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.
Direct China bandwidth, do you really need it? Why?
randvegeta
Member, Host Rep
in General
Hello all.
Providers in HK seem to get little or no consideration if there are no direct routes to China.
Other than for running VPNs, how many people who want servers in HK (or Asia in general) really need China bandwidth and why?
If not running a VPN, how much bandwidth is really needed for most people?
Comments
china market may be biggest market today. If you plan to hit into china market, china direct route transit is the much.
question:
1. how much you can afford to commit on china bandwidth.
2. how many china user willing to pay for the the high cost of bandwidth.
3. How you going to maintain the quality of your service when your china bandwidth is not enough.
China is a big market.
And don't forget there's always that ICP license that "prevents" lots of contents being hosted in China.
Saturation in the Chinese market is a major problem and will likely continue to be an issue for some time to go. Reminds me if circa 2006 with Comcast in the United States. The only way to reach those users without saturation was att, and man was it expensive.
For me, I always prefer unmetered. At least 10TB.
@admsam,
We have long provided China direct routes. We do not/have not run out as we do not oversell our bandwidth, but that also makes it much more expensive.
We have also long provided services without China route for much less.
You can imagine we get a lot of interest in the cheaper services but mostly when people learn that no Direct China bandwidth is included, they move on. Likewise when they find out the price of the service WITH direct China route, most still move on.
The biggest users of China bandwidth have always been VPN users. But take away VPN users, how much China bandwidth is really needed?
What if we included direct china routes on our cheaper services but forbid VPN services. How much bandwidth would be enough?
Servers in HK / Asia are not for you then.
Honest speaking, i been quite experience with this. I can said that personal home use vpn not cause you much issue. What we are more worries is a vps with public vpn services. 1 vps use by 10-30 users. In order to cover this, i was designed own china route fair use policy. public vpn, streaming, p2p are strictly prohibited on our china route.
@admsam,
We also don't have much issue with individual VPS / VPN users. But we host some large VPN providers who use hundreds of megabits. We also have a bunch of smaller VPN providers trying to get more than they bargained for.
But again, excluding VPN users, what do is the China routes used for, and how much bandwidth is actually being used? And if VPNs are not permitted, is anyone actually interested in such a service?
I have no idea on this.
if you look at the demand of LA vps and asia vps for china, most of them will look for LA vps due to much stable connection and cheap.
@admsam,
But much higher latency!
@randvegeta
what to do, Asia china route not stable, and mainly congestion at all the time. Stable China Route too much expensive.
china market may be biggest market today +1 @admsam
hk-china direct is the best way, land fiber connected for vpn users in China...it providers lower latency for online gaming mainly...which i believe does not require big bandwidth...
If p2p vedios are required, ping isnt crucial, try to get jp-china direct or even Russia-China direct. A little packet loss but bigger/affordable bandwidth. The one requires hk-China bandwidth for p2p streaming are totally dumb.
It doesn't require a lot b/w for general hosting/private proxy, let's say a small box w/100GB w/ inbound free(considering external attacks),
Client could use these kind of box for reverse proxy(w/ Geo DNS, I mean if the visitor is from CN, then point it to that box, if not, point to backend directly)
However I have heard that you charge 40$ for 300GB b/w, if so, most of them will still move on.(including me)
No use for me .
Because low latency to China is not important or because you only need China route for running VPN?
$40 for 300GB to China is actually very cheap for Dirct Route.
Afterall, 300GB is about 1Mbit.
Bc I don't care about latency ( I'm in latam/ buenos aires) and can't find anything better than hetzner… maybe wsi ( despite their amount of bw is meh).
For latency projects Id choose sp, Brazil, Miami, NYC, etc
take leaseweb as an example,they do some trick on outbound route(use NTT instead of PCCW) to lower the cost of transit.
@maoyipeng,
It's inbound I worry about. It's easy to control outbound but hard to control inbound. You can easily load balance for outbound traffic but I have yet to find a way to do proper inbound load balancing since you cannot explicitly control inbound traffic.
If not we do not want to maintain good quality of china route, some time is really not beyond our control. Lets talk about pccw, we are paying almost USD30 per mbps, they do not really guarantee on china route too. Peak hour may be congested. PCCW cant maintain quality, we as tiny player, how we gonna maintain?
our wallet bullet is totally not allow us to have direct nego with CT directly. So far CM open route to some public exchange port, at least we still can get quality CM traffic.
If any China user here, i am strongly recommend to convert into China Mobile broadband (not mobile data). I tried china mobile broadband at china, it was very good compare to CU and CT.
Not, in China, China Unicom and China Telecom users, accounting for more than 75% of the total Internet users!
@xkwy521
you are right, CT n CU cover more than 75%, but their price not cheap. this already a fact, china user need to pay high cost in order to enjoy stable connection. In order for them to enjoy high speed and stable connection, china user change their connection to CM Is the only choice.
lol I'm in Santiago and I have 300ms to hetzner
For latency projects Id choose sp, Brazil, Miami, NYC, etc
brazil 120ms or 60ms depending of peerings, miami 120ms, nyc 150ms
How come 30USD per 1mbps? it should be double and even more than that,no? I think it was something like 80eur per mbps. Maybe they have it changed by now,dunno. But still, there are often packet losses and congestions, not that much as with NTT,but still it happens often.
Btw, is it better CU or CM for a sim card for my China trip next week?
This is mix of china route and global route offer by PCCW