«

In article <j974hv$64d$>,
(Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

> In article <> , Peter
Huebner <> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> >Not having to deal with telecom is worth it i.m.o. since they have built su=
> >ch a=20
> >bad rep with me.
>
> Agreed, tho I'm sure actrix have to pay telecom, I welcome the opportunity
> to give telecom none of my money directly.

Yep, the unfortunate fact is that Telecom NZ is a monopoly and every
telecomunications company in the country pays them (even wireless
operators like Whoosh or mobile broadband companies have to pay for their
Internet connection to the outside world).

Even if / when a new cable is laid for overseas Internet traffic by
someone else, Telecom NZ still own all the lines, exchanges, etc. and
everyone will still be stuck paying them.

The fools in Government basically handed Telecom NZ more for their
monopoly by giving them the "faster broadband" contracts.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:20:00 +1300, (Your Name)
wrote:

>In article <j974hv$64d$>,
> nz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>
>> In article <> , Peter
>Huebner <> wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>> >Not having to deal with telecom is worth it i.m.o. since they have built su=
>> >ch a=20
>> >bad rep with me.
>>
>> Agreed, tho I'm sure actrix have to pay telecom, I welcome the opportunity
>> to give telecom none of my money directly.
>
>Yep, the unfortunate fact is that Telecom NZ is a monopoly and every
>telecomunications company in the country pays them (even wireless
>operators like Whoosh or mobile broadband companies have to pay for their
>Internet connection to the outside world).
>
>Even if / when a new cable is laid for overseas Internet traffic by
>someone else, Telecom NZ still own all the lines, exchanges, etc. and
>everyone will still be stuck paying them.


Sorry but I don't pay a thing to Telescum, may be you have not heard of
Telstra.

>The fools in Government basically handed Telecom NZ more for their
>monopoly by giving them the "faster broadband" contracts.

In article <>, Frank Williams
<> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:20:00 +1300, (Your Name)
> wrote:
> >In article <j974hv$64d$>,
> > nz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
> >> In article <> , Peter
> >Huebner <> wrote:
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >> >Not having to deal with telecom is worth it i.m.o. since they have
> >> >built such a bad rep with me.
> >>
> >> Agreed, tho I'm sure actrix have to pay telecom, I welcome the opportunity
> >> to give telecom none of my money directly.
> >
> >Yep, the unfortunate fact is that Telecom NZ is a monopoly and every
> >telecomunications company in the country pays them (even wireless
> >operators like Whoosh or mobile broadband companies have to pay for their
> >Internet connection to the outside world).
> >
> >Even if / when a new cable is laid for overseas Internet traffic by
> >someone else, Telecom NZ still own all the lines, exchanges, etc. and
> >everyone will still be stuck paying them.
>
> Sorry but I don't pay a thing to Telescum, may be you have not heard of
> Telstra.

You pay Telstra for your phone / Internet service. Telecom owns 99% of the
the phonelines and exchanges around the country, so Telstra will pay a fee
to Telecom NZ for using them. Hence you indirectly DO pay Telecom NZ.

Thanks to Telecom NZ's monopoly stranglehold, there's absolutely no way
around it in New Zealand (unless of course you don't actually use ANY
phone or Internet services at all).

The only way around it would be for another company to build their own
network nationwide ... something no company will ever actually want to do
because it's hidiously expensive for the tiny size of the market. Even the
mobile phone companies haven't bothered - they all borrow (at a fee) each
others networks where they don't have their own equipment.

On 11/7/2011 1:14 PM, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> I don't know about Sky on the phone bill but I do know that the phone always
>> gets paid on time here. I was two days late paying Telecom one month last
>> year and they added $15 'late fees'! I can't afford too much of at.
>
> Perhaps a direct debit/auto payment is a good option for you ? Might cost a
> buck or 3 to set up depending on who you bank with.
>
> As to the fee you have been charged, and assuming you usually pay on time,
> it's worth writing to ask for a refund. No try no win.


Direct debit isnt worth the risk IMO, if you dont have any money in
there you get slapped with the bank fee and also the late payment costs.
Would rather just have one.

Also makes it a pain if you have money and nothing in the transaction
account so was planning on doing a post shop payment with money, it wont
process in time for the DD not to attempt as well.

In article <j97rij$sm1$>, Richard <> wrote:

> On 11/7/2011 1:14 PM, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> >> I don't know about Sky on the phone bill but I do know that the phone
> >> always gets paid on time here. I was two days late paying Telecom one
> >> month last year and they added $15 'late fees'! I can't afford too much
> >> of at.
> >
> > Perhaps a direct debit/auto payment is a good option for you ? Might cost a
> > buck or 3 to set up depending on who you bank with.
> >
> > As to the fee you have been charged, and assuming you usually pay on time,
> > it's worth writing to ask for a refund. No try no win.
>
> Direct debit isnt worth the risk IMO, if you dont have any money in
> there you get slapped with the bank fee and also the late payment costs.
> Would rather just have one.
>
> Also makes it a pain if you have money and nothing in the transaction
> account so was planning on doing a post shop payment with money, it wont
> process in time for the DD not to attempt as well.

I use an auto-payment via my Visa card for things like the Internet, car
insurance, etc. and then COMPLETELY pay off the Visa card each month with
one transfer from my savings account so that there is no fees (there is a
minor fee for the savings account transfer, but as a "valued customer" I
usually get that refunded each month).

On 7/11/2011 11:36 a.m., Frank Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:45:24 +1300, victor<> wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2011 9:10 p.m., Donchano wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:30:47 +1300, victor<> shouted
>>> from the highest rooftop:
>>>
>>>> On 5/11/2011 5:35 p.m., Gordon wrote:
>>>>> On 2011-11-05, ~misfit~<> wrote:
>>>>>> With my latest landline bill there's a flyer advertising 'Total Home Mobile'
>>>>>> (THM) package. Apparently $99/month for "most Auck, Well, and CHCH suburbs"
>>>>>> or $109 for other areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> {snip} a darn good bit of deeper thinking than Telecom palnned for.
>>>>>
>>>>> A friend of mine commented some many moons ago that It all the same stuff
>>>>> repackaged to look better. Its new so it has to be better Right? Yeah right!
>>>>>
>>>>> This plan to repackage the same total cost works for most "service" companies.
>>>>> Banks, power, ISPs etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real question is it cheaper for me? Not, cool that looks great eh?
>>>>
>>>> They disguise the total cost by excluding the line rental.
>>>> No matter how the government spins it Telecom still gets away with their
>>>> $500 a year line charge, its still a monopoly.
>>>
>>> $500 a year line charge? We've never had an annual line charge like
>>> that. Can you please justifiy that claim?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 12 x the monthly charge.
>>
>> http://www.telecom.co.nz/phoneline/p...tions/homeline
>>
>> Or is there some way of getting round that ?
>>
>
>
> Yes Telstra
>



The equivalent Telstra 60GB + Phone package is $135 compared to $105 on
Telecom.
And Telecoms calls to mobiles are quite a bit cheaper.
The deal-breaker for me is only the setup cost.
Currently looking at Telstra broadband only and an Xnet VFX voip account.
The VOIP services include voicemail, caller id, call forwarding options
etc that are extras on Telecom and Telstra landline plans.
I have used 2talk for outgoing calls for a few years now, but I'm not
ready to port my TC number to them, I have heard some negativity
expressed about their execution of the porting process.

On 7/11/2011 6:33 p.m., Your Name wrote:

>
> You pay Telstra for your phone / Internet service. Telecom owns 99% of the
> the phonelines and exchanges around the country, so Telstra will pay a fee
> to Telecom NZ for using them. Hence you indirectly DO pay Telecom NZ.
>

There are call termination fees in both directions, but what Woger
probably meant was that the TC hybrid network doesn't incur the ~$40
Telecom wholesale line charge that is included in all the ADSL plans.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:33:22 +1300, (Your Name)
wrote:

>In article <>, Frank Williams
><> wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:20:00 +1300, (Your Name)
>> wrote:
>> >In article <j974hv$64d$>,
>> > nz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>> >> In article <> , Peter
>> >Huebner <> wrote:
>> >> (snip)
>> >>
>> >> >Not having to deal with telecom is worth it i.m.o. since they have
>> >> >built such a bad rep with me.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed, tho I'm sure actrix have to pay telecom, I welcome the opportunity
>> >> to give telecom none of my money directly.
>> >
>> >Yep, the unfortunate fact is that Telecom NZ is a monopoly and every
>> >telecomunications company in the country pays them (even wireless
>> >operators like Whoosh or mobile broadband companies have to pay for their
>> >Internet connection to the outside world).
>> >
>> >Even if / when a new cable is laid for overseas Internet traffic by
>> >someone else, Telecom NZ still own all the lines, exchanges, etc. and
>> >everyone will still be stuck paying them.
>>
>> Sorry but I don't pay a thing to Telescum, may be you have not heard of
>> Telstra.
>
>You pay Telstra for your phone / Internet service. Telecom owns 99% of the
>the phonelines and exchanges around the country, so Telstra will pay a fee
>to Telecom NZ for using them. Hence you indirectly DO pay Telecom NZ.

TOTTLY UTTER CRAP.

>Thanks to Telecom NZ's monopoly stranglehold, there's absolutely no way
>around it in New Zealand (unless of course you don't actually use ANY
>phone or Internet services at all).
>
>The only way around it would be for another company to build their own
>network nationwide ... something no company will ever actually want to do
>because it's hidiously expensive for the tiny size of the market. Even the
>mobile phone companies haven't bothered - they all borrow (at a fee) each
>others networks where they don't have their own equipment.

In article <>, Frank Williams
<> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:33:22 +1300, (Your Name)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <>, Frank Williams
> ><> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:20:00 +1300, (Your Name)
> >> wrote:
> >> >In article <j974hv$64d$>,
> >> > nz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
> >> >> In article <> , Peter
> >> >Huebner <> wrote:
> >> >> (snip)
> >> >>
> >> >> >Not having to deal with telecom is worth it i.m.o. since they have
> >> >> >built such a bad rep with me.
> >> >>
> >> >> Agreed, tho I'm sure actrix have to pay telecom, I welcome the
> >> >> opportunity to give telecom none of my money directly.
> >> >
> >> >Yep, the unfortunate fact is that Telecom NZ is a monopoly and every
> >> >telecomunications company in the country pays them (even wireless
> >> >operators like Whoosh or mobile broadband companies have to pay for their
> >> >Internet connection to the outside world).
> >> >
> >> >Even if / when a new cable is laid for overseas Internet traffic by
> >> >someone else, Telecom NZ still own all the lines, exchanges, etc. and
> >> >everyone will still be stuck paying them.
> >>
> >> Sorry but I don't pay a thing to Telescum, may be you have not heard of
> >> Telstra.
> >
> >You pay Telstra for your phone / Internet service. Telecom owns 99% of the
> >the phonelines and exchanges around the country, so Telstra will pay a fee
> >to Telecom NZ for using them. Hence you indirectly DO pay Telecom NZ.
>
> TOTTLY UTTER CRAP.

Whatever garbage you want to delude yourself with. :-\

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article <j926ih$mrq$>, "~misfit~"
> <> wrote: (snip)
>
>> <going a little OT>
>>
>> Ok, sorry, as you were. That seems like it was an excercise in
>> futility. As it is W&I reduced my benefit by $11/week in September
>> and said at that time they're going to reduce it a further $30/week,
>> (I can't remember if it was in 3 months or 6 months as I was in
>> shock). Since September my credit card debts have crept up a little,
>> I didn't have an 'wiggle room' on my previous benefit level and it's
>> starting to show . When they drop me by another $30 (if I can't
>> head it off) a warm bath with a razor and/or a hairdrier might be
>> nice.
>
> .. hopefully for the deciders of the stupidity ?

Yeah, well, if only....

As it is my only recourse is to spill my guts to them in a letter,
essentially lose any dignity I have left and list all the ways in which my
disability effects me. I mean, the specialist who ordered an MRI earlier
this year, after looking at it said that I shouldn't be doing vacuuming yet
alone lawnmowing (thanks to whoever invented mulching mowers), and that
perhaps I should look at 'assisted living'.

Bugger that! However, I get such a low benefit (read: return on the tax I
paid for 20+ years) that I'm forced to live in a ghetto where the contents
insurance is $700 p.a., regardless of amount insured. So that has to go on a
credit card, which I have to try to pay off....

They're giving me **** for having debt yet it's only because they don't give
me enough to live on. Car rego comes around... It simply has to go on the
credit card, I don't have enough in my monthly budget to pay it. (Gave up
smoking, drinking, travelling to visit [so friends slowly went away], had
the dog put down, stopped keeping tropical fish, eat meat about once a month
and that's mince, bought a flat-bottom jug so I only boil 250ml of water for
a coffee, not minimum of 0.5l like most jugs, no longer use incandescant
bulbs... And I still can't afford to have a biscuit with the damn Pam's
coffee!)

LOL, sorry, wrong group. I've been putting off writing this letter that I
need to.... Listing what my life (which was once so full of promise) has
devolved into for strangers to read in the hope that they'll *not* decrease
my benefit (that was inadequate anyway) isn't a task I find easy.

I wish I knew of an organisation which would help me, supply me with an
advocate. I used to be a member of the beneficiaries union but that just
cost dues, no help was forthcoming.

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)