A call to arms for regulation against Telecom

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Mark C, Feb 19, 2006.

  1. Mark C

    Mark C Guest

    Mark C, Feb 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark C

    Nova Guest

    Mark C wrote:
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/912DFA4BDEB5E994CC2571170075A005
    >
    > | Regulation - time to get its boots on
    > | Light-handed regulation has failed, so it's time for a boots-and-all approach
    > | By Paul Brislen, Auckland | Monday, 20 February, 2006


    It's incredible that as everyone moans about caps, telecom lower them
    basically. ISPs that were allocated 10 gigs per user, now get 3 gigs
    per user.. and the 3.5 megabit plans which I assume would attract the
    people that want 3.5 megabits cause they want high speed have to suffer
    with a 148:1 ratio... good luck getting those high speeds even though
    you are paying for them..

    They offer these marketable "higher speeds" to try and fool the ignorant
    but lower the allowance for ISP's and increase the ratio of users so
    they are probably going to be worse off!...Hopefully the masses can see
    pass this scam which is basically what it is.
     
    Nova, Feb 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark C

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Nova wrote:
    > Mark C wrote:
    >> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/912DFA4BDEB5E994CC2571170075A005
    >>
    >> | Regulation - time to get its boots on
    >> | Light-handed regulation has failed, so it's time for a boots-and-all
    >> approach
    >> | By Paul Brislen, Auckland | Monday, 20 February, 2006

    >
    > It's incredible that as everyone moans about caps, telecom lower them
    > basically. ISPs that were allocated 10 gigs per user, now get 3 gigs
    > per user.. and the 3.5 megabit plans which I assume would attract the
    > people that want 3.5 megabits cause they want high speed have to suffer
    > with a 148:1 ratio... good luck getting those high speeds even though
    > you are paying for them..
    >
    > They offer these marketable "higher speeds" to try and fool the ignorant
    > but lower the allowance for ISP's and increase the ratio of users so
    > they are probably going to be worse off!...Hopefully the masses can see
    > pass this scam which is basically what it is.
    >


    Y'reckon? I think several here got caught moving from 256->2M orcon
    plans, so what hope is there of your average net user noticing what is
    going on?
     
    -=rjh=-, Feb 20, 2006
    #3
  4. Mark C

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>, Nova <> wrote:

    > Mark C wrote:
    > > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/912DFA4BDEB5E994CC2571170075A005
    > >
    > > | Regulation - time to get its boots on
    > > | Light-handed regulation has failed, so it's time for a boots-and-all
    > > | approach
    > > | By Paul Brislen, Auckland | Monday, 20 February, 2006

    >
    > It's incredible that as everyone moans about caps, telecom lower them
    > basically. ISPs that were allocated 10 gigs per user, now get 3 gigs
    > per user.. and the 3.5 megabit plans which I assume would attract the
    > people that want 3.5 megabits cause they want high speed have to suffer
    > with a 148:1 ratio... good luck getting those high speeds even though
    > you are paying for them..



    I feel that there must be some means under the fair trading act to
    complain. If they are offering a 3.5Mbit service there MUST be fair and
    reasonable chance of obtaining it under normal useage, after all THAT is
    why they are charging more money for it.
     
    whoisthis, Feb 20, 2006
    #4
  5. Mark C

    ~misfit~ Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > Nova wrote:
    >> Mark C wrote:
    >>> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/912DFA4BDEB5E994CC2571170075A005
    >>>
    >>>> Regulation - time to get its boots on
    >>>> Light-handed regulation has failed, so it's time for a
    >>>> boots-and-all approach By Paul Brislen, Auckland | Monday, 20
    >>>> February, 2006

    >>
    >> It's incredible that as everyone moans about caps, telecom lower them
    >> basically. ISPs that were allocated 10 gigs per user, now get 3 gigs
    >> per user.. and the 3.5 megabit plans which I assume would attract
    >> the people that want 3.5 megabits cause they want high speed have to
    >> suffer with a 148:1 ratio... good luck getting those high speeds
    >> even though you are paying for them..
    >>
    >> They offer these marketable "higher speeds" to try and fool the
    >> ignorant but lower the allowance for ISP's and increase the ratio of
    >> users so they are probably going to be worse off!...Hopefully the
    >> masses can see pass this scam which is basically what it is.
    >>

    >
    > Y'reckon? I think several here got caught moving from 256->2M orcon
    > plans, so what hope is there of your average net user noticing what is
    > going on?


    Hey! I resembled that comment. Dumbest thing I ever did. Oh, except that
    time I ......... Nah, I'll leave it at that. ;-)
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 20, 2006
    #5
  6. Mark C

    joe_90 Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <>, Nova <> wrote:
    >
    >> Mark C wrote:
    >>> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/912DFA4BDEB5E994CC2571170075A005
    >>>
    >>> | Regulation - time to get its boots on
    >>> | Light-handed regulation has failed, so it's time for a boots-and-all
    >>> | approach
    >>> | By Paul Brislen, Auckland | Monday, 20 February, 2006

    >> It's incredible that as everyone moans about caps, telecom lower them
    >> basically. ISPs that were allocated 10 gigs per user, now get 3 gigs
    >> per user.. and the 3.5 megabit plans which I assume would attract the
    >> people that want 3.5 megabits cause they want high speed have to suffer
    >> with a 148:1 ratio... good luck getting those high speeds even though
    >> you are paying for them..

    >
    >
    > I feel that there must be some means under the fair trading act to
    > complain. If they are offering a 3.5Mbit service there MUST be fair and
    > reasonable chance of obtaining it under normal useage, after all THAT is
    > why they are charging more money for it.


    Well in their Wholesale Bulletin of Aug 24 2005 they explain "Why
    end-users do not get guaranteed full-time access to the bandwidth".

    http://www.telecom.co.nz/binarys/ws_bulletin_august_24_2005.pdf

    In comparing the dial-up scenario to broadband they come out with a
    statement that "If the line is busy, the customer must 'grin and bear
    it' hang-up and try later - that is the nature of the service - which
    customers accept", which for me sums up the arrogance of this company.
     
    joe_90, Feb 20, 2006
    #6
  7. Mark C

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <1140422357.318891@ftpsrv1>,
    joe_90 <joe_90_remove@nospam_myhttpmail.com> wrote:

    > > I feel that there must be some means under the fair trading act to
    > > complain. If they are offering a 3.5Mbit service there MUST be fair and
    > > reasonable chance of obtaining it under normal useage, after all THAT is
    > > why they are charging more money for it.

    >
    > Well in their Wholesale Bulletin of Aug 24 2005 they explain "Why
    > end-users do not get guaranteed full-time access to the bandwidth".
    >
    > http://www.telecom.co.nz/binarys/ws_bulletin_august_24_2005.pdf
    >
    > In comparing the dial-up scenario to broadband they come out with a
    > statement that "If the line is busy, the customer must 'grin and bear
    > it' hang-up and try later - that is the nature of the service - which
    > customers accept", which for me sums up the arrogance of this company.


    That is fine, because the reality is that you are likely to connect via
    dial up 90% plus of the time, however you are unlikely to ever achieve
    the stated broadband speeds that they advertise and you pay for. THAT is
    a huge difference in levels of service.

    so, as I stated , there must be a reasonable chance to obtain the
    broadband speed they advertise and you pay for, just as there is a
    reasonable chance of connecting via dialup.
     
    whoisthis, Feb 20, 2006
    #7
  8. Mark C

    Peter Guest

    whoisthis wrote:

    >> In comparing the dial-up scenario to broadband they come out with a
    >> statement that "If the line is busy, the customer must 'grin and bear
    >> it' hang-up and try later - that is the nature of the service - which
    >> customers accept", which for me sums up the arrogance of this company.


    Telecom misses the point here. A 'busy' terminating line is of course
    beyond Telecom's control. However there is always the probability that a
    telephone call fails because all links at some stage are 'busy'. For
    ordinary telephone service this aspect is trivial nowadays since investment
    in this tends to be trivial compared with revenues. In years gone by,
    engineers versed in statistics and probability theory would carefully
    calculate the number of junctions and switches (very expensive 'two motion'
    Strowger selectors) required to give a reasonable 'grade of service'.

    >
    > That is fine, because the reality is that you are likely to connect via
    > dial up 90% plus of the time, however you are unlikely to ever achieve
    > the stated broadband speeds that they advertise and you pay for. THAT is
    > a huge difference in levels of service.
    >
    > so, as I stated , there must be a reasonable chance to obtain the
    > broadband speed they advertise and you pay for, just as there is a
    > reasonable chance of connecting via dialup.


    However it seems that the phone companies are reluctant to eat into profits
    by properly provisioning internet connections and are hence 'conditioning'
    customers to accept a rather unsatisfactory service.
     
    Peter, Feb 20, 2006
    #8
  9. Mark C

    Mercury Guest

    Telecom's stock answer for a busy line always used to be that the fault was
    with Windows and to re-install...

    Ditto for their Radius and DNS server overloading.

    If you argued and used logic they would then often tell you to fiddle with
    DNS server IP addresses.... Worked a treat with novices to IP addressing.
    Oh, and those poor users that would spend hours on the voice line persisting
    on getting things fixed - inflicted on them by telecom / xtra refusing to
    acknowledge outages at their end.

    At least DSL works most of the time.
     
    Mercury, Feb 22, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Darrell Larose

    Arms Race

    Darrell Larose, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    404
    Brian C. Baird
    Sep 21, 2004
  2. ~Darrell Larose~

    Arms Race, part 2

    ~Darrell Larose~, Sep 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    433
    David J. Littleboy
    Sep 30, 2004
  3. edwardo

    Looking for site to print out free coats of arms

    edwardo, Sep 5, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,481
    Jan Ras
    Sep 8, 2006
  4. Blig Merk
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,958
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
    Apr 27, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,441
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page