«

Telcom's spin doctors have been telling us

Get ready for cheaper, faster broadband.

In the very, very small print are the words, When the local loop is
unbundled.

I am sure that I am not the only one who can see them. Let us hope our
elected members to parliament can, majority wise.

Gordon wrote:
> Telcom's spin doctors have been telling us
>
> Get ready for cheaper, faster broadband.
>
> In the very, very small print are the words, When the local loop is
> unbundled.
>
> I am sure that I am not the only one who can see them. Let us hope our
> elected members to parliament can, majority wise.

but how long can Telecom fight this through the courts? 2 years? 3 years?

Then we could have the Nats in, bye bye legislation....

regards

Thing

y wrote:
> but how long can Telecom fight this through the courts? 2 years? 3 years?
>
> Then we could have the Nats in, bye bye legislation....

Or, by then we could have a new loop, so who cares about telecoms one?

In article Gordon says...
> In the very, very small print are the words, When the local loop is
> unbundled.
>
Good job that the ISPs will primarily only be interested in AK as the
roads there will be totally choked by then.

Isn't the big problem here not the DSLAM-customer link but the size of
the links back to the ISP and from there to the USA.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:18:43 +1300, someone purporting to be colinco didst
scrawl:

> In article Gordon says...
*SNIP*
> Isn't the big problem here not the DSLAM-customer link but the size of
> the links back to the ISP and from there to the USA.

The links to the ISP's are crippled by Telecom. If they would implement
NNI it would solve the back haul issue quickly - of course, they'd no
longer be able to charge ISP's $4k/month/end for ATM circuits, so they
have zero incentive to get it going.
As for the link to the US, we've got a 40+Gbps cable, fully paid for,
between Auckland, Australia and the US. Capacity internationally is not at
all a constraint, unless you're Telescum trying to justify gouging the
nation.

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

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:18:43 +1300, colinco wrote:

> Isn't the big problem here not the DSLAM-customer link but the size of
> the links back to the ISP and from there to the USA.

I think that the Southern Cross Cable is more than capable of taking any
quantity of data that we presently want to throw across it.

The problem is that Telecom - one of the owners of the Sourthern Cross
Cable - is not wanting to have all that bandwidth available to its
customers - it will reduce the price it can extort for it.

And yeah - the links from the various DSLAMs back to some central place(s)
(however Telecom does it) are simply not big enough to take all the data
that its customers are wanting to throw across it.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:49:44 +1300, ""
<> exclaimed:

>Gordon wrote:
>> Telcom's spin doctors have been telling us
>>
>> Get ready for cheaper, faster broadband.
>>
>> In the very, very small print are the words, When the local loop is
>> unbundled.
>>
>> I am sure that I am not the only one who can see them. Let us hope our
>> elected members to parliament can, majority wise.
>
>but how long can Telecom fight this through the courts? 2 years? 3 years?
>
>Then we could have the Nats in, bye bye legislation....
>
Why do so many people seem to think that National wouldn't sort out
this mess that's been festering under Labour?

Whilst National has made it clear that their *preference* is to not to
have to legislate, they're probably the only ones that have got the
balls to actually do something about it. Labour's definately shown
that they don't, despite their sound bites.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:18:21 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
didst scrawl:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:49:44 +1300, ""
> <> exclaimed:
*SNIP*
> Why do so many people seem to think that National wouldn't sort out
> this mess that's been festering under Labour?
>
Because they spent nine years letting it develop. 0867 ring any bells?

> Whilst National has made it clear that their *preference* is to not to
> have to legislate, they're probably the only ones that have got the
> balls to actually do something about it. Labour's definately shown
> that they don't, despite their sound bites.

Nobody has any faith in National because Maurice Williamson was in charge
during their last term and will likely be in charge whenever they're next
in power. That does not inspire confidence, especially when you consider
that National have been dreadfully quiet about the current mess. That
suggests that they don't think that it's a problem to just let the market
sort itself out. Or not.

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

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:30:23 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
exclaimed:

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:18:21 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
>didst scrawl:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:49:44 +1300, ""
>> <> exclaimed:
>*SNIP*
>> Why do so many people seem to think that National wouldn't sort out
>> this mess that's been festering under Labour?
>>
>Because they spent nine years letting it develop. 0867 ring any bells?
>
>> Whilst National has made it clear that their *preference* is to not to
>> have to legislate, they're probably the only ones that have got the
>> balls to actually do something about it. Labour's definately shown
>> that they don't, despite their sound bites.
>
>Nobody has any faith in National because Maurice Williamson was in charge
>during their last term and will likely be in charge whenever they're next
>in power. That does not inspire confidence, especially when you consider
>that National have been dreadfully quiet about the current mess. That
>suggests that they don't think that it's a problem to just let the market
>sort itself out. Or not.

Yeah, but it's not like Labour have done anything about it. Whilst
they like to talk a lot when the cameras are on, they've been given
the biggest opportunities to date to fix the problems, and they've
been pathetically impotent on the issue.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:01:23 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
didst scrawl:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:30:23 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
> exclaimed:
>
*SNIP*
> Yeah, but it's not like Labour have done anything about it. Whilst
> they like to talk a lot when the cameras are on, they've been given
> the biggest opportunities to date to fix the problems, and they've
> been pathetically impotent on the issue.

So because Labour haven't done anything substantial so far (setting up the
Telecommunications Commissioner and the Telecommunications Act 2001 isn't
doing nothing) you somehow came to the conclusion that National have
gained a clue, ditched their love affair with big business, and would be
an effective regulatory power?
Pull the other one, Fred. Surely you're not THAT ideologically blinded
that you cannot see how stupid it is to believe that National would do
anything differently?

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