«

Chris wrote:

> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnews...toryID=3540870
>
> "In an about-face on its earlier draft determination, the Commerce
> Commission today said Telecom should not be forced to open its "local
> loop" or copper wire network to competitors."
>
> They think telecom should provide wholesale DSL to ISP's
>

It is a gutless decision.

On the one hand Telecom NZ is quite happy to participate in a better
telecommunications environment in Australia yet they want something
quite unreasonable in NZ. I mean, if the telecommunications
environment as it exists in Australia is so bad why are they so happy
to participate in it (via Connect)?

I can have my landline billed via a non-Telstra (Telecom equiv) company.
And my ADSL service which is wholesaled by Telstra is becoming quite
economically favorable (ie cheaper, and I don't have to worry about download
limits any more). Moreover my ISP is starting to install their own
equipment in exchanges because they are allowed to.

I guess NZ will just have to stick to farming and hope that that is
the way of the future.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:15:57 GMT, (Matthew Poole)
wrote:

>In article <>, DPF <> wrote:
>>On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:20:19 GMT, (Matthew Poole)
>>wrote:
>*SNIP*
>>John Key.
>>
>Does he suffer from the same love affair with Telecon which Morrie
>appeared to?

I doubt it.

>It became very difficult to take that man seriously when he allowed the
>0867 debacle to be carried through.

They were bad days indeed. It is a pity that a deal was done instead
of just taking action under the Kiwi Share.

DPF
--
Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
E-mail:
ICQ: 29964527
MSN:

Jay wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
> > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnews...toryID=3540870
....
> > They think telecom should provide wholesale DSL to ISP's
> >
>
> It is a gutless decision.
>

There are some technical aspects: they claimed that it would be
"uneconomic" to force unbundling. I think what that means is the
accountants couldn't figure out how to charge who for access.

I keep harping on about the electricity unbundling,
at the stroke of a Ministerial pen
'cos all the wholesale machinery was already in place
at the substations, and all consumers' equipment
was installed at consumers' premises.

For your average residential phone only a small part of the
hardware is on the consumer's premises, the rest is
buried in the street, or on racks at the exchange.
Where is the physical point of unbundling?
At the MDF where the street cable terminates?
Or, for bitstream service, somewhere upstream from the
Subscriber Line Termination Unit?

Any potential provider would need physical access to
this point, in a building owned by Telecom, full of hardware
that Telecom would wish to keep for its own business...

> Any potential provider would need physical access to
> this point, in a building owned by Telecom, full of hardware
> that Telecom would wish to keep for its own business...

How do all the unbundled countries deal with this issue?

Peter KERR <> wrote:


>>
>
>There are some technical aspects: they claimed that it would be
>"uneconomic" to force unbundling. I think what that means is the
>accountants couldn't figure out how to charge who for access.
>
>I keep harping on about the electricity unbundling,
>at the stroke of a Ministerial pen
>'cos all the wholesale machinery was already in place
>at the substations, and all consumers' equipment
>was installed at consumers' premises.
>
>For your average residential phone only a small part of the
>hardware is on the consumer's premises, the rest is
>buried in the street, or on racks at the exchange.
>Where is the physical point of unbundling?
>At the MDF where the street cable terminates?
>Or, for bitstream service, somewhere upstream from the
>Subscriber Line Termination Unit?
>
>Any potential provider would need physical access to
>this point, in a building owned by Telecom, full of hardware
>that Telecom would wish to keep for its own business...

A good point.

I would assume that the point of un-bundling would be the MDF which
allows others to connect their hardware to the street cable. I would
be against un bundling meaning that others can on sell Telecom's
dialtone under their own name. What's the point of that?? Get a
fault and wait for the toing and froing. Just like what happens now
with Telstra reselling Telecom's ISDN services and there's a fault..

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 18:04:33 +1100, Jay wrote:

> It is a gutless decision.

It's the best decision Telecom and TVNZ lobbying money can buy.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:31:27 +1300, DPF wrote:

>>Does he suffer from the same love affair with Telecon which Morrie
>>appeared to?
>
> I doubt it.
(*)


_SOMETHING_ happened between him coming into office proclaiming to all and
sundry that he was going to deal with the Telecom Problem firmly and his
subsequent complete and utter silence on the issue after 6 days in office
and outright evasion on it over the following couple of years.



(*) So you're admitting that Mo had some form of love affair with Telecom?
Did it have anything to do with the consulting company he's part owner of
and where its money was coming from while he was minister?

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:05:33 +1300, Mutley wrote:

> Peter KERR <> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>>There are some technical aspects: they claimed that it would be
>>"uneconomic" to force unbundling. I think what that means is the
>>accountants couldn't figure out how to charge who for access.
>>
>>I keep harping on about the electricity unbundling,
>>at the stroke of a Ministerial pen
>>'cos all the wholesale machinery was already in place
>>at the substations, and all consumers' equipment
>>was installed at consumers' premises.
>>
>>For your average residential phone only a small part of the
>>hardware is on the consumer's premises, the rest is
>>buried in the street, or on racks at the exchange.
>>Where is the physical point of unbundling?
>>At the MDF where the street cable terminates?
>>Or, for bitstream service, somewhere upstream from the
>>Subscriber Line Termination Unit?
>>
>>Any potential provider would need physical access to
>>this point, in a building owned by Telecom, full of hardware
>>that Telecom would wish to keep for its own business...
>
> A good point.
>
> I would assume that the point of un-bundling would be the MDF which
> allows others to connect their hardware to the street cable. I would
> be against un bundling meaning that others can on sell Telecom's
> dialtone under their own name. What's the point of that?? Get a
> fault and wait for the toing and froing. Just like what happens now
> with Telstra reselling Telecom's ISDN services and there's a fault..

Not that I am a fan of toing and froing (indeed I detest it) but Telecom
are big fans. Its why they split xtra into a separate business and global
gateway. If you cant connect to the internet thats xtra's problem, xtra
point you to telecom, telecom points you back to xtra.....
I've got a fascinating email thread detailing the toing and froing
necessary to get dial up to work properly. In the end I was sent a line
supressor from Xtra (apparently I am too close to the exchange!). Only took
6 weeks to sort that one out.
Same if there is a router failure between yourself and the US backbone.
Xtra points you to global gateway....who won't even listen to an end user.

cheers

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:39:03 +0100, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
<alanb+> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:31:27 +1300, DPF wrote:
>
>>>Does he suffer from the same love affair with Telecon which Morrie
>>>appeared to?
>>
>> I doubt it.
>(*)
>
>
>_SOMETHING_ happened between him coming into office proclaiming to all and
>sundry that he was going to deal with the Telecom Problem firmly and his
>subsequent complete and utter silence on the issue after 6 days in office
>and outright evasion on it over the following couple of years.

I was somewhat young to recall what was said prior to 1990 but I
certainly agree that Telecom got away with too much in the 1990s.

>
>
>(*) So you're admitting that Mo had some form of love affair with Telecom?
>Did it have anything to do with the consulting company he's part owner of
>and where its money was coming from while he was minister?

Not aware he had any sort of consulting company while a Minister -
these things tend to be well known as they have to be declared. Also
worth recalling that with 0867 for example the Minister of Finance was
in fact the key Minister.

DPF
--
Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
E-mail:
ICQ: 29964527
MSN:

In article <>,
says...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:42:25 +1300, T.N.O. wrote:
>
> > JedMeister wrote:
> >> ...Telecom be required to provide new entrants with a wholesale DSL service
> >> to allow entrants to develop and offer to consumers their own range of
> >> broadband products.
> >
> > you cut the words "and is recommending that" from just before your
> > quoting starts...
> >
> > It is only a recommendation, not a necessity.
> >
> > Looks like those shares I bought in Telecom are a good and safe
> > investment for a while yet.
>
> Looks like the commerce commission have significant funds invested in
> Telecom as well if you ask me.
> What a ****ing brain dead decision.

The Business Round Table supported the status quo, because of course
Telecom has a near monopoly and every businessm likes being a monopoly.

They claim it will lead to reduced infrastructure investment. Except that
Telecom already doesn't do enough investment.

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/