Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > New UBS plan - 512kbps Upload

Reply
Thread Tools

New UBS plan - 512kbps Upload

 
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:26:08 +1300, someone purporting to be Waylon
Kenning didst scrawl:

> T'was the Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:30:08 +1300 when I remembered A Nice Cup
> of Tea <(E-Mail Removed)> saying something like this:
>
>>> Australia has 24MB and has over 20 competitors. NZ has 2MB and ONE
>>> monopoly. Aus prices for 24MB are a fraction of what we pay for 1/12 of
>>> the service.

>>
>>IOW, Telecom is ripping NZers off bigtime!

>
> Speaking of Australia, what's the population of Australia these days?
> More or less than say, New Zealand?


What's the population density of Australia again? Fractions of NZ's? How
many of those have access to real broadband at extremely reasonable prices?

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
MarkH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
Matthew Poole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news(E-Mail Removed):

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:14:36 +1300, someone purporting to be Rob J
> didst scrawl:
>
>> In article <43f29fa1$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...

> *SNIP*
>>> yes a lot of people in NZ are ignorance/unaware of what the internet
>>> can be used for simply because we don't have fast speeds but if we
>>> did I think you'd fast see people adapt to it. It is just now that
>>> it is a case of people not knowing any better.

>>
>> That's what people say about dialup. The fact is, if I look at my
>> friends and lots of people I know who use the internet, virtually
>> none of them have a second phone line or spend a lot of time online.
>> Almost none of them have signed up for broadband, though more than a
>> few are on Paradise cable dialup. There's one or two that use
>> broadband to work from home, but that is the minority.

>
> That says more about the people you spend your time around than it
> does about anything else - that's not intended as a slur, just an
> observation. The fact that you personally don't know people who fall
> into the high-use category doesn't mean that such people don't exist,
> or that such people exist in small numbers.
> I know many people who desperately want far better broadband offerings
> than are currently available, and would make use of them for
> legitimate purposes. That doesn't mean that none of the people you
> claim to know don't exist, it just means that we know different groups
> of people who have different requirements.



I find that over half of my friends use broadband and would like more
speed and higher data caps. A lot of what they do is legitimate,
whether or not you would consider it ALL legitimate might depend on how
you classify lesbian porn. Regardless, it is not really the ISPs job to
judge people on what they download - it is their job to provide internet
access.

I have many customers that are trying to run businesses and being
screwed over by Telecom. What they try to use is full speed Jetstream,
but when they use more than 2GB the excess usage charge gets
ridiculously high. They switch to the cheaper offerings with a 10GB cap
and the charges are reasonable to them, but the speed suffers on the
upstream side. If I VPN (or RDC) into a customers server then I am
limited to 128K upstream and their system is limited to 128K upstream.
If we are both on a 2MBit connection it seems crazy to be limited to
1/16th the speed for remote connections. To be honest the 2M/128K ADSL
connections seem to be more useful for downloading porn than for remote
connections to customers' computers.

If the 3.5M/512K plans go ahead then I will be advising several
customers to switch to those plans to speed up their uploads and improve
the speed of their remote connections.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nova
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
Rob J wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> Rob J wrote:
>>> In article <43f29fa1$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>> Rob J wrote:
>>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:56:26 +1300, someone purporting to be Running with
>>>>>> scissors didst scrawl:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On , , Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:59:59 +1300, Re: New UBS plan -
>>>>>>> 512kbps Upload, A Nice Cup of Tea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> *SNIP*
>>>>>>>> Yup - than that can be downloaded in only a few days using dialup.
>>>>>>> Of course it can if you are downloading pirated and copyrighted
>>>>>>> material.
>>>>>> Or OS ISO's. Or software sources for development/use. Or purchasing from
>>>>>> online music stores. Or stream news from the BBC website or similar. Or
>>>>>> work from home doing something like web development or consultant system
>>>>>> administration.
>>>>>> There are many, many ways of chewing up gigabytes of traffic a month
>>>>>> without doing a single dubious thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you merely want to download email, newsgroups and do a bit of
>>>>>>> surfing then you wouldn't stand much chance of using 200 megs.
>>>>>> Of course not. But just because that's all YOU do doesn't mean it's the
>>>>>> only possible use of the 'net.
>>>>> But, for 90% of users it will be adequate.
>>>> I wonder why there is such demand for faster speeds in the rest of the
>>>> developed world and the leading countries are now leagues ahead of us in
>>>> terms of speed and datacaps or lack of caps completely... seems strange
>>>> when 90% of us are apparently happy with a 200 meg cap.
>>>>
>>>> yes a lot of people in NZ are ignorance/unaware of what the internet can
>>>> be used for simply because we don't have fast speeds but if we did I
>>>> think you'd fast see people adapt to it. It is just now that it is a
>>>> case of people not knowing any better.
>>> That's what people say about dialup. The fact is, if I look at my
>>> friends and lots of people I know who use the internet, virtually none
>>> of them have a second phone line or spend a lot of time online. Almost
>>> none of them have signed up for broadband, though more than a few are on
>>> Paradise cable dialup. There's one or two that use broadband to work
>>> from home, but that is the minority.
>>>

>> No kidding, probably cause of the state our "broadband" is in

>
> No, it' that they have better things to do with their time.
>


Yeah me too, one of the reasons I'd like faster broadband so I can do
things quicker instead of having to wait around for ages waiting to send
photos or something..

 
Reply With Quote
 
A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2006
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:01:00 +1300, The Other Guy wrote:

> Upstream of 512kbs^-1 on their 3.5Mbs^-1 service only. This will be
> expensive, and subject to the same low caps as their other UBS
> offerings.
>
> We need uncapped data on the Telecom lines more than we need higher
> speeds.


We "need" a service that is a genuine broadband service, not a knobbled
restricted capped "service" that is more designed for maximising profits
than for providing a genuinely good service.

A genuine broadband service that matches what can be found elseware in the
world would be full speed, uncapped, and flat rate.


A Nice Cup of Tea

--
A: because it messes up threading
Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Brendan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2006
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:03:51 +1300, Running with scissors wrote:

> Why do you have to get abusive?


Because you are a stupid wank, and make people angry ?

> Because you realise that you are thieving other peoples
> intellectual properties and try to change the topic or divert
> attention away from the fact.


That would constitute slander. Unless you can prove he did that, you are
now guilty of a civil offense under the Defamation Act.

Ironic I though: a jumped up jerk makes obnoxious claims with no merit, and
asserts someone is a criminal - in the process making himself one!

> Reducing it to the bare basics, you are a thief, you are
> stealing, you realise that you are guilty.


Copyright infringement is not theft. Look up the definition in the
dictionary.

> You will be caught.
> Ergo: YOU ARE THE PATHETIC WANKER!


Get a big dog up ya.

--

.... Brendan

#291262 +(3996)- [X]

<Mendo> lmao there's a wicked lookign spider on my monitor and if i move
the mouse around he chases after it
<spitfire> haha mendo
<spitfire> take a screen shot
<spitfire> wait
<spitfire> that made no sense


Note: All my comments are copyright 17/02/2006 7:20:27 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob J
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:09:25 +1300, someone purporting to be Rob J didst
> scrawl:
>
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> > says...

> *SNIP*
> >> more likely to offer services that can make use of that capacity. Not that
> >> your good friends at Telecon are too keen on that affordability bit,
> >> though.

> >
> > I don't know anyone who works there... you must since you're in the
> > industry.

>
> Yes, I know people who work there. I'm not the one of us who's defending
> their actions, though.


I'm defending their rights to operate as ANY business is entitled to
register for trade and operate legally in this country.

Whereas you like a true socialist would like to run them out of business
by any means fair or foul.

 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2006
Brendan wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:03:51 +1300, Running with scissors wrote:
>
>> Why do you have to get abusive?

>
> Because you are a stupid wank, and make people angry ?
>
>> Because you realise that you are thieving other peoples
>> intellectual properties and try to change the topic or divert
>> attention away from the fact.

>
> That would constitute slander. Unless you can prove he did that, you
> are now guilty of a civil offense under the Defamation Act.
>
> Ironic I though: a jumped up jerk makes obnoxious claims with no
> merit, and asserts someone is a criminal - in the process making
> himself one!
>
>> Reducing it to the bare basics, you are a thief, you are
>> stealing, you realise that you are guilty.

>
> Copyright infringement is not theft. Look up the definition in the
> dictionary.
>
>> You will be caught.
>> Ergo: YOU ARE THE PATHETIC WANKER!

>
> Get a big dog up ya.


LOL, most dogs I know of are way too fussy. They like their bitches with at
least a *bit* of class.
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2006
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:25:47 +1300, someone purporting to be Rob J didst
scrawl:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...

*SNIP*
>> Yes, I know people who work there. I'm not the one of us who's defending
>> their actions, though.

>
> I'm defending their rights to operate as ANY business is entitled to
> register for trade and operate legally in this country.
>

You're defending their actions. You see nothing wrong with abuse of an
extremely powerful market position, even when that abuse is highly
detrimental to the health of the economy.

> Whereas you like a true socialist would like to run them out of business
> by any means fair or foul.


I'd like them to play a fair game; nothing more, nothing less. I want them
to introduce wholesale plans before they introduce retail ones, for
example.
Since they have proven to be utterly incapable of behaving in a
responsible fashion, I want them punished and rendered incapable of
further anti-competitive behaviour. They have brought this upon
themselves, and none of your protestations about businesses being allowed
to operate as they see fit will fly with me - companies are part of the
community, and there's a notion of community responsibility that Telecom
don't seem to have grasped. You seem to think that it's acceptable for a
company to **** over the community in which it is based, which says a lot
about you, too.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob J
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:25:47 +1300, someone purporting to be Rob J didst
> scrawl:
>
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> > says...

> *SNIP*
> >> Yes, I know people who work there. I'm not the one of us who's defending
> >> their actions, though.

> >
> > I'm defending their rights to operate as ANY business is entitled to
> > register for trade and operate legally in this country.
> >

> You're defending their actions.


I'm defending their rights to set up in business and operate according
to exactly the same laws as any other business is able to operate in in
New Zealand.

> You see nothing wrong with abuse of an
> extremely powerful market position, even when that abuse is highly
> detrimental to the health of the economy.


You and several other contributors of this thread have proposed a
solution of strangling Telecom and handing their business over to other
larger companies who are then free to behave as much like Telecom as
they want to.

The amount of alleged detriment is highly disputable. For example, wider
availability of broadband will make it easier for companies to move more
of their operations to cheap labour countries and out of the NZ economy.

> > Whereas you like a true socialist would like to run them out of business
> > by any means fair or foul.

>
> I'd like them to play a fair game; nothing more, nothing less. I want them
> to introduce wholesale plans before they introduce retail ones, for
> example.
> Since they have proven to be utterly incapable of behaving in a
> responsible fashion, I want them punished and rendered incapable of
> further anti-competitive behaviour. They have brought this upon
> themselves, and none of your protestations about businesses being allowed
> to operate as they see fit will fly with me - companies are part of the
> community, and there's a notion of community responsibility that Telecom
> don't seem to have grasped. You seem to think that it's acceptable for a
> company to **** over the community in which it is based, which says a lot
> about you, too.


What says a lot about you is that mean spirit that many hard core
socialists have.

If you want Telecom to play a fair game then how about the government
deals with them fairly, they negotiate with them in good faith to buy
back the lines or whatever they want to do and pay a fair market price
for them.

When I see all the usual crowd of suspects baying for Telecom's blood
they are all visiting upon Telecom their ideological hatred and loathing
of capitalism.

 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2006
Matthew Poole wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:25:47 +1300, someone purporting to be Rob J
> didst scrawl:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> (E-Mail Removed) says...

> *SNIP*
>>> Yes, I know people who work there. I'm not the one of us who's
>>> defending their actions, though.

>>
>> I'm defending their rights to operate as ANY business is entitled to
>> register for trade and operate legally in this country.
>>

> You're defending their actions. You see nothing wrong with abuse of an
> extremely powerful market position, even when that abuse is highly
> detrimental to the health of the economy.


Matthew, mate, you're feeding an attention-seeking troll. It seems that
robbie-boy just thrives on getting people riled up. Check his posts in this
group. He nearly always takes the unpopular viewpoint, probably to get
people to talk to him. He's probably laughing at all the people here rushing
to respond to his carefully crafted, subtle trolling. It probably gives him
something to do with his hands while he's waiting for that p0rn to download
on his dial up connection.

Cheers,
--
~misfit~


 
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
New releases: Game Plan, Daddy Day Camp & Curb Your Enthusiasm: Updated complete R1 DVD DB & info lists Doug MacLean DVD Video 0 11-13-2007 09:52 PM
Is it possible to get a ubs residental plan on a telecom businessline > Jeremy NZ Computing 10 08-22-2005 09:27 AM
anyone can explain to me about UBS and non-UBS? AT NZ Computing 9 12-15-2004 01:46 AM
UBS & new Telecom plans Paul NZ Computing 14 10-29-2004 11:26 PM
New retirement plan cimetière Computer Support 5 06-04-2004 12:28 AM



Advertisments