

32 Sri Lanka: Response to paper on NATIONAL BACKBONE NETWORK A National backbone will not solve all QoSE issues 2 Mbps is too low for a national backbone capacity Interconnection issues are crucial and must be addressed Instead of uniform capacity everywhere the NBN, should be designed to cater to specific demands to provinces 32

33 Bangladesh: Response to the paper on BROADBAND WIRELESS ACCESS SERVICES Operators should guarantee QoSEnot within ISP only, but till first entry point to US Operators should publish contention ratios Assurance at launch is inadequate; QoSEshould be regularly monitored Broadband = 128 kbps + definition should change 33

34 India: Response to the paper on ISP BANDWIDTH REQUIREMENTS Suggested contention ratios 1:20 (business) and 1: 50 (residential) Adopted 1:30 and 1:50 Information on contention ratios should be made public Broadband QoSEis not just speed; need a holistic view Operator obligation should be till first entry point to US 34

35 Thank You! 35