«

Hi there,

whoisthis wrote:
> In article <443b5564$>,
> Chris Wilkinson <> wrote:
>
>>Hi there,
>>
>>MarkH wrote:
>>
>>>"Stephen Williams" <> wrote in
>>>news:443afce3$:
>>>
>>>>How else can we download our torrents and porn, and waste our lives
>>>>playing WoW? You would think that 1/2 the people that post here think
>>>>of broadband as a necessity.
>>>>
>>>>1. Water
>>>>2. Food
>>>>3. Shelter
>>>>4. Broadband
>>>
>>>Don't be silly!
>>>
>>>You need Power too, otherwise your gadgets would not work.
>>>
>>>1. Water
>>>2. Food
>>>3. Shelter
>>>4. Power
>>>5. Broadband
>>
>>Agreed, although here in Brisbane my No.5 reads thus...
>>
>>5. Free upgrade from 1500/256 to 24000/1000, retaining the
>> same 20GB cap (with throttling over that), and $49.95
>> per month cost. Available in a few days...
>
> Perhaps they will offer that in Auckland where the population density
> makes that profitable.

Who knows? Thats not the cheapest ADSL2+ either...that can be
had for as little as $29.95 monthly, just with a smaller cap
and less webspace. Thats thru my ISP (TPG), but other ISP's
may have other cheap ADSL2+ deals that are better...

--
Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u

"Chris Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:443b6b62$...
> Hi there,
>
> news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> "Chris Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:443b5564$...
>>
>>>Hi there,
>>>
>>>MarkH wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Stephen Williams" <> wrote in
>>>>news:443afce3$:
>>>>
>>>>>How else can we download our torrents and porn, and waste our lives
>>>>>playing WoW? You would think that 1/2 the people that post here think
>>>>>of broadband as a necessity.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Water
>>>>>2. Food
>>>>>3. Shelter
>>>>>4. Broadband
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't be silly!
>>>>
>>>>You need Power too, otherwise your gadgets would not work.
>>>>
>>>>1. Water
>>>>2. Food
>>>>3. Shelter
>>>>4. Power
>>>>5. Broadband
>>>
>>>Agreed, although here in Brisbane my No.5 reads thus...
>>>
>>>5. Free upgrade from 1500/256 to 24000/1000, retaining the
>>> same 20GB cap (with throttling over that), and $49.95
>>> per month cost. Available in a few days...
>>
>> Assuming you mean ADSL2, that is old technology.
>>
>> Fibre would be the ultimate right?
>
> It doesn't matter how the data is delivered; what matters to me
> is that it *is* delivered, at a *respectable* rate of knots, and
> at a *competitive* price. The ADSL2+ account I'm hoping to go to
> is not the cheapest on offer - I can get ADSL2+ for $29.95 month,
> but with a lower cap, and less webspace, still throttled rather
> than charged for over-cap data...
>
> --
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
> Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
> spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
>
>

The medium does matter. Your service provider is using old technology to
deliver new services but the problem is the old technology has many inherent
drawbacks.

You are possibly not quoting a guaranteed speed. ADSL2+ is very sensitive
to the distance to the exchange and many people will not get those speeds
you quote.

Aussie is also very much behind. In other countries they offer cheap
100mbps connections .

The thing is , I like to compare NZ with the countries at the top of the
OECD broadband stats, not with those in the bottom such as aussie.

You can accuse me of having high standards I suppose.

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:05:03 +1200, whoisthis <>
wrote:

>In article <WzC_f.12341$>,
> "news.xtra.co.nz" <> wrote:
>
>> Fibre optic is the way to go!!!
>>
>> NZ needs to start wiring up fibre to every household in urban areas.
>>
>> Rural areas can have wireless.
>>
>> The govt would obviously need to finance this. Then, sell the pipes to
>> service providers.
>>
>> Broadband is now a critical infrastructure component. Since private
>> enterprise are not providing this, it is the governments responsibility.
>>
>
>InSpire in palmerston north are laying Fibre, they have I think done
>most of the CBD and are looking at getting fibre into peoples homes now
>too.

Yep. I saw the newspaper article. Was it $1 or $2 per metre for the
cable? The killer was the laying cost - $100 per metre. And hard to
get cooperation so it gets laid with other services.

I expect WiMax to be the answer for people distant from the CBD. I
think the specs are finalised and equipment is being manufactured
already. Does anyone know for sure?

Ross

> As far as I can tell broadband is no more than a nice-to-have luxury when
> it
> comes to domestic internet usage. The fact that I even ask the question
> could also indicate that I am analytical by nature and assume nothing on
> this subject. You posted the article above - I would like you to explain,
> in your words, exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that 'broadband
> is a critical infrastructure component' and that taxpayer-subsidised
> access would produce 'massive long term benefits'. I too am a taxpayer
> and would like to know exactly why you propose taxes be spent in this way.
>
> Crash.

You are 100% correct, stop trying to make him explain something he cannot.

Recreational use of residential broadband is nothing more than a luxury.
Those who want it can pay for it, as I do. If I had to go back to dial up
then there would be no serious consequences. I would just get a bit annoyed
at web site load times. If that was my biggest problem, then life must be
very good!

I would rather that the government spends money on reducing medical waiting
lists, education etc or whatever than rolling out fibre to my front door.

Steve

"Crash" <> wrote in message
news:2TJ_f.12434$...
> news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> "Crash" <> wrote in message
>> news:ONC_f.12343$...
>>> news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
>>>> Fibre optic is the way to go!!!
>>>>
>>>> NZ needs to start wiring up fibre to every household in urban areas.
>>>>
>>>> Rural areas can have wireless.
>>>>
>>>> The govt would obviously need to finance this. Then, sell the pipes
>>>> to service providers.
>>>>
>>>> Broadband is now a critical infrastructure component. Since private
>>>> enterprise are not providing this, it is the governments
>>>> responsibility.
>>>>
>>>> The long term benefits would be massive.
>>> I am genuinely interested in what it is that you base your suggestions
>>> on. Exactly why is broadband so critical?
>>>
>>> Crash.
>>
>> I could tell you, but, the fact you even ask the question is indicative
>> of your foresight.
> As far as I can tell broadband is no more than a nice-to-have luxury when
> it comes to domestic internet usage. The fact that I even ask the
> question could also indicate that I am analytical by nature and assume
> nothing on this subject. You posted the article above - I would like you
> to explain, in your words, exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that
> 'broadband is a critical infrastructure component' and that
> taxpayer-subsidised access would produce 'massive long term benefits'. I
> too am a taxpayer and would like to know exactly why you propose taxes be
> spent in this way.
>

NZ is falling behind in the developed world. There is no vision, or risk
taking to improve this countries position. Most NZ'ers such as yourself
don't even know what the internet really is. Unless there is some immediate
payback tomorrow, kiwis won't go for it. If fact, kiwis are going down the
road of 'sustainability', which basically means do nothing stagnation.

One of the main points, it is difficult to predict future applications. Eg,
the telcos never dreamed how successful sms would be.

But, build the infrastructure and the applications will be built. I could
spout a long list of items, such as Telemedicine, long distance education,
telemeetings.

Don't underestimate tele-meetings. For example, I recently had a meeting
with a european client the using a lotus conferencing product. But, due to
my low broadband speed I could not really appreciate the full capabilities
of the software. In theory, I could have had a high-definition video feed of
the meeting and it's participants with surround sound audio. Then, in
another window I could have a feed of the presentation in progress, and,
another window could contain a scratchboard which all meeting participants
have in front of them to share info. Documents could be 'electronically'
passed to me in the meeting. This is awesome technology and still in its
infancy. But, kiwis will not be able to participate on our piffly 24mbps
connections (adsl2)...go directly back home!!! No business for you.

Here is a good article....

http://nickgray.net/broadband_wonderland.html

Stephen Williams wrote:
>> As far as I can tell broadband is no more than a nice-to-have luxury when
>> it
>> comes to domestic internet usage. The fact that I even ask the question
>> could also indicate that I am analytical by nature and assume nothing on
>> this subject. You posted the article above - I would like you to explain,
>> in your words, exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that 'broadband
>> is a critical infrastructure component' and that taxpayer-subsidised
>> access would produce 'massive long term benefits'. I too am a taxpayer
>> and would like to know exactly why you propose taxes be spent in this way.
>>
>> Crash.
>
> You are 100% correct, stop trying to make him explain something he cannot.
>
> Recreational use of residential broadband is nothing more than a luxury.
> Those who want it can pay for it, as I do. If I had to go back to dial up
> then there would be no serious consequences. I would just get a bit annoyed
> at web site load times.

But you might not, given the current state of broadband

I had to use dialup recently, and it wasn't intolerably slower than my
Orcon ADSL.

"-=rjh=-" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Stephen Williams wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell broadband is no more than a nice-to-have luxury
>>> when it
>>> comes to domestic internet usage. The fact that I even ask the question
>>> could also indicate that I am analytical by nature and assume nothing on
>>> this subject. You posted the article above - I would like you to
>>> explain, in your words, exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that
>>> 'broadband is a critical infrastructure component' and that
>>> taxpayer-subsidised access would produce 'massive long term benefits'.
>>> I too am a taxpayer and would like to know exactly why you propose taxes
>>> be spent in this way.
>>>
>>> Crash.
>>
>> You are 100% correct, stop trying to make him explain something he
>> cannot.
>>
>> Recreational use of residential broadband is nothing more than a luxury.
>> Those who want it can pay for it, as I do. If I had to go back to dial
>> up then there would be no serious consequences. I would just get a bit
>> annoyed at web site load times.
>
> But you might not, given the current state of broadband
>
> I had to use dialup recently, and it wasn't intolerably slower than my
> Orcon ADSL.

Thankfully I live in an area with Telstra cable! The 2mb actually runs at
2mb all the time and the upload is 2mb. There is a 20gb cap, static IP and
very low latency.

Seems to me you guys and gals on ADSL are paying for a luxury and not really
receiving good value.

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:02:20 +1200, someone purporting to be
news.xtra.co.nz didst scrawl:

>
> "Chris Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:443b6b62$...
*SNIP*
> The thing is , I like to compare NZ with the countries at the top of the
> OECD broadband stats, not with those in the bottom such as aussie.
>
If we're ever to get into the top half, let alone top quarter, we need to
be aiming higher than Aus. Like, at Iceland or Canada (four and six,
IIRC). Aiming at the current number 17 is setting ourselves up for a
miserable failure.

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

"Stephen Williams" <> wrote in message
news:443b74be$...
>
>> As far as I can tell broadband is no more than a nice-to-have luxury when
>> it
>> comes to domestic internet usage. The fact that I even ask the question
>> could also indicate that I am analytical by nature and assume nothing on
>> this subject. You posted the article above - I would like you to explain,
>> in your words, exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that 'broadband
>> is a critical infrastructure component' and that taxpayer-subsidised
>> access would produce 'massive long term benefits'. I too am a taxpayer
>> and would like to know exactly why you propose taxes be spent in this
>> way.
>>
>> Crash.
>
> You are 100% correct, stop trying to make him explain something he cannot.
>
> Recreational use of residential broadband is nothing more than a luxury.
> Those who want it can pay for it, as I do. If I had to go back to dial up
> then there would be no serious consequences. I would just get a bit
> annoyed at web site load times. If that was my biggest problem, then life
> must be very good!
>
> I would rather that the government spends money on reducing medical
> waiting lists, education etc or whatever than rolling out fibre to my
> front door.
>
> Steve
>

but, medical waiting list could be shorter with broadband and the correct
applications.

Heard of telemedicine?

Get back to your cave.

news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
> "Stephen Williams" <> wrote in message
> news:443b74be$...
>>> As far as I can tell broadband is no more than a nice-to-have luxury when
>>> it
>>> comes to domestic internet usage. The fact that I even ask the question
>>> could also indicate that I am analytical by nature and assume nothing on
>>> this subject. You posted the article above - I would like you to explain,
>>> in your words, exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that 'broadband
>>> is a critical infrastructure component' and that taxpayer-subsidised
>>> access would produce 'massive long term benefits'. I too am a taxpayer
>>> and would like to know exactly why you propose taxes be spent in this
>>> way.
>>>
>>> Crash.
>> You are 100% correct, stop trying to make him explain something he cannot.
>>
>> Recreational use of residential broadband is nothing more than a luxury.
>> Those who want it can pay for it, as I do. If I had to go back to dial up
>> then there would be no serious consequences. I would just get a bit
>> annoyed at web site load times. If that was my biggest problem, then life
>> must be very good!
>>
>> I would rather that the government spends money on reducing medical
>> waiting lists, education etc or whatever than rolling out fibre to my
>> front door.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> but, medical waiting list could be shorter with broadband and the correct
> applications.
>
> Heard of telemedicine?
>
> Get back to your cave.
>
>

You may have missed the news last year about the funding of the MUSH
networks.

http://www.computerworld.co.nz/news....=Computerworld

But they have no proposals to lay fiber to your cave.