Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Broadband or Fraudband?

Reply
Thread Tools

Broadband or Fraudband?

 
 
Philip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2006
Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
what I expected.

It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped
on about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost
never get anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the
loathsome data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over
the matter of the world's slowest uploads...

The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
people suggested it would be.

Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz,
and the bicycle of Telecom here.

What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make
you get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no
matter how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.

We really do need now to lobby government for a change.

I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled to
offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission
proposed for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it would
contest for months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down to
accepting the piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been pushing -
the one with the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will ever achieve,
a miserable 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the snail's pace
upload speed.

I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will receive
in their location.

I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process, and
that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to stall
and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the LLU
tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the
following day.

I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the US,
or Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with coercive
powers over all participants in the market.

I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument
advanced by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are
separate entities) is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries of
the OECD. LLU has not been found to be unduly intrusive on private
property rights, and that in this matter the national interest also has
a role to play.

Tell the Minister what you think:

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
Phone: 04 470 6667
Fax: 04 471 2360
David Cunliffe
Minister of Communications
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't
seem to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.

you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.

It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we really
do want change.

Philip

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2006

"Philip" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4413ce69$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
> what I expected.
>
> It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped on
> about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost never get
> anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the loathsome
> data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over the matter
> of the world's slowest uploads...
>
> The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
> install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
> the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
> This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
> people suggested it would be.
>
> Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz, and
> the bicycle of Telecom here.
>
> What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
> and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
> throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make you
> get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no matter
> how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.
>
> We really do need now to lobby government for a change.
>
> I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled to
> offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission proposed
> for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it would contest for
> months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down to accepting the
> piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been pushing - the one with
> the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will ever achieve, a miserable
> 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the snail's pace upload speed.
>
> I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
> contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
> realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will receive
> in their location.
>
> I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process, and
> that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to stall
> and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the LLU
> tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the following
> day.
>
> I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the US, or
> Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with coercive powers
> over all participants in the market.
>
> I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument advanced
> by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are separate entities)
> is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries of the OECD. LLU has not
> been found to be unduly intrusive on private property rights, and that in
> this matter the national interest also has a role to play.
>
> Tell the Minister what you think:
>
> (E-Mail Removed)
> Phone: 04 470 6667
> Fax: 04 471 2360
> David Cunliffe
> Minister of Communications
> Parliament Buildings
> Wellington
>
> Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't seem
> to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.
>
> you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
> http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
> to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.
>
> It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we really do
> want change.
>
> Philip


Pretty obvious that Telecom are just milking it to make as much as they can
from what customers that they've got. With far more customers using better
offerings they'd still make real good money out of it.
The fool from Telecom claimed it would take 3 years, and that suckers are
flocking to use it.

I didn't see all of but the guy from ihug seemed to speak very well, a damn
sight better than Annette Presley from Slingshot.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bugalugs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2006
Philip wrote:
> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
> what I expected.
>
> It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped
> on about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost
> never get anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the
> loathsome data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over
> the matter of the world's slowest uploads...
>
> The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
> install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
> the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
> This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
> people suggested it would be.
>
> Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz,
> and the bicycle of Telecom here.
>
> What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
> and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
> throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make
> you get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no
> matter how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.
>
> We really do need now to lobby government for a change.
>
> I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled to
> offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission
> proposed for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it would
> contest for months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down to
> accepting the piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been pushing -
> the one with the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will ever achieve,
> a miserable 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the snail's pace
> upload speed.
>
> I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
> contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
> realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will receive
> in their location.
>
> I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process, and
> that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to stall
> and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the LLU
> tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the
> following day.
>
> I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the US,
> or Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with coercive
> powers over all participants in the market.
>
> I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument
> advanced by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are
> separate entities) is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries of
> the OECD. LLU has not been found to be unduly intrusive on private
> property rights, and that in this matter the national interest also has
> a role to play.
>
> Tell the Minister what you think:
>
> (E-Mail Removed)
> Phone: 04 470 6667
> Fax: 04 471 2360
> David Cunliffe
> Minister of Communications
> Parliament Buildings
> Wellington
>
> Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't
> seem to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.
>
> you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
> http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
> to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.
>
> It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we really
> do want change.
>
> Philip
>

What gets on my tits is this insistence by lesser players in the
industry, of local loop unbundling. Way back when, 'the gummint' SOLD
the post office to Telecom.

Telecom BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR a lot of stuff including the cable in the
ground. No matter what pople say that was the biggest asset in Telecom
the the gummint sold. To now insist that while we took your money and
sold you this asset we now want you to give control of it back to us
"for free' is ludicrous.

The gummint screwed up. They took the money. The rest of the industry
has to live with it. Or is this the only they can structure a govt
handout because they can't compete.

Imagine if Caltex sold all its retail outlets to BP. Then 6 years later
came back to BP and said you have to let us sell Caltex branded petrol
from those same pumps which YOU own on those petrol stations we sold you.

BP would have every right to say go away and do something about sex and
travel.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kyle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2006
Philip wrote:
> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
> what I expected.
>


Bugger I missed the show, did anyone record it?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2006
Bugalugs wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was
>> about what I expected.
>>
>> It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but
>> harped on about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you
>> almost never get anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter
>> of the loathsome data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios,
>> skimmed over the matter of the world's slowest uploads...
>>
>> The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
>> install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services
>> down the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the
>> home). This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the
>> panacea the TV people suggested it would be.
>>
>> Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz,
>> and the bicycle of Telecom here.
>>
>> What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard
>> enough and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that
>> they'll throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km
>> they'll make you get out and get back on the bike until the end of the
>> month. And no matter how far you drive, you have to walk back in the
>> other direction.
>>
>> We really do need now to lobby government for a change.
>>
>> I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled
>> to offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission
>> proposed for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it would
>> contest for months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down to
>> accepting the piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been pushing
>> - the one with the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will ever
>> achieve, a miserable 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the
>> snail's pace upload speed.
>>
>> I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
>> contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
>> realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will
>> receive in their location.
>>
>> I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process,
>> and that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to
>> stall and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the
>> LLU tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the
>> following day.
>>
>> I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the
>> US, or Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with
>> coercive powers over all participants in the market.
>>
>> I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument
>> advanced by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are
>> separate entities) is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries of
>> the OECD. LLU has not been found to be unduly intrusive on private
>> property rights, and that in this matter the national interest also
>> has a role to play.
>>
>> Tell the Minister what you think:
>>
>> (E-Mail Removed)
>> Phone: 04 470 6667
>> Fax: 04 471 2360
>> David Cunliffe
>> Minister of Communications
>> Parliament Buildings
>> Wellington
>>
>> Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't
>> seem to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.
>>
>> you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
>> http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
>> to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.
>>
>> It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we really
>> do want change.
>>
>> Philip
>>

> What gets on my tits is this insistence by lesser players in the
> industry, of local loop unbundling. Way back when, 'the gummint' SOLD
> the post office to Telecom.


No they didn't. They sold the SOE called Telecom to Ameritech and Bell
South, both of which have since milked all they could from the business
and moved on. . The Post Office Telephones were split off some years
before. They undervalued it in every way, failed to recognise the nature
of the business and effectively flogged taxpayer-owned and paid for
assets at around a third of their value to the hungry American wolves
that were panting on the doorstep.

Blame the idiot Prebble, blame short-sighted politicians desperate to
make themselves look good for five minutes before the next election.


>
> Telecom BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR a lot of stuff including the cable in the
> ground. No matter what pople say that was the biggest asset in Telecom
> the the gummint sold. To now insist that while we took your money and
> sold you this asset we now want you to give control of it back to us
> "for free' is ludicrous.


Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Telecom is a public utility, and public
utilities enjoy privileges that they must pay for. Telecom is a common
carrier. If you plot a crime over the phone, Telecom can't be held
liable. That's a privilege and it has to be paid for. It wasn't at
privatisation. Telecom owns wayleaves - the right to run its cables
above and below private property. They were never charged the full value
of that at privatisation. Telecom was given control over the national
numbering system, and the directories, because stupid Prebble and his
ignorant advisors didn't even perceive them as a separate businesses.
Telecom owes the people of New Zealand, and has absolutely no right to
moan about LLU. They are not being asked to give up control of what they
have. They have to be told to offer it on the market at a fair price.
>
> The gummint screwed up. They took the money. The rest of the industry
> has to live with it. Or is this the only they can structure a govt
> handout because they can't compete.


I don't know what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you could
re-phrase it?
>
> Imagine if Caltex sold all its retail outlets to BP. Then 6 years later
> came back to BP and said you have to let us sell Caltex branded petrol
> from those same pumps which YOU own on those petrol stations we sold you.
>
> BP would have every right to say go away and do something about sex and
> travel.


A different matter. There is a competitive market in motor fuels.
There's not in telecoms. Telecom must be regulated, or split so that
there is a real market with real competition. And that's a matter of
national concern and national interest.

At present Telecom acts as if it was answerable to nobody. I prefer the
elected government of New Zealand to make the rules, not an arrogant
stockholder company that has been ripping off its New Zealand customers
for the past ten years.

Philip

 
Reply With Quote
 
Craig Shore
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2006
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:57:25 +1300, Bugalugs <(E-Mail Removed)!> wrote:

>Philip wrote:
>> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
>> what I expected.
>>
>> It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped
>> on about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost
>> never get anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the
>> loathsome data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over
>> the matter of the world's slowest uploads...
>>
>> The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
>> install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
>> the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
>> This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
>> people suggested it would be.
>>
>> Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz,
>> and the bicycle of Telecom here.
>>
>> What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
>> and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
>> throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make
>> you get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no
>> matter how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.
>>
>> We really do need now to lobby government for a change.
>>
>> I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled to
>> offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission
>> proposed for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it would
>> contest for months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down to
>> accepting the piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been pushing -
>> the one with the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will ever achieve,
>> a miserable 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the snail's pace
>> upload speed.
>>
>> I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
>> contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
>> realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will receive
>> in their location.
>>
>> I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process, and
>> that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to stall
>> and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the LLU
>> tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the
>> following day.
>>
>> I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the US,
>> or Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with coercive
>> powers over all participants in the market.
>>
>> I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument
>> advanced by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are
>> separate entities) is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries of
>> the OECD. LLU has not been found to be unduly intrusive on private
>> property rights, and that in this matter the national interest also has
>> a role to play.
>>
>> Tell the Minister what you think:
>>
>> (E-Mail Removed)
>> Phone: 04 470 6667
>> Fax: 04 471 2360
>> David Cunliffe
>> Minister of Communications
>> Parliament Buildings
>> Wellington
>>
>> Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't
>> seem to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.
>>
>> you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
>> http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
>> to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.
>>
>> It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we really
>> do want change.
>>
>> Philip
>>

>What gets on my tits is this insistence by lesser players in the
>industry, of local loop unbundling. Way back when, 'the gummint' SOLD
>the post office to Telecom.
>
>Telecom BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR a lot of stuff including the cable in the
>ground. No matter what pople say that was the biggest asset in Telecom
>the the gummint sold. To now insist that while we took your money and
>sold you this asset we now want you to give control of it back to us
>"for free' is ludicrous.
>
>The gummint screwed up. They took the money. The rest of the industry
>has to live with it. Or is this the only they can structure a govt
>handout because they can't compete.
>
>Imagine if Caltex sold all its retail outlets to BP. Then 6 years later
>came back to BP and said you have to let us sell Caltex branded petrol
>from those same pumps which YOU own on those petrol stations we sold you.
>
>BP would have every right to say go away and do something about sex and
>travel.


Maybe the Govermnent should just build a new nationwide fibre to the door
network?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Barry Lennox
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2006
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:57:25 +1300, Bugalugs
<(E-Mail Removed)!> wrote:



snip

In my opinion, Gattung just did her usual grinning village-idiot
thing. She never satisfactorily explained why Aust is ahead of us. She
seemed to be threatening again " If the govt legislates, it will only
slow us up" A bit like the "share-price will go down" last year.


>
>Telecom BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR a lot of stuff including the cable in the
>ground. No matter what pople say that was the biggest asset in Telecom
>the the gummint sold. To now insist that while we took your money and
>sold you this asset we now want you to give control of it back to us
>"for free' is ludicrous.


BS, a lot of what Telecom "bought" had been paid for by earlier
generations, infrastructure, buildings, copper in the ground, incl the
"local loop", the directory system, their rights to put cable wherever
they want, and lots more. They "bought" it all for a song. The
taxpayers of NZ have a lot more right to it than Telecom. Telecom
never gets that point.

>
>The gummint screwed up. They took the money.


there I agree 100%

>
>Imagine if Caltex sold all its retail outlets to BP. Then 6 years later
>came back to BP and said you have to let us sell Caltex branded petrol
>from those same pumps which YOU own on those petrol stations we sold you.


Caltex does not use taxpayers money to build it's outlets.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Patrick FitzGerald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2006



The lesson to be learned from the Broadband fiasco , and from what
happened at the railways and Air New Zealand is that we were very
very stupid to sell off OUR community assets


We should make a firm resolution to never ever let any government
sell off the community owned assets.we still have.


Patrick
 
Reply With Quote
 
shannon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2006
Philip wrote:
> Bugalugs wrote:
>
>> Philip wrote:
>>
>>> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was
>>> about what I expected.
>>>
>>> It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but
>>> harped on about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you
>>> almost never get anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the
>>> matter of the loathsome data caps, didn't even mention contention
>>> ratios, skimmed over the matter of the world's slowest uploads...
>>>
>>> The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs
>>> to install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their
>>> services down the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange
>>> and the home). This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily
>>> the panacea the TV people suggested it would be.
>>>
>>> Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz,
>>> and the bicycle of Telecom here.
>>>
>>> What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard
>>> enough and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but
>>> that they'll throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5
>>> km they'll make you get out and get back on the bike until the end of
>>> the month. And no matter how far you drive, you have to walk back in
>>> the other direction.
>>>
>>> We really do need now to lobby government for a change.
>>>
>>> I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled
>>> to offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission
>>> proposed for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it
>>> would contest for months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down
>>> to accepting the piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been
>>> pushing - the one with the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will
>>> ever achieve, a miserable 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the
>>> snail's pace upload speed.
>>>
>>> I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
>>> contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
>>> realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will
>>> receive in their location.
>>>
>>> I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process,
>>> and that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts
>>> to stall and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of
>>> the LLU tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail
>>> the following day.
>>>
>>> I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the
>>> US, or Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with
>>> coercive powers over all participants in the market.
>>>
>>> I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument
>>> advanced by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are
>>> separate entities) is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries
>>> of the OECD. LLU has not been found to be unduly intrusive on private
>>> property rights, and that in this matter the national interest also
>>> has a role to play.
>>>
>>> Tell the Minister what you think:
>>>
>>> (E-Mail Removed)
>>> Phone: 04 470 6667
>>> Fax: 04 471 2360
>>> David Cunliffe
>>> Minister of Communications
>>> Parliament Buildings
>>> Wellington
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't
>>> seem to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.
>>>
>>> you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
>>> http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
>>> to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.
>>>
>>> It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we
>>> really do want change.
>>>
>>> Philip
>>>

>> What gets on my tits is this insistence by lesser players in the
>> industry, of local loop unbundling. Way back when, 'the gummint' SOLD
>> the post office to Telecom.

>
>
> No they didn't. They sold the SOE called Telecom to Ameritech and Bell
> South, both of which have since milked all they could from the business
> and moved on. . The Post Office Telephones were split off some years
> before. They undervalued it in every way, failed to recognise the nature
> of the business and effectively flogged taxpayer-owned and paid for
> assets at around a third of their value to the hungry American wolves
> that were panting on the doorstep.
>
> Blame the idiot Prebble, blame short-sighted politicians desperate to
> make themselves look good for five minutes before the next election.
>
>
>>
>> Telecom BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR a lot of stuff including the cable in the
>> ground. No matter what pople say that was the biggest asset in Telecom
>> the the gummint sold. To now insist that while we took your money and
>> sold you this asset we now want you to give control of it back to us
>> "for free' is ludicrous.

>
>
> Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Telecom is a public utility, and public
> utilities enjoy privileges that they must pay for. Telecom is a common
> carrier. If you plot a crime over the phone, Telecom can't be held
> liable. That's a privilege and it has to be paid for. It wasn't at
> privatisation. Telecom owns wayleaves - the right to run its cables
> above and below private property. They were never charged the full value
> of that at privatisation. Telecom was given control over the national
> numbering system, and the directories, because stupid Prebble and his
> ignorant advisors didn't even perceive them as a separate businesses.
> Telecom owes the people of New Zealand, and has absolutely no right to
> moan about LLU. They are not being asked to give up control of what they
> have. They have to be told to offer it on the market at a fair price.
>
>>
>> The gummint screwed up. They took the money. The rest of the industry
>> has to live with it. Or is this the only they can structure a govt
>> handout because they can't compete.

>
>
> I don't know what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you could
> re-phrase it?
>
>>
>> Imagine if Caltex sold all its retail outlets to BP. Then 6 years
>> later came back to BP and said you have to let us sell Caltex branded
>> petrol from those same pumps which YOU own on those petrol stations we
>> sold you.
>>
>> BP would have every right to say go away and do something about sex
>> and travel.

>
>
> A different matter. There is a competitive market in motor fuels.
> There's not in telecoms. Telecom must be regulated, or split so that
> there is a real market with real competition. And that's a matter of
> national concern and national interest.
>
> At present Telecom acts as if it was answerable to nobody. I prefer the
> elected government of New Zealand to make the rules, not an arrogant
> stockholder company that has been ripping off its New Zealand customers
> for the past ten years.
>
> Philip
>


Vote with a backhoe !!!!!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Katipo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2006

"Philip" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4413ce69$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
> what I expected.
>
> It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped on
> about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost never get
> anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the loathsome
> data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over the matter
> of the world's slowest uploads...
>
> The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
> install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
> the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
> This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
> people suggested it would be.
>
> Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz, and
> the bicycle of Telecom here.
>
> What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
> and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
> throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make you
> get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no matter
> how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.
>


Exactly how much better is Broadband in Oz? What sort of speeds are they
getting there?
I am not defending Telecom, but the April Issue of APC magazine has a
comparison of various OZ broadband plans and they don't seem to be much
different to what Telecom is about to offer us.

Katipo


 
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
setting up wireless broadband to router =?Utf-8?B?QWRyaWFuIEg=?= Wireless Networking 6 12-09-2004 10:40 AM
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



Advertisments