Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Marketroids look to a tiered Internet

Reply
Thread Tools

Marketroids look to a tiered Internet

 
 
shannon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2006
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:18:46 +1300, Philip wrote:

> Rob J wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>> Rob J wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>>
>>>>> The only problem in NZ is the general lack of any competitive
>>>>> pressure.....mainly due to Richard Prebble and the 4th Labour government
>>>>> selling the telecoms infrastructure for a small fraction (10%?) of what
>>>>> it would have cost to build a competitive one or replace the existing
>>>>> one.
>>>>>
>>>>> From that day to this, it was inevitable there could be no serious
>>>>> competition to Telecom NZ on fixed-line connectivity services. Maybe that
>>>>> was the real intention.....
>>>> The value of those lines for telephone services, which at the time
>>>> constituted most of Telecom's business, is relatively little.
>>> Compared to what?

>>
>> Compared to the cost of building and maintaining the network, I guess.
>>
>>
>>>> Where the money comes from today is all the added value stuff.
>>> Yeeeees.
>>>
>>>> Do you see any other company building a network just for phone calls?
>>>> Everyone is into data and added value.
>>> Do you see any other company building a fixed-line network to every home for
>>> ANY purpose?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> It's not economic.....but telecom owns just such a network - paid for by
>>> taxpayers and sold in 1990 for a LOT less than what it would have cost in
>>> 1990 to rebuild it from scratch in 1990 - or today.

>>
>> But to run it for more than phones, you have to invest money in it. And
>> that's what Telecom is about to do - rolling out a new IP based network
>> across NZ.
>>
>> And then, that current network includes all the lines to places where it
>> cost more to install than any telco would ever receive in revenue.
>>
>>
>>> The proof?
>>>
>>> No one else has - for ANY reason, purpose or service.
>>>
>>> Not economic. But Telecom owns one.
>>>
>>> You starting to see the light on this one, Rob?
>>>
>>> How did Telecom get such a network when it isn't economic to profitably
>>> build it - in 1990 or now?
>>>
>>> They got it for a lot less than it cost to build - or rebuild.

>>
>> They got it for what it was worth at the time.

>
> Nope. They got it, and the other stuff that nobody recognised had value
> like the numbering system and all those wayleaves and the copyrights in
> the directory listings, for about a tenth or its true value. Richard
> Prebble and his political mates really screwed the taxpayers that had
> paid over the years to create the phone system and suddenly found their
> investment was being sold from under then.
>
> This was the privatisation that really shafted the taxpayer - worse even
> than the Fay, Richwhite railway rip-off.
>
> Since then, Telecom have run a moderately competent POTS system, and
> have routinely shafted the customers on call charges, tolls (why charge
> by distance when the system is indifferent to distance?) and. most
> notoriously, broadband, where Telecom continues to offer one of the
> worst-value "broadband" services in the OECD. It's so feeble that ITU
> doesn't even recognise it as true broadband.
>



That's a bit of a half truth isn't it given that Telecom offers ADSL at
256k/s, 1Mb/s and 2Mb/s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_internet

Broadband is often called high-speed Internet, because it usually has a
high rate of data. In general, any connection to the customer of 256
kbit/s (0.256 Mbit/s) or more is considered broadband Internet. The
International Telecommunication Union Standardization Sector (ITU-T)
recommendation I.113 has defined broadband as a transmission capacity that
is faster than primary rate ISDN, at 1.5 to 2 Mbit/s. The FCC definition
of broadband is 200 kbit/s (0.2 Mbit/s) in one direction, and advanced
broadband is at least 200 kbit/s in both directions. The OECD has defined
broadband as 256 kbit/s in at least one direction and this bit rate is the
most common baseline that is marketed as "broadband" around the world.
There is no specific bitrate defined by the industry, however, and
"broadband" can mean lower-bitrate transmission methods. Some Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) use this to advantage, in marketing lower-bitrate
connections as broadband.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2006
Philip wrote:

> And each year, Telecom takes a from 800 million to a billion dollars
> away from New Zealand customers and distributes it to its mainly foreign
> shareholders.
>
> How is this better than the previous arrangements?


It isn't.

Most of the improvements people attribute to privatisation actually got
underway while Peter Troughton was leading Telecom as an SOE.

NZ Post is an example of what Telecom might have been had it remained in
public ownership.

An SOE that understands how to make money AND operate an important public
service in a way that shows some understanding of the public good.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2006
shannon wrote:

> That's a bit of a half truth isn't it given that Telecom offers ADSL at
> 256k/s, 1Mb/s and 2Mb/s
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_internet


I thought it was the 128k upstream that made the offering sub-standard in
the eyes of others.

I could be wrong. It's happened before.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob J
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Philip wrote:
>
> > And each year, Telecom takes a from 800 million to a billion dollars
> > away from New Zealand customers and distributes it to its mainly foreign
> > shareholders.
> >
> > How is this better than the previous arrangements?

>
> It isn't.
>
> Most of the improvements people attribute to privatisation actually got
> underway while Peter Troughton was leading Telecom as an SOE.
>
> NZ Post is an example of what Telecom might have been had it remained in
> public ownership.
>
> An SOE that understands how to make money AND operate an important public
> service in a way that shows some understanding of the public good.


The primary goal in forming the SOEs was as the precursor to full
privatisation and many were. There was and has been no other incentive
to reform inefficient government bureacracy. Labour has returned several
SOEs to a more bureacratic inefficient model of operation.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mutlley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2006
steve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Philip wrote:
>
>> And each year, Telecom takes a from 800 million to a billion dollars
>> away from New Zealand customers and distributes it to its mainly foreign
>> shareholders.
>>
>> How is this better than the previous arrangements?

>
>It isn't.
>
>Most of the improvements people attribute to privatisation actually got
>underway while Peter Troughton was leading Telecom as an SOE.
>
>NZ Post is an example of what Telecom might have been had it remained in
>public ownership.
>


You mean Books and More. NZ Post these days is nothing but a book
shop..
 
Reply With Quote
 
steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2006
Mutlley wrote:

> steve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Philip wrote:
>>
>>> And each year, Telecom takes a from 800 million to a billion dollars
>>> away from New Zealand customers and distributes it to its mainly foreign
>>> shareholders.
>>>
>>> How is this better than the previous arrangements?

>>
>>It isn't.
>>
>>Most of the improvements people attribute to privatisation actually got
>>underway while Peter Troughton was leading Telecom as an SOE.
>>
>>NZ Post is an example of what Telecom might have been had it remained in
>>public ownership.
>>

>
> You mean Books and More. NZ Post these days is nothing but a book
> shop..


That delivers mail to my house?

I don't think so.

 
Reply With Quote
 
steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2006
Mutlley wrote:

> You mean Books and More. NZ Post these days is nothing but a book
> shop..


....and you forgot Kiwibank.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mutlley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2006
steve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Mutlley wrote:
>
>> steve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Philip wrote:
>>>
>>>> And each year, Telecom takes a from 800 million to a billion dollars
>>>> away from New Zealand customers and distributes it to its mainly foreign
>>>> shareholders.
>>>>
>>>> How is this better than the previous arrangements?
>>>
>>>It isn't.
>>>
>>>Most of the improvements people attribute to privatisation actually got
>>>underway while Peter Troughton was leading Telecom as an SOE.
>>>
>>>NZ Post is an example of what Telecom might have been had it remained in
>>>public ownership.
>>>

>>
>> You mean Books and More. NZ Post these days is nothing but a book
>> shop..

>
>That delivers mail to my house?
>
>I don't think so.

Telecom still delivers a phone to my house..
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mutlley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2006
steve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Mutlley wrote:
>
>> You mean Books and More. NZ Post these days is nothing but a book
>> shop..

>
>...and you forgot Kiwibank.
>

You mean the bank that the tax payer props up all the time??
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mutlley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>steve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Mutlley wrote:
>>
>>> You mean Books and More. NZ Post these days is nothing but a book
>>> shop..

>>
>>...and you forgot Kiwibank.
>>

>You mean the bank that the tax payer props up all the time??


Currently, yes ... and yet it is still ahead of market forecasts ?

Bruce

----------------------------------------
I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

 
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
Tiered architecture question Ken Ross ASP .Net 2 09-08-2006 09:14 PM
Ultimate enterprise design pattern for 3 tiered apps timasmith@hotmail.com Java 4 07-06-2006 06:17 PM
Basic N-Tiered structure in VB Paul ASP .Net 3 06-10-2006 02:23 PM
Binding web form controls in a multi-tiered environment? Thirsty Traveler ASP .Net 0 05-30-2006 10:10 PM
NTLM Authentication with multi-tiered application Andy Fish ASP .Net 1 01-09-2006 06:13 PM



Advertisments