Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > broadband in the Netherland

Reply
Thread Tools

broadband in the Netherland

 
 
Chris Mayhew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2004
Not comparable to NZ though but interesting all the same
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...toryID=3551834
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2004
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:32:11 -0800, Chris Mayhew wrote:

> Not comparable to NZ though but interesting all the same
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...toryID=3551834


Quote
For Euros 60 ($109) a month, a subscribing household receives flat-rate
internet access at 2Mbps (megabits per second). Thrown in is basic
telephone line rental, 35 pay TV channels and 16 radio stations. Kamphius
said calling discounts of up to 35 per cent on KPN's pricing were also
being offered.


The contracts refer to 100GB monthly traffic limits, unheard of in New
Zealand for residential broadband plans.

Unquote

So which is it Flat or capped at 100GB/ month. ?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2004
Gordon wrote:
> The contracts refer to 100GB monthly traffic limits, unheard of in New
> Zealand for residential broadband plans.


heh, unheard of for most countries... they are the exception rather than
the rule. comparing to Aussie is much fairer... but still, ecomies of
scale should be alot better over there.

--
Http://www.Dave.net.nz
Play Hangman
Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2004
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:55:46 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> Gordon wrote:
>> The contracts refer to 100GB monthly traffic limits, unheard of in New
>> Zealand for residential broadband plans.

>
> heh, unheard of for most countries... they are the exception rather than
> the rule. comparing to Aussie is much fairer... but still, ecomies of
> scale should be alot better over there.


and the fact they dont exactly have this big arse pice of water inbetween
them and the rest of the world!

--
---------------------------------------------------------
Steven H - B.I.T. Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand
..net Geek
 
Reply With Quote
 
Uncle StoatWarbler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2004
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:37:51 +1300, Steven H wrote:

> and the fact they dont exactly have this big arse pice of water inbetween
> them and the rest of the world!


It costs 3 times as much to distribute Internet traffic around NZ as it
does to get the traffic into the country in the first place.

The "big-arse piece of water" is a straw man put up by Telecom and friends
to hide their gouging.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Uncle StoatWarbler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-29-2004
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:57:49 +1300, Gordon wrote:

> Quote
> For Euros 60 ($109) a month, a subscribing household receives flat-rate
> internet access at 2Mbps (megabits per second). Thrown in is basic
> telephone line rental, 35 pay TV channels and 16 radio stations. Kamphius
> said calling discounts of up to 35 per cent on KPN's pricing were also
> being offered.


That's a Cable TV service.

For comparison:

DSL 1Mb/s down 360kb/s up is EUR 19.95/month, plus phone service
(10EUR/month)

Cable 1.5Mb/s down, 360kb/s up is EUR49.90/month inc TV service (phone
service is another EUR5/month)

There are no caps on the service (Quicknet, North Holland), however the
top 1% of users get a warning to moderate usage.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Holdoway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-29-2004
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:37:51 +1300, Steven H
<(E-Mail Removed) - wont work anyway > wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:55:46 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> The contracts refer to 100GB monthly traffic limits, unheard of in New
>>> Zealand for residential broadband plans.

>>
>> heh, unheard of for most countries... they are the exception rather than
>> the rule. comparing to Aussie is much fairer... but still, ecomies of
>> scale should be alot better over there.

>
>and the fact they dont exactly have this big arse pice of water inbetween
>them and the rest of the world!


The netherlands is the fibre optic capital of the world! You just
wouldn't believe how much there is in the ground. I used to work for
one of the companies in the mid/late 90's who built a new couple of
rings, but couldn't sell the bandwidth, the place was saturated (
well, that and the appalling level of marketing! ).

The internet access that is being talked about in the article is
cable-based, not adsl. The bandwidth stated is probably for the local
loop, which means that it's shared between all subscribers on the loop
( I accidentally found out that a good amplifier effectively swamped
the rest of the users on the loop!) . Although the implementation is
brand new, I don't think the cost of hardware has fallen that
dramatically to increase bandwidth to gigabit levels which would be
required to present that 2 or 4mbit to all subscribers.

To be fair, this is the culmination of 20+ years of infrastructure
upgrades. That way the cost is spread over time. Also, as stated in
the article, the Internet access is one of a number of services
offered over the cable. One of the main Amsterdam suppliers were
pinning everything on pay-per-view services over their network. I'm
not sure that they're winning!

Most of the cable is fibre almost to the door, which is different at
least to the UK, where most is copper.

The other thing you need to remember is that there are 13 million or
so people to connect up, and they all live in an area only slightly
bigger than Wellington (: This does raise the earnings potential per
km of cable by many orders of magnitude when compared to NZ.

Sad, innit!


Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-29-2004
Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
>>and the fact they dont exactly have this big arse pice of water inbetween
>>them and the rest of the world!


> It costs 3 times as much to distribute Internet traffic around NZ as it
> does to get the traffic into the country in the first place.
> The "big-arse piece of water" is a straw man put up by Telecom and friends
> to hide their gouging.


So anyone should be able to provide cheap internet in Auckland then?

So why dont they?

--
Dave Hall
http://Dave.net.nz
We have Hangman, Pacman, and Space Invaders

 
Reply With Quote
 
Uncle StoatWarbler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2004
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 09:15:04 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> So anyone should be able to provide cheap internet in Auckland then?


As long as they _stick_ to Auckland, possibly.

> So why dont they?


In the case of the bigger ISPs, they need to make up for reduced margins
elsewhere and differential pricing gets them screamed at.

In the case of the smaller ISPs they can't get the cheap tail circuits
required for delivery inside Auckland, nor can they get cheap lineside
gear.

Even delivery inside Auckland usually costs as much again as the
international circuit.

A cheap ISP in auckland would have to be dialup only, or have some way of
distributing radio cheaply. The new satellite systems may have the answer
needed.


 
Reply With Quote
 
pete
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2004
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:40:22 +1300, Steve Holdoway wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:37:51 +1300, Steven H
> <(E-Mail Removed) - wont work anyway > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:55:46 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>> The contracts refer to 100GB monthly traffic limits, unheard of in New
>>>> Zealand for residential broadband plans.
>>>
>>> heh, unheard of for most countries... they are the exception rather than
>>> the rule. comparing to Aussie is much fairer... but still, ecomies of
>>> scale should be alot better over there.

>>
>>and the fact they dont exactly have this big arse pice of water inbetween
>>them and the rest of the world!

>
> The netherlands is the fibre optic capital of the world! You just
> wouldn't believe how much there is in the ground. I used to work for
> one of the companies in the mid/late 90's who built a new couple of
> rings, but couldn't sell the bandwidth, the place was saturated (
> well, that and the appalling level of marketing! ).

snipped
> Sad, innit!
> Steve


This is a story I read in a magazine called "Strategic Insight", about
telcos the world over, especially in connection with fibre. A couple of
years old, but still interesting.

When Scandal Isn't Sexy - Geoffrey Colvin

Strategic Insight June 2002

It's time to set the record straight on a rather large matter. If you were
to ask 100 citizens to name the biggest stock market story of the past five
years, I suspect a considerable majority would answer the dot-com boom and
bust. Others, with shorter memories, might say the Enron debacle and
similar fraud-based scandals. Not even close.

The easy winner by any gauge of dollars lost or human beings affected is
the telecom bubble, and it's worth asking why this mammoth event sits in
the hazy background of most people's consciousness. The explanation is not
especially comforting for those of us in the media.

Oh, we told you all about this historic rise and fall in ambitions,
investments and valuations, especially here in Fortune and other business
publications. But for the ordinary consumer of general-interest media, the
extraordinary picture of a giant economic sector laid waste was just not
all that vivid. Yet there has never been anything remotely like it.

Intoxicated by the prospect of data traffic doubling every three or four
months indefinitely, telecom firms around the world put down fibre-optic
cable as fast as they could. The work cost some $US4 trillion over the past
five years, at least half of it borrowed.

Pause for a moment. That's trillion, with a "t". It's not a word you see
all that often in connection with individual industries. For perspective,
remember that the entire output of the US economy, the planets largest by
far, is about $US10 trillion.

The big telecom buildup ran into two major problems: too much cable and not
enough data traffic, which grew fast but not nearly as fast as the
companies expected. And they still had to make interest payments of
hundreds of billions of dollars annually on all that borrowed money.

The bottom finally fell out last year. When it did, the market
capitalisation of the firms - AT&T, WorldCom, Lucent, JDS Uniphase Nortel
and many others - declined from their peaks by about $SU2.5 trillion. Lat
year alone, the sector laid off more than 500,000 employees. The dot-coms,
by contrast, vaporised less than $US1 trillion of market cap. Enron, which
lost $US63 billion of market value, looks like a rounding error by
comparison.

Measured by retirements ruined and employees impoverished, the telecom
meltdown is the biggest financial disaster ever, by a mile. So why didn't
most of the media present it that way? For a few reasons. The top one, I
believe, is that the industry is old, sprawling and incomprehensible to
most people. Legions of consumers still aren't clear on who does what.
Phone bills are utterly mystifying. Some 23% of Americans think they get
their local phone service from AT&T, though AT&T got out of that business
18 years ago and only recently became a tiny player. Explaining how things
really work is almost impossible without charts and diagrams, a TV-hostile
form of communication.

The industry is low on human glamour. The dot-com boom - now there was a
story you could eat up. Fresh faced twentysomethings who were billionaires
on paper! Offices in warehouses where obsessed employees slept under their
desks! Some were arrogant and declared that the rest of us worked in the
"dirt economy". Ah, was their comeuppance sweet! The stories begged to be
told. Centenarian companies were putting cable into the ground, and even
their new competitors were to not going to win the attention of media
storytellers or their audiences.

Circumstances were similar on Wall Street, where the telecoms had their
cheerleaders urging hapless investors to keep on buying. But the dot-com
analysts, like the companies themselves, were younger and more attractive.
The average viewer would rather look at Henry Blodget or Mary Meeker than
at Jack Grubman, the Salomon Smith Barney analyst who was their counterpart
in the telecom industry. Only recently has Grubman been getting more ink,
as New York's attorney general and the SEC investigate possible links
between Wall Street research and investment banking.

There were other reasons that the telecom disaster didn't spark the fury
and horror it should have. Though fibre-optic technology is truly amazing,
consumers couldn't touch it; by contrast they could buy a book or download
a Pamela Anderson screensaver through a dot-com. Also, most telecom IPOs
were more sober than the dot-com versions.

These are hardly good reasons. When wealth gets created and destroyed on
the most monumental scale ever, the coverage should be similarly
unprecedented, and it wasn't. Now the market drama has cooled, we'll spend
more time looking back. When we do, lets not allow juicy details to obscure
the biggest story about what really happened when the market went insane.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WIRELESS G BROADBAND ROUTER OR WIRELESS N BROADBAND ROUTER Bill Wireless Networking 2 05-28-2008 04:04 PM
Review: D-Link DGL-4100 Broadband Gigabit Router Silverstrand Front Page News 0 06-27-2005 06:42 PM
Connecting a laptop to broadband David Gartrell Wireless Networking 4 11-28-2004 02:18 PM
sharing cable broadband jo Wireless Networking 4 07-12-2004 06:34 PM
Leading Netherland Firms Spotlight XML Europe 2004 MarionEll XML 0 04-13-2004 04:22 PM



Advertisments