Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > A win for Woosh! unbundling, what a waste of time...

Reply
Thread Tools

A win for Woosh! unbundling, what a waste of time...

 
 
Don Gould
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
David Preece wrote:
> Before I reply I would like to start by saying: Sir, outstanding troll.


Hi David,

This wasn't an attempt at a troll... it was infact a slap on those who
rant and rant and rant endlessly about what someone else should be doing
while neither doing anything them selves nor making much effort to
understand what is actually going on.

> Please let me take the bait....


Please do, your comments were very worth reading.

> Don Gould wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know how many of you that slag off Swan for following
>> Webb's advise actually know anything about how cable works from first
>> hand experience.

>
>
> I assume you mean phone lines i.e. the copper buried in the ground,
> rather than cable i.e. cable modem?


Yes, you're right I ws refering to cabling 'systems' and not cable as in
that used by TelstraClear in Christchurch to deliver internet and paytv.

>> I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and
>> asked them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of
>> costs that they deliver them in other parts of the world.

>
>
> Why would they? The bar is set so entirely low by Telecom that they can
> get away with charging pretty well what they like.


I assume your question is targeted at Vodafone and not the list members
who my question was targeted at.

Why Vodafone would venture in to this market is because they could open
up a heap of opportunities now and in the furture. Yes it could impact
on existing business but that could be managed with product bundles.

The technology exists, why not do it?

Ericsson are currently asking Vodafone just this question as they have
the equipment to make it work.

>> I'd also like to know what you people think would happen to ventures
>> like Woosh (who are just starting to get established) if this
>> unbundling had gone ahead.

>
>
> OK, better question.
>
> Answer 1, who really gives a ****? It's not like Woosh are the masked
> telco avenger, here to save us from crappy DSL connections from
> monopolistic telcos are they? They are making money. Woosh have been
> working WITH Telecom, hard as hell, helping lobby for unbundling to not
> happen. They are out to make money, by removing it from your pocket.


You seem to miss the point that the mission here isn't to take all the
revenue out of telecommunications but to get beter products and services
delivered to the community.

[snip]

> Answer 3, unbundling at this late stage ultimately makes no difference.


Exactly - it's all nothing but a smoke screen and the government have
put an end to it.

> BCL have upgraded their network in order to land a bunch of Probe
> contracts, Vodafone are going to be dropping 3G in ... it's all too late.


Both of which are good for the telecommunications economoy and have
created work for many New Zealanders.

>> Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small
>> towns in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how
>> hard/easy it would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with Gigbit
>> Ethernet.

>
>
> Have you visited Citylink and asked?


Yes.

>>
>> It appears to me that many of your are nothing more than part of the
>> international collective that want to see the telephone network
>> smashed up and replaced by nothing but cable and sat tv.

>
>
> No. I want to see the telephone network smashed up and replaced by a
> high quality IP one. If we could get a low latency megabit to every door
> in New Zealand, the economic gains would be fabulous.


I agree that we want a megabit network to every home eventually.

Smashing up the telephone network to get it is a dumb idea.

> For a start every
> phone bill in the country would go down by ... ahhh ... 80%? New Zealand
> would quickly become a world leader in creating collaborative
> technologies.


So we'd have a fantastic network that a minority of geeks would do what
with?

Most people are seeing JetStream as nothing more than a way to get your
email more quickly.


> We'd all need to fly from A to B a hell of a lot less. As
> a country we'd save tens of billions of dollars a year. But it's not
> going to happen.



Do some sums and I think you'd find that we'd loose more than we gain if
we had a big impact on regional travel.

How many business benefit from domestic business travlers?

> Instead we find ourselves in a position where the medium scale players,
> the Orcon's of this world, can resell Telecom's crappy DSL network and
> make a fair bit of coin out of it. Orcon weren't about to raise the
> quarter billion or so dollars it would take to provide national DSL
> coverage through their own network ... the VC scene here is just too
> conservative.


VC = what?

> The other thing is that this may well yet come to bite Telecom in the
> butt. There are a lot of changes afoot in the wireless world and I'd be
> surprised if we didn't start seeing companies creating 802.11a/b/g
> bubbles backhauled over WiMax (up to 268Mbit/sec). WiMax is also QoS
> assured, which means phone calls ... not to mention video conferencing.
> In a world where this has happened, the last thing you want to own is
> tens of thousands of kilometres of copper buried in the ground.


Now you're making sense.

Cheers Don
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bodger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
> The other thing is that this may well yet come to bite Telecom in the
> butt. There are a lot of changes afoot in the wireless world and I'd be
> surprised if we didn't start seeing companies creating 802.11a/b/g
> bubbles backhauled over WiMax (up to 268Mbit/sec). WiMax is also QoS
> assured, which means phone calls ... not to mention video conferencing.


When would this be likely and what sort of infrastructure would be needed?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
brundlefly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004

"bodger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > The other thing is that this may well yet come to bite Telecom in the
> > butt. There are a lot of changes afoot in the wireless world and I'd be
> > surprised if we didn't start seeing companies creating 802.11a/b/g
> > bubbles backhauled over WiMax (up to 268Mbit/sec). WiMax is also QoS
> > assured, which means phone calls ... not to mention video conferencing.

>
> When would this be likely and what sort of infrastructure would be needed?
>
>


Similar site coverage to cellphone sites I suppose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX
Its called 802.16, Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks
http://www.alvarion.com/RunTime/Mate...s/Wimax_wp.pdf


 
Reply With Quote
 
J.Random Luser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2004
> The other thing is that this may well yet come to bite Telecom in the
> butt. There are a lot of changes afoot in the wireless world and I'd be
> surprised if we didn't start seeing companies creating 802.11a/b/g
> bubbles backhauled over WiMax (up to 268Mbit/sec). WiMax is also QoS
> assured, which means phone calls ... not to mention video conferencing.


So why was some wanker rabbiting on in this morning's paper about
voip and video-on-demand as being the frilly end of the market,
too expensive, won't happen for a long time yet....

voip is my end of the market as a client, I see claims some
are offering for prices from 10c/min down to 0

video on demand is my end of the market as a provider.
I have the material, I have the servers, I have the clients.
all I need is a wire to connect them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Preece
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2004
Don Gould wrote:
>>> I'd also like to know what you people think would happen to ventures
>>> like Woosh


>> Answer 1, who really gives a ****? It's not like Woosh are the masked
>> telco avenger, here to save us from crappy DSL connections from
>> monopolistic telcos are they?

>
> You seem to miss the point that the mission here isn't to take all the
> revenue out of telecommunications but to get beter products and services
> delivered to the community.


Ummm, OK. I can see how it came across that way. Problem IMHO is that
while these services could be provided right now, it's either not
economic to do so because of the high marginal costs (i.e. $0.1/MB or
whatever the rate is now), or technically infeasible due to the low
quality of our connections.

The *real* problem with Telcos is that very nearly all of their income
comes from voice, and VoIP is almost infinitely cheap. This leads to all
sorts of bizarre things happening, like data moving over mobile phone
networks having *heaps* of latency put on (1500ms is not unheard of) to
prevent people from running VoIP apps on it and saving themselves a
fortune. This is why Woosh have just decided not to use VoIP, but use
the voice channels built into the chipsets instead.

In order for a whole bunch of "next gen" services to be rolled out, the
plumbing needs to be put in by people that have no income from an
existing voice infrastructure. Citylink are an excellent example of this.

>> BCL have upgraded their network in order to land a bunch of Probe
>> contracts, Vodafone are going to be dropping 3G in ... it's all too late.

>
> Both of which are good for the telecommunications economoy and have
> created work for many New Zealanders.


Ahhh! The broken window fallacy, my favourite fallacy of all time.
Someone breaks a window then does a runner. Everyone stands around
saying what a **** it is, except something has to keep glaziers, people
that make glass etc. in business. This is wrong - there is no overall
economic gain here, and these people would be better used doing
something that did have a purpose after all.

Ditto the armada of people patching windows machines constantly,
complete waste of time.

While scampering around building new IP infrastructure appears to be
creating employment, value, wealth etc., had we dropped in a functioning
infrastructure in the first place then everything would have been much
better. OTOH a lot of this is entirely new infrastructure, and there is
little doubt that it's existence, particularly Probe, will create
genuine wealth and an improvement of the quality of life for many New
Zealanders.

>>> Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small
>>> towns in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how
>>> hard/easy it would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with
>>> Gigbit Ethernet.

>>
>> Have you visited Citylink and asked?

>
> Yes.


What did they say?

> I agree that we want a megabit network to every home eventually.
>
> Smashing up the telephone network to get it is a dumb idea.


Yeah, I guess. But if we drop in the right IP infrastructure there will
be cobwebs hanging off the phone system in a matter of months.

> So we'd have a fantastic network that a minority of geeks would do what
> with?


It's not for a minority of geeks. It's for people. To communicate with.
It just takes a minority of geeks playing around with it in order to
make it usable for the ordinary man/woman/child on the street.

Example? Email. Email took off because everything involved in it was
free and worked well.

> Most people are seeing JetStream as nothing more than a way to get your
> email more quickly.


I know, but it's not their fault. The applications to do something more
useful with Jetstream are simply not there. This is because the
installed base is so low, the marginal costs so high....

It's infrastructure. The government should own it. Actually, the
government should have privatised Telecom then used the money to build
an IP infratructure.

>> We'd all need to fly from A to B a hell of a lot less. As a country
>> we'd save tens of billions of dollars a year. But it's not going to
>> happen.

>
> Do some sums and I think you'd find that we'd loose more than we gain if
> we had a big impact on regional travel.
>
> How many business benefit from domestic business travlers?


Broken windows again. Sure, flying from A to B would become a lot more
expensive, but the overall quantity of the county's wealth that gets
turned into kerosene, maintainance and bad coffee in crappy cups would
go down.

>> Orcon weren't about to
>> raise the quarter billion or so dollars it would take to provide
>> national DSL coverage through their own network ... the VC scene here
>> is just too conservative.

>
> VC = what?


Venture Capital. The people you call when you want to use more than a
million dollars for something.

Cheers,
Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2004
"J.Random Luser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:user-
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed):

> all I need is a wire to connect them.
>
>


I am lucky enough to be in a location where 2 Mbps cable is available.
This is what I was used to in Canada, so I got it. I am not used to data
caps on a cable modem, with overage charges. That part sucks big time.
Wires do not solve the problem, the service also has to be affordable.
Burn up some bandwidth by trying this out.
http://www.researchchannel.org/program/
The google cluster is a good one to watch.
http://www.researchchannel.org/progr...t.asp?rid=1680
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nil Einne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2004
Don Gould <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<O3Tqc.7398$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> I'd like to know how many of you that slag off Swan for following Webb's
> advise actually know anything about how cable works from first hand
> experience.
>
> I'd also like to know how much research most of you have done into the
> question around the world other than to quote an OECD report and I'm
> also guessing most of you have never read either.


I read some of it, the whole part of NZ. I admit, I'm no expert in the
telecommunications industry but ifrom what I understood it suggested
what I had thought all along. Telecom is ripping off most of NZ. They
may be providing more service to rural areas but is what we are losing
worth it? Unlikely. If there is really a need to for us to pay for
rural areas have service, a government sponsored system (Project Probe
like) would be much better. Whether the money comes from existing
funds or a new "Kiwi Share" kind of requirement where all ISPs have to
pay something which the government uses to fund rural development, I'm
not sure, but it'll be much better then our current system. In ouy
current system, we are paying a lot more to Telecom then we should, a
small proportion of which is going into developing access in rural
areas. We are not getting value for money (in that, a lot of what we
are paying is not going into anything but to make Telecom richer) and
even worse, Telecom is the one who gets to choose what to roll out
regardless of whether it is the best system (in terms of cost
effectiveness & expandibility). Furthermore, it means Telecom will
always likely be the one to provide access in these rural areas where
as, in a better world, other companies would have a far greater chance
and there will be competition (which goes back to earlier points).
However, even we do pay, of course, urban and suburban areas are
always likely to have better access, (possibly) better speeds and
cheaper prices then rural areas. But this is not wrong. In some cases,
we cannot expect equilibrium between rural and urban/suburban areas
and it is likely in some cases things will be better for for
urband/sururband and in some cases rural (rates are always very
different so is access to public transport and roads & rural areas
also do not have the traffic problems urband/sururband areas do)

> I'd also like to know how many of you have actually talked to people
> with in Telstra about why they stopped roll out in Christchurch.


Simple, because it's costs to much with too low returns. Also, there
were resource consent issues since the only way TelstraClear could
bring prices down to a decent level were to keep cables above ground
when it made sense, i.e. when the existing cables were above ground.

But here's the thing. Telecom already has a substial network which, a
significant proportion of which was paid for by tax payers moneys.
More importantly, it doesn't make sense to roll out a new network at
the current time, except in a few areas given we don't need it yet.
Under the current system, we are unlikely to ever get a new world
competitive network. We are leaving it up to Telecom to provide.
Telecom will provide, when they know that if they don't someone else
will, but this will be a long time past when it is needed. All others
players are losing out and will never have an incentive to invest.
Telecom can easily undercut them whenever they want, and they can
easily afford to do it, because they have already made a very large
profit from their network and have used a small part of this profit to
ensure their network can meet their demands, should they ever need to
due to competition. If other ISPs/telcos had been allowed access to
the network, Telecom could not make excessive profit at our expense
and would have to compete. Other companies would have been large
enough to consider taking on Telecom without being wiped out.
Furthermore, Telecom would not have already made such high returns on
their investment that they could so easily undercut their competition.
Even worse, broadband uptake in NZ is going to remain low as long as
prices are so high. This means there is even less incentive to roll
out a new network which would not even be necessary if we were making
resonable use of our current network which we are not. This may seem
counter intuitive but it's not when you think about it. The only way
you can stimulate broadband uptake is by having low prices. As people
take up broadband they find how useful it is and use it more. The more
they use it, the more they demand. But this takes time. If a company
rolls out a new network, other then running into the problems I
mentioned above, they are going to find low demand. Sure, with low
prices, they can stimulate demand somewhat, but it will take time
before there is enough demand to ensure they get a return. By that
time, if they are still alive, their network will be outdated. This
means, for a substanial proportion of the lifetime, it was being used
at a very low percentage of it's capacity. Ones it's used at it's
capacity, it's capacity can be considered relatively low. This
translates to very low (if at all) returns. As demand accelerates,
they will need to build a new one or otherwise greatly improve the
existing one. But given how low return they got on the previous one,
it will be difficult to justify. This may still seem confusing but
let's think of the reverse scenario. If demand for broadband was
already high in NZ, the existing network in NZ (Telecom's one) would
be stretched already. Telecom will probably be building or improving
their network as well but at the same time, as this other company
rolls out their new network, even if they don't undercut Telecom,
there will be immediate demand. They will get a return a lot faster.
They will probably get much more return as well since there network
will be used nearer to it's capacity for longer while it is still a
decent network (since once the network is an outdated, relatively slow
network, profits will be low as the comparative price for this speed
is not much). They will probably have to roll out a new network much
quicker, but they will have much more incentive and so will other
companies. Of course, some may argue that as long as prices/speed in
NZ are high, returns will be decent but I don't think this is
necessarily true. For starters, you have a lot of wasted capacity that
you barely use. And I think it is very likely that if you had used
this capacity, at lower returns/amount of your capacity used, you will
make more then if you had not used this capacity, at higher
returns/amount of capacity used. Once you start using it, it's no
longer that great capacity. You might still be making higher
profits/speed then elsewhere but you still wasted a lot of money. The
logical solution would be to build a less capable network for less.
Other then the fact that this means our problem in NZ is going to
remain, it's unlikely to totally solve the problem. Why? Because, a
less capable network will be cheaper, but not proportionally. What
this means is that you won't actually save that much by building a
less capable network. And takings things as a whole, I think it's
likely you will still make a lot less compared to as if you had build
an internationally competitive network and used it at it's capacity a
lot earlier. Of course, I'm not suggesting you need to use your
network at a high capacity immedietly, in fact, given the cost in
building the network, this is obviously not true. There is clearly a
balance. In NZ, given our geography and population density, the
balance will be towards using a network for longer. This is why we
should still be mostly be using the Telecom last mile network when in
other countries like Japan etc, they are not. The balance is actually
somewhat self sustaining in normal situations. Our demand is always
going to be a lot lower then in other countries because of the same
factors as the factors which make it wise to use the network for
longer. But the current status is not balanced. We are barely using
our network because of Telecom's pricing and this is likely to remain
the case for much longer then it should. We are always going to be
lagging a lot further behind others then we should be.

In fact, an example of how important competition is would be in South
Auckland. Can't remember the name but in the Herald, there was an
article about Wired Country providing fibre to a new neighbourhood for
voice and data. The developers had asked Telecom who quoted a
ridicolous price. Wired Country offered to do it for something like
1/5 the cost, which made Telecom lower their prices altho it was too
late (and I think their price was still high). As a result of this,
this neighbourhood ended up with a lot better service then most of NZ
and Auckland since Wired Country are willing to use their network
unlike Telecom. Of course, you might say but this shows unbundling
would be bad. Actually it doesn't IMHO. However, if you agree with me
in that unbundling will mean there is more competition in NZ, more
money available to other companies and more competition to build new
networks, then the logical conclusion is that this scenario would not
have happened. Instead, the developers would have gone to all the
companies willing to supply, looked at their offerings and prices and
chosen the best one. It might have bene Telecom, it might have been
Wired Country, it might have been someone else. But in all cases, the
developers would not have been at risk of being ripped of by Telecom
and the people who use service would be glad it was Wired County but
instead wouldn't care, since it didn't matter. More importantly, this
would happen in most of NZ rather then in a few areas as it is now,
and will be for a long time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Telecom. Telecom is a company and
companies don't make decisions based on what is best for the countries
they operate in. That is why we need regulation in some cases and in a
case like telecommunications network, we need it because it's is very
difficult, and often doesn't make sense to compete with the incumbent
except when the incumbents existing network can't handle what is
needed (whether due to long distances like in rural areas or very high
demands like in central business areas). Where the incumbents network
can compete, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use it. The
suburban and less central business areas are the bulk of NZ and the
network here can compete quite well but Telecom is relucant to do so
because the way they see it, as they keep prices high, if things
remain the same, they will get more money overall. Of course, this is
not likely to happen which is why I believe Telecom is going to make a
big mistake if they keep things as they are for much longer. For
starters, even though competition is very hard to carry out and
doesn't really make sense, it's possible some will try and may even
succeed. Even trying may be enough. If they try, Telecom may buck up.
They will probably have lost some of their customers but they may make
it back if they are able to kill the competition. This is Telecom's
ideal scenario and it may very well happen, however there are still
problems for them which I will discuss later. The alternative scenario
is that by luck, very shrewd business and pricing decisions (keeping
them high but still competitive) and Telecom being too slow to act,
the competition will survive. This is good news for NZers (even if not
as good as unbundling since prices will likely remain higher then is
necessary), altho not Telecom but there is a good chance it will not
happen. Obviously this scenario is bad for Telecom since they will
lose a substail portion of their customers and they will not make this
back for a long time, if ever. Of course, this may not be that good
for NZers in the long run depending on how badly it damages Telecom.
Also, depending on how badly things go, we might end up with a duopoly
or another monopoly rather then a truly competitive system which we
are much more likely to end up with if unbundling had been carried
out. However it's possible the competition will not really arise or
change things at all (as in the first scenario where Telecom adjusted
to compete but then remained stagnant again after they killed of the
competition). In this case, things may seem good for Telecom since
they keep all their customers. This scenario is bad for NZers but it
may be worse for Telecom since this may cause NZ to collapse. If we
do, this will obviously not be good for Telecom. Of course, companies
don't tend to think about 20 years ahead so much. It kind of makes
sense since the CEO will be long gone and the smart existing
shareholders will have run away a long time ago. And the smart
shareholders are the important ones since they are the ones who
actually have an idea of what is going on and who need to be kept
happy. The dumb ones don't matter since regardless of what the company
does, as long as it isn't extremely ridicolous, they will stay with
it. Of course, there is also a slight possibility the government may
unbundle altho by then it will be way too late.


> I'd also like to know how many of you have any idea what other plans
> Telstra have cooking in the technology department. For that matter how
> many of you know anything about what Telstra is actually doing in
> Christchurch at present?


No idea. Why does it matter? TelstraClear although not having the best
plans and prices have always had better prices then Telecom and a lot
of what Telecom has done has at least partially been in response to
TelstraClear. More importantly, in a unbundled world, we would not
need to fixate on TelstraClear since there are a lot of other ISPs out
there.


> I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and asked
> them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of costs
> that they deliver them in other parts of the world.


Mostly described above. It isn't cost effective, nor does it make
sense in NZ. We have what we need for now, we just aren't using it.
Trying to build what we don't need because we aren't using what we
have probably won't work.


> I'd also like to know what you people think would happen to ventures
> like Woosh (who are just starting to get established) if this unbundling
> had gone ahead.


Those that don't make economical sense, would fail. I have no idea if
Woosh's made economical sense, possibly not since from the way things
look now, I think they are using technology which is not ready for use
and is even less suitable for NZ and even worse, gives us even less
then what we already have (even if we aren't using what we have).
Wired Country's venture IMHO, is a sensible one, and would have worked
regardless of whether unbundling happened or not (although they
probably would have concentrated more or rural areas then they
currently do). This may be why although they opposed unbundling, they
didn't care as much as Woosh. To put it simply, a venture would only
make economical sense if it could provide something we don't already
have at a sensible price. If it can't, then yes, it would have failed,
but why the hell should a venture which doesn't provide us anything be
allowed to succeed because Telecom is refusing to let us use what we
already have?

> I'd also like to know what 'new technology' you think Mrs Howard was
> talking about on the TV last night that's been blocked.
>
> Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small towns
> in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how hard/easy it
> would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with Gigbit Ethernet.


If it would make ecnonomical sense, then good. I might even support
the government paying something to help it or forcing us to pay,
through our telcos/ISPs something towards this. But what I don't
support is the current climate where Telecom is the most likely one to
carry out such a venture, even though it may not make economical sense
amd there are better alternatives or it simple isn't necessary. And we
are being effectively taxed by Telecom (not because of the
government), some of which may go towards these ventures but most of
which costs to the pockets of shareholders or to cash reserves.

However, I have to wonder if it does make sense for small towns given
that most of us in the suburbs of Auckland with a lot larger
populations and higher density aren't likely to get anything like this
for a long time. I also wonder whether a small town really needs this.
From the ADSL list, you seem to believe everyone needs 50mbit right
now because of some application you are developing which needs this
but I seriously disagree with you. Nor do I see the need for use to
roll out something which isn't really needed other then so Don can
launch his application which needs 50mbit if this is what you are
suggesting (which I doubt). Furthermore, as I have said above, if we
do want fast connections and new networks, only unbundling is likely
to ensure this. More government investment will help but without
unbundling we probably will get nothing or little even with all that
investment.


> With public views like those expressed by most of you on this list any
> suggestion would be just swamped before it got started.


Don't really get what your saying. I think most of us would support
this. Of course, many of use will be opposed to small towns getting
this when we in the suburb of Auckland don't even more so when Telecom
is using a small part of what they are effectively taxing us with to
do it (as above)

> It appears to me that many of your are nothing more than part of the
> international collective that want to see the telephone network smashed
> up and replaced by nothing but cable and sat tv.


What kind of bull are you on about? Most of use want first and
foremost, decent internet access. I have Sky TV and strongly suspect
satellite will be a much more suitable form of multicast then
telecommunications network originally designed for voice. Of course,
things will change but given we do not and are not likely to have
decent internet for a very long time due to Telecom, I think most of
us don't give a damn about cable and sat TV. For that matter, what
does sat TV have to do with the telecommunications network that
Telecom has? Are you suggesting if we unbundle, Telecom will destroy
their network and instead hook up with Sky? The government would never
let them, if they really don't want their network, they can give it
the government, which is unlikely, since they know all to well that
even if they are force to unbundle, they are still going to be very
profitable. Of course, they will not necessarily be the one to lay out
the future network and will make less profit in the short run but then
they knew our laws all to well when they started (and knew the
government is not required to let them rip everyone off at the expense
of NZ and it's future), furthermore, they inherited a lot of the
network from the government (not denying they have since invested a
lot in it) anyway so I don't see any reason why I should feel sorry
for them. In fact, I think unbundling, especially if it had been
carried out earlier, would have made Telecom into a lot more
successful company then it will be, given the decisions it has made.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not dumb. Of course, it is wrong to think any
company (especially large ones) really cares about NZ. TelstraClear
doesn't nor does Telecom (which is also largely internationally owned
even if it really started here). But what TelstraClear wants is closer
to what is (IMHO) best for NZ then what Telecom is doing now. This has
nothing to do with either company being better. Both are just as bad
and care about the same for NZ. But if two companies are wanting
nearly opposite things, it's very likely what's best is going to be
closer to one then other. In this case, as is often the case, what the
incumbent/dominant company wants is not the best for NZ (IMHO).

Let us not forget that most of the time, requiring unbundling doesn't
actually mean unbundle. It occurs when necessary but most of the
time, unless the incumbent is incredibly dumb, it just means there is
a check to ensure they aren't stupid like Telecom (altho Telecom isn't
necessarily stupid because there is no unbundling therefore what they
are doing makes more sense) and refuse to use their existing network
when it can be used. Even when unbundling does occur, it is unlikely,
as experience elsewhere has shown that there will be hundreds of ISPs
trying to put their own equipmenet. Instead, one or two companies will
put equipement and the rest will get it either from these two or the
incumbent.

In fact, I'm not even 100% sure whether we need unbundling (as with
quite a number of unbundling supporters I think). Better bitstream
access with a model which will not allow Telecom to give a run around
to those that want to use it or charge excessively, might be better,
as I said I'm not an expert so I'm really not sure which one will be
better. But given the way things are, and the way things happen
elsewhere, I seriously think the way things are is very bad for NZ and
is a very bad decision. It is still possible things may turn around by
themselves of course, but I think this is a lot less likely and even
if it occurs, it will not be better then if the government had been a
driving factor in that turn around.

P.S. I may have sounded a little harsh to you. Don't get me wrong, I
don't believe you are a bad individual. Just serious mislead and
misinformed (IMHO) and therefore don't really understand what
unbundling supporters want or expect & why we support unbundling. As
part of this, you also think not unbundling is much more likely to
work then unbundling when IMHO, it is exactly the opposite. I think we
both want what's best for NZ, and what is therefore also better for
us, and both clearly believe our opinions of what is best but have
almost opposite ideas of what is best. Also, I'm not denying a lot of
people probably haven't thought that much about unbundling. Even I
haven't really put that much time in this. However, I think they have
thought a lot more then what you give them credit for and as said, you
misunderstand a lot of what they are thinking about. Also, I think a
lot of unbundling opponents (not you) are just like unbundling
supporters in that they haven't put much thought it and have failed to
consider many factors... I'm sure you have more info and read more
about some of these areas then me, but of course, this does not
necessarily make you right. IMHO, I think one of the key problems is
that you think unbundling will discourage competition and investment
whereas I think it will infact strongly encourage competition and
investment and development of new networks. Therefore, all your ideas
about what happens if we don't unbundle are flawed...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nil Einne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2004
Don Gould <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<O3Tqc.7398$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> I'd like to know how many of you that slag off Swan for following Webb's
> advise actually know anything about how cable works from first hand
> experience.


Realised I missed this. I don't really get your point though. I have
some idea on how this cable works but I'm not an physicist or engineer
so don't really understand things that well. But my question is, why
does it matter? Specifically, what does it have to do with Swain's
decision, or Webb's decision. From what I can gather, I suspect Webb
decided things would be better off without unbundling because he
believe, as you, although I think this is wrong, it would mean more
competition etc and that seriously wireless could compete soon. I'm
not so sure wireless can compete in the immediate future especially
for urban & suburban areas and high speed access (rural areas might be
different) nor do I believe time is necessarily ripe to invest in
wireless and I believe if it is, it will be competitive regardless of
unbundling (as I suggested in my other post). No I do not see the need
for us to pay high prices just so we can wireless can become
competitive when it is not... As for Swain, he probably followed Webb
because he had similar thoughts and also because he didn't want to go
too strongly against Webb and possibly because of the governments
investment in BCL and Probe whereas with unbundling we might not need
Project Probe, at least in it's current form and in any case, what it
gave us will become blurred. As I said elsewhere, I am not that sure
Webb was wrong in deciding not to unbundle, decent bitstream access
may be better, I'm not sure about that. But the fact is we got neither
(there is a slight chance Telecom might provide anyway but it's going
to be a long wait from the looks of things) so IMHO, Swain and Webb
made the wrong decisions. However, unless Swain and Webb decided
Telecom's cable shouldn't be unbundled because it is lousy cable and
they want Telecom to destroy it, then from what I can see, it's mostly
irrelevant. Are you denying Telecom's cable can support 2mbit
downstream for many people, often more, with the current ADSL tech
Telecom uses but no one can use it at a decent price?

The only other thing I can think of is you were referring to
TelstraClears cable. Yes I have some idea how this works. I know it is
a shared network for example and I also know we can't expect 10mbit
connections from Telecom's ADSL. But I think few of us want this,
1mbit at decent prices, ala Wired Country would be much better and is
better then what Telecom is offering and TelstraClear. But as I said
TelstraClear's offering are better then Telecom anyway so even if
TelstraClear is being misleading (as Telecom is often misleading in
suggesting they are the best in the world, so much better then
everywhere else including Australia) in suggesting we will get 10mbit
connections from TelstraClear if unbundling occured, we will almost
certainly get better connections if then the crap Telecom is offering
at the moment from TC, other ISPs and I'm sure Xtra. BTW, I also know
they are quite different kinds of networks. But both can handle what
we want (although Telecom's is not doing so at the moment and TC's
network is only partially doing so), which is not TV so does it
matter. As you've probably guessed, I'm not and have never believed
TelstraClear is some kind of god send. They are not, but they are
competition and smaller then Telecom here and therefore tend to offer
better things then Telecom. They are a vital part of ensuring we
aren't ripped of by Telecom in some areas and have made a difference.
But a Telecom/TC duopoly is not what I want at all, far from it, and
the others ISPs etc are very important IMHO and have also made a big
difference even if they are suffering now and might die if things
don't change soon.

P.S. I'm looking at the clock and spent way too long writing these
messages. However, I think I got everything out so probably won't post
anymore (probably won't even read since I have this nasty habit of
being unable to resist the urge to reply). I don't think I will
convince you altho I do hope they will get you thinking. More
importantly, I hope that what I said will have some influence on those
who are less certain and get them thinking. Well those that read all I
said anyway. And boy am I glad I copied this message before hinting
post (yes I'm using Google). Altho I am reminded of how much I hate
what Telecom is doing to us all...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >, nil_einne1
@email.com says...

<huge snip>

Haven't got the time or inclination to read hundreds of lines, surely you
can say whatever without spending half an hour writing a thousand word
thesis.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Hills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
Patrick Dunford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Haven't got the time or inclination to read hundreds of lines, surely you
>can say whatever without spending half an hour writing a thousand word
>thesis.


Complex scenarios require complex analyses, with a matching attention
span on the part of the reader to properly understand and respond.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
 
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
Applet to run on Win 98, Win ME, Win XP, Win Vista & Win 7 ?? Krist Java 6 05-06-2010 11:53 PM
Generics is a waste of time Sharp Java 21 05-18-2005 03:17 PM
Waste basket missing on Win XP Era Computer Information 1 11-17-2004 12:34 AM
OT: And I thought I knew how to waste time Neil MCSE 10 07-27-2004 02:44 AM
Easyspace is a waste of space adrian dobinson Computer Support 1 12-23-2003 10:42 PM



Advertisments