A win for Woosh! unbundling, what a waste of time...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Don Gould, May 20, 2004.

  1. Don Gould

    Don Gould Guest

    I'd like to know how many of you that slag off Swan for following Webb's
    advise actually know anything about how cable works from first hand
    experience.

    I'd also like to know how much research most of you have done into the
    question around the world other than to quote an OECD report and I'm
    also guessing most of you have never read either.

    I'd also like to know how many of you have actually talked to people
    with in Telstra about why they stopped roll out in Christchurch.

    I'd also like to know how many of you have any idea what other plans
    Telstra have cooking in the technology department. For that matter how
    many of you know anything about what Telstra is actually doing in
    Christchurch at present?

    I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and asked
    them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of costs
    that they deliver them in other parts of the world.

    I'd also like to know what you people think would happen to ventures
    like Woosh (who are just starting to get established) if this unbundling
    had gone ahead.

    I'd also like to know what 'new technology' you think Mrs Howard was
    talking about on the TV last night that's been blocked.

    Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small towns
    in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how hard/easy it
    would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with Gigbit Ethernet.

    With public views like those expressed by most of you on this list any
    suggestion would be just swamped before it got started.

    It appears to me that many of your are nothing more than part of the
    international collective that want to see the telephone network smashed
    up and replaced by nothing but cable and sat tv.

    Cheers Don
     
    Don Gould, May 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don Gould

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    Don Gould wrote:
    > I'd like to know how many of you that slag off Swan for following Webb's
    > advise actually know anything about how cable works from first hand
    > experience.



    [snip]


    > It appears to me that many of your are nothing more than part of the
    > international collective that want to see the telephone network smashed
    > up and replaced by nothing but cable and sat tv.
    >
    > Cheers Don

    You must have a death wish to raise so many good points at once :)
     
    Chris Mayhew, May 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <z5Wqc.7481$>, Don Gould <> was seen to type:
    >Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >>>I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and asked
    >>>them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of costs
    >>>that they deliver them in other parts of the world.

    >>
    >> NZ is too spread out geographically, neither Telecom nor Vodaphone can
    >> cover the whole country without charging, and Telecom sure as hell isn't
    >> interested in far flung places when it comes to copper.

    >
    >The question I raised was directed at Vodafone and not Telecom.
    >NZ isn't that spread out at all. We manage to get 240v to most places
    >without to much hassle.


    ... but if you are the first one needing powere in a rural area,
    expect to pay thousands for the priviledge.


    Bruce


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
    think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
    If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
    I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
    of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
    the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

    Caution === followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there weere any)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, May 20, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <O3Tqc.7398$>,
    says...
    > I'd like to know how many of you that slag off Swan for following Webb's
    > advise actually know anything about how cable works from first hand
    > experience.
    >
    > I'd also like to know how much research most of you have done into the
    > question around the world other than to quote an OECD report and I'm
    > also guessing most of you have never read either.
    >
    > I'd also like to know how many of you have actually talked to people
    > with in Telstra about why they stopped roll out in Christchurch.


    It cost too much to lay their own cable network. (Kapiti Coast as well)

    > I'd also like to know how many of you have any idea what other plans
    > Telstra have cooking in the technology department. For that matter how
    > many of you know anything about what Telstra is actually doing in
    > Christchurch at present?
    >
    > I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and asked
    > them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of costs
    > that they deliver them in other parts of the world.


    NZ is too spread out geographically, neither Telecom nor Vodaphone can
    cover the whole country without charging, and Telecom sure as hell isn't
    interested in far flung places when it comes to copper.

    > I'd also like to know what you people think would happen to ventures
    > like Woosh (who are just starting to get established) if this unbundling
    > had gone ahead.


    Who cares?

    > Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small towns
    > in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how hard/easy it
    > would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with Gigbit Ethernet.
    >
    > With public views like those expressed by most of you on this list any
    > suggestion would be just swamped before it got started.


    You could only do it in a small town because the total cost of laying the
    cable wouldn't be that much.

    > It appears to me that many of your are nothing more than part of the
    > international collective that want to see the telephone network smashed
    > up and replaced by nothing but cable and sat tv.


    Well I'm not part of the international collective that wants to see
    Microsoft smashed and replaced by linux :)
     
    Patrick Dunford, May 20, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>, Patrick Dunford <> was seen to type:
    >In article <z5Wqc.7481$>,
    > says...
    >> Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >>
    >> >>I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and asked
    >> >>them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of costs
    >> >>that they deliver them in other parts of the world.
    >> >
    >> > NZ is too spread out geographically, neither Telecom nor Vodaphone can
    >> > cover the whole country without charging, and Telecom sure as hell isn't
    >> > interested in far flung places when it comes to copper.

    >>
    >> The question I raised was directed at Vodafone and not Telecom.
    >>
    >> NZ isn't that spread out at all. We manage to get 240v to most places
    >> without to much hassle.

    >
    >It was only done because the government owned all the infrastructure,
    >even now there are places where the lines companies would just love to
    >refuse service.


    They don't refuse ... they just up the price until you can't afford
    it.


    Bruce


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
    think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
    If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
    I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
    of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
    the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

    Caution === followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there weere any)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, May 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Don Gould

    Don Gould Guest

    Patrick Dunford wrote:

    >>
    >>I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and asked
    >>them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of costs
    >>that they deliver them in other parts of the world.

    >
    >
    > NZ is too spread out geographically, neither Telecom nor Vodaphone can
    > cover the whole country without charging, and Telecom sure as hell isn't
    > interested in far flung places when it comes to copper.


    The question I raised was directed at Vodafone and not Telecom.

    NZ isn't that spread out at all. We manage to get 240v to most places
    without to much hassle.

    Wireless nextworks like those used for mobile phones are meant to be far
    cheaper to deploy than cable based solutions.

    How log does it take to get ROI on mobile technology?


    >>I'd also like to know what you people think would happen to ventures
    >>like Woosh (who are just starting to get established) if this unbundling
    >>had gone ahead.

    >
    >
    > Who cares?


    Hummm.... one minute people are complaining about unbundling and the
    next you don't care about the competition that already exists in the
    market place today.

    >>Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small towns
    >>in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how hard/easy it
    >>would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with Gigbit Ethernet.
    >>
    >>With public views like those expressed by most of you on this list any
    >>suggestion would be just swamped before it got started.

    >
    >
    > You could only do it in a small town because the total cost of laying the
    > cable wouldn't be that much.


    Please tell me how you justify that statement.

    What is the difference between a town with 1000 homes and a suburb with
    1000 homes?

    If you used the right technology then installing cable really shouldn't
    be that expensive.

    Look at the technology that Telecom have used for decades.

    Telstra put two systems in place at once in Christchurch.

    Telstra also put a lot of very expensive looking housing in at the same
    time. Can't help wondering what they intended all that housing for, it
    must be more than just the little cable amplifiers.

    >>It appears to me that many of your are nothing more than part of the
    >>international collective that want to see the telephone network smashed
    >>up and replaced by nothing but cable and sat tv.


    > Well I'm not part of the international collective that wants to see
    > Microsoft smashed and replaced by linux :)


    That collective seems to be growing and at least many seem to focus on
    delivering useful solutions that lead to more economic growth.

    Distroying our telephone network will only lead to harm to commuication
    which in turn breads mistrust and misunderstanding which in turn leads
    to a loss of peace.

    We need quality communication solutions that everyone can afford and use
    as much as they like.

    Cheers Don
     
    Don Gould, May 20, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <z5Wqc.7481$>,
    says...
    > Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    > >>
    > >>I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and asked
    > >>them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of costs
    > >>that they deliver them in other parts of the world.

    > >
    > >
    > > NZ is too spread out geographically, neither Telecom nor Vodaphone can
    > > cover the whole country without charging, and Telecom sure as hell isn't
    > > interested in far flung places when it comes to copper.

    >
    > The question I raised was directed at Vodafone and not Telecom.
    >
    > NZ isn't that spread out at all. We manage to get 240v to most places
    > without to much hassle.


    It was only done because the government owned all the infrastructure,
    even now there are places where the lines companies would just love to
    refuse service.

    > Wireless nextworks like those used for mobile phones are meant to be far
    > cheaper to deploy than cable based solutions.


    In mountainous/hilly terrain, which applies to a lot of NZ, it gets more
    expensive. Doesn't matter how cheap it is, for example power is still
    needed, and it has to make a return on the number of subscribers. You
    don't just need to cover one township, you need to cover major roads over
    a distance, because that's what mobile is about. For example telecom
    advertises high percentage coverage of State Highway 1.

    > > Who cares?

    >
    > Hummm.... one minute people are complaining about unbundling and the
    > next you don't care about the competition that already exists in the
    > market place today.


    The competition can take their normal business risks, wireless is never
    going to totally supersede copper.

    > >>Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small towns
    > >>in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how hard/easy it
    > >>would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with Gigbit Ethernet.
    > >>
    > >>With public views like those expressed by most of you on this list any
    > >>suggestion would be just swamped before it got started.

    > >
    > >
    > > You could only do it in a small town because the total cost of laying the
    > > cable wouldn't be that much.

    >
    > Please tell me how you justify that statement.
    >
    > What is the difference between a town with 1000 homes and a suburb with
    > 1000 homes?
    >
    > If you used the right technology then installing cable really shouldn't
    > be that expensive.


    Anything that involves digging up the ground is expensive. Why don't we
    have competing power networks? Everyone needs power.

    >
    > Look at the technology that Telecom have used for decades.
    >
    > Telstra put two systems in place at once in Christchurch.
    >
    > Telstra also put a lot of very expensive looking housing in at the same
    > time. Can't help wondering what they intended all that housing for, it
    > must be more than just the little cable amplifiers.


    Probably why the cost was so high, and why they had to end it.

    > >>It appears to me that many of your are nothing more than part of the
    > >>international collective that want to see the telephone network smashed
    > >>up and replaced by nothing but cable and sat tv.

    >
    > > Well I'm not part of the international collective that wants to see
    > > Microsoft smashed and replaced by linux :)

    >
    > That collective seems to be growing and at least many seem to focus on
    > delivering useful solutions that lead to more economic growth.


    The collective is full of people who want to destroy MS for purely
    ideological reasons. If that's legit then so are the people who want the
    lines taken off Telecom for the same.

    > Distroying our telephone network will only lead to harm to commuication
    > which in turn breads mistrust and misunderstanding which in turn leads
    > to a loss of peace.


    Destroy? Are the power line companies ripping out their wires? Gimme a
    break - they have a guaranteed market! Copper phone lines are not going
    to disappear just because Telecom doesn't own them.
     
    Patrick Dunford, May 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Don Gould

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:34:22 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:

    >> I'd also like to know how many of you have actually talked to people
    >> with in Telstra about why they stopped roll out in Christchurch.

    >
    > It cost too much to lay their own cable network. (Kapiti Coast as well)


    Ah, Clear took 'em over.
     
    Gordon, May 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Don Gould

    David Preece Guest

    Before I reply I would like to start by saying: Sir, outstanding troll.
    Please let me take the bait....

    Don Gould wrote:
    > I'd like to know how many of you that slag off Swan for following Webb's
    > advise actually know anything about how cable works from first hand
    > experience.


    I assume you mean phone lines i.e. the copper buried in the ground,
    rather than cable i.e. cable modem?

    > I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and asked
    > them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of costs
    > that they deliver them in other parts of the world.


    Why would they? The bar is set so entirely low by Telecom that they can
    get away with charging pretty well what they like.

    > I'd also like to know what you people think would happen to ventures
    > like Woosh (who are just starting to get established) if this unbundling
    > had gone ahead.


    OK, better question.

    Answer 1, who really gives a shit? It's not like Woosh are the masked
    telco avenger, here to save us from crappy DSL connections from
    monopolistic telcos are they? They are making money. Woosh have been
    working WITH Telecom, hard as hell, helping lobby for unbundling to not
    happen. They are out to make money, by removing it from your pocket.

    Answer 2, there would be ventures, but they wouldn't be like Woosh. Any
    Tom, Dick or Harriet can stick a micro DSLAM in a phone exchange,
    backhaul it and call themselves an ISP. Or a digital TV provider. Or a
    VoIP provider. Or a provider of some service we haven't thought of yet.
    Point with no unbundling is that since Telecom have maintained control
    of the DSL network (requiring people to buy shares in it off them), they
    can make damn certain that these ventures simply don't happen. Be it by
    regulatory, contractual or technical means.

    Answer 3, unbundling at this late stage ultimately makes no difference.
    BCL have upgraded their network in order to land a bunch of Probe
    contracts, Vodafone are going to be dropping 3G in ... it's all too late.

    > Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small towns
    > in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how hard/easy it
    > would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with Gigbit Ethernet.


    Have you visited Citylink and asked?
    >
    > It appears to me that many of your are nothing more than part of the
    > international collective that want to see the telephone network smashed
    > up and replaced by nothing but cable and sat tv.


    No. I want to see the telephone network smashed up and replaced by a
    high quality IP one. If we could get a low latency megabit to every door
    in New Zealand, the economic gains would be fabulous. For a start every
    phone bill in the country would go down by ... ahhh ... 80%? New Zealand
    would quickly become a world leader in creating collaborative
    technologies. We'd all need to fly from A to B a hell of a lot less. As
    a country we'd save tens of billions of dollars a year. But it's not
    going to happen.

    For what it's worth I think the Webb/Swain compromise is actually the
    best we could get, given where we are now. Had unbundling taken place
    five or ten years ago, when it should have done, we would be looking at
    some very serious investment in our countries IP infrastructure and daft
    crap like data caps would be laughed at like the third world suggestion
    they truly are. A megabit to every door? Maybe not. But two to anyone
    that wants it is easily achievable.

    Instead we find ourselves in a position where the medium scale players,
    the Orcon's of this world, can resell Telecom's crappy DSL network and
    make a fair bit of coin out of it. Orcon weren't about to raise the
    quarter billion or so dollars it would take to provide national DSL
    coverage through their own network ... the VC scene here is just too
    conservative.

    The other thing is that this may well yet come to bite Telecom in the
    butt. There are a lot of changes afoot in the wireless world and I'd be
    surprised if we didn't start seeing companies creating 802.11a/b/g
    bubbles backhauled over WiMax (up to 268Mbit/sec). WiMax is also QoS
    assured, which means phone calls ... not to mention video conferencing.
    In a world where this has happened, the last thing you want to own is
    tens of thousands of kilometres of copper buried in the ground.

    Dave
     
    David Preece, May 20, 2004
    #9
  10. Don Gould

    Mike_P Guest

    "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 20 May 2004 15:34:22 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    > >> I'd also like to know how many of you have actually talked to people
    > >> with in Telstra about why they stopped roll out in Christchurch.

    > >
    > > It cost too much to lay their own cable network. (Kapiti Coast as well)

    >
    > Ah, Clear took 'em over.


    um, other way around wasn't it ?
     
    Mike_P, May 20, 2004
    #10
  11. Don Gould

    Don Gould Guest

    David Preece wrote:
    > Before I reply I would like to start by saying: Sir, outstanding troll.


    Hi David,

    This wasn't an attempt at a troll... it was infact a slap on those who
    rant and rant and rant endlessly about what someone else should be doing
    while neither doing anything them selves nor making much effort to
    understand what is actually going on.

    > Please let me take the bait....


    Please do, your comments were very worth reading.

    > Don Gould wrote:
    >
    >> I'd like to know how many of you that slag off Swan for following
    >> Webb's advise actually know anything about how cable works from first
    >> hand experience.

    >
    >
    > I assume you mean phone lines i.e. the copper buried in the ground,
    > rather than cable i.e. cable modem?


    Yes, you're right I ws refering to cabling 'systems' and not cable as in
    that used by TelstraClear in Christchurch to deliver internet and paytv.

    >> I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and
    >> asked them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of
    >> costs that they deliver them in other parts of the world.

    >
    >
    > Why would they? The bar is set so entirely low by Telecom that they can
    > get away with charging pretty well what they like.


    I assume your question is targeted at Vodafone and not the list members
    who my question was targeted at.

    Why Vodafone would venture in to this market is because they could open
    up a heap of opportunities now and in the furture. Yes it could impact
    on existing business but that could be managed with product bundles.

    The technology exists, why not do it?

    Ericsson are currently asking Vodafone just this question as they have
    the equipment to make it work.

    >> I'd also like to know what you people think would happen to ventures
    >> like Woosh (who are just starting to get established) if this
    >> unbundling had gone ahead.

    >
    >
    > OK, better question.
    >
    > Answer 1, who really gives a shit? It's not like Woosh are the masked
    > telco avenger, here to save us from crappy DSL connections from
    > monopolistic telcos are they? They are making money. Woosh have been
    > working WITH Telecom, hard as hell, helping lobby for unbundling to not
    > happen. They are out to make money, by removing it from your pocket.


    You seem to miss the point that the mission here isn't to take all the
    revenue out of telecommunications but to get beter products and services
    delivered to the community.

    [snip]

    > Answer 3, unbundling at this late stage ultimately makes no difference.


    Exactly - it's all nothing but a smoke screen and the government have
    put an end to it.

    > BCL have upgraded their network in order to land a bunch of Probe
    > contracts, Vodafone are going to be dropping 3G in ... it's all too late.


    Both of which are good for the telecommunications economoy and have
    created work for many New Zealanders.

    >> Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small
    >> towns in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how
    >> hard/easy it would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with Gigbit
    >> Ethernet.

    >
    >
    > Have you visited Citylink and asked?


    Yes.

    >>
    >> It appears to me that many of your are nothing more than part of the
    >> international collective that want to see the telephone network
    >> smashed up and replaced by nothing but cable and sat tv.

    >
    >
    > No. I want to see the telephone network smashed up and replaced by a
    > high quality IP one. If we could get a low latency megabit to every door
    > in New Zealand, the economic gains would be fabulous.


    I agree that we want a megabit network to every home eventually.

    Smashing up the telephone network to get it is a dumb idea.

    > For a start every
    > phone bill in the country would go down by ... ahhh ... 80%? New Zealand
    > would quickly become a world leader in creating collaborative
    > technologies.


    So we'd have a fantastic network that a minority of geeks would do what
    with?

    Most people are seeing JetStream as nothing more than a way to get your
    email more quickly.


    > We'd all need to fly from A to B a hell of a lot less. As
    > a country we'd save tens of billions of dollars a year. But it's not
    > going to happen.



    Do some sums and I think you'd find that we'd loose more than we gain if
    we had a big impact on regional travel.

    How many business benefit from domestic business travlers?

    > Instead we find ourselves in a position where the medium scale players,
    > the Orcon's of this world, can resell Telecom's crappy DSL network and
    > make a fair bit of coin out of it. Orcon weren't about to raise the
    > quarter billion or so dollars it would take to provide national DSL
    > coverage through their own network ... the VC scene here is just too
    > conservative.


    VC = what?

    > The other thing is that this may well yet come to bite Telecom in the
    > butt. There are a lot of changes afoot in the wireless world and I'd be
    > surprised if we didn't start seeing companies creating 802.11a/b/g
    > bubbles backhauled over WiMax (up to 268Mbit/sec). WiMax is also QoS
    > assured, which means phone calls ... not to mention video conferencing.
    > In a world where this has happened, the last thing you want to own is
    > tens of thousands of kilometres of copper buried in the ground.


    Now you're making sense.

    Cheers Don
     
    Don Gould, May 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Don Gould

    bodger Guest

    > The other thing is that this may well yet come to bite Telecom in the
    > butt. There are a lot of changes afoot in the wireless world and I'd be
    > surprised if we didn't start seeing companies creating 802.11a/b/g
    > bubbles backhauled over WiMax (up to 268Mbit/sec). WiMax is also QoS
    > assured, which means phone calls ... not to mention video conferencing.


    When would this be likely and what sort of infrastructure would be needed?
     
    bodger, May 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Don Gould

    brundlefly Guest

    "bodger" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > The other thing is that this may well yet come to bite Telecom in the
    > > butt. There are a lot of changes afoot in the wireless world and I'd be
    > > surprised if we didn't start seeing companies creating 802.11a/b/g
    > > bubbles backhauled over WiMax (up to 268Mbit/sec). WiMax is also QoS
    > > assured, which means phone calls ... not to mention video conferencing.

    >
    > When would this be likely and what sort of infrastructure would be needed?
    >
    >


    Similar site coverage to cellphone sites I suppose
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX
    Its called 802.16, Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks
    http://www.alvarion.com/RunTime/Materials/pdffiles/Wimax_wp.pdf
     
    brundlefly, May 21, 2004
    #13
  14. > The other thing is that this may well yet come to bite Telecom in the
    > butt. There are a lot of changes afoot in the wireless world and I'd be
    > surprised if we didn't start seeing companies creating 802.11a/b/g
    > bubbles backhauled over WiMax (up to 268Mbit/sec). WiMax is also QoS
    > assured, which means phone calls ... not to mention video conferencing.


    So why was some wanker rabbiting on in this morning's paper about
    voip and video-on-demand as being the frilly end of the market,
    too expensive, won't happen for a long time yet....

    voip is my end of the market as a client, I see claims some
    are offering for prices from 10c/min down to 0

    video on demand is my end of the market as a provider.
    I have the material, I have the servers, I have the clients.
    all I need is a wire to connect them.
     
    J.Random Luser, May 21, 2004
    #14
  15. Don Gould

    David Preece Guest

    Don Gould wrote:
    >>> I'd also like to know what you people think would happen to ventures
    >>> like Woosh


    >> Answer 1, who really gives a shit? It's not like Woosh are the masked
    >> telco avenger, here to save us from crappy DSL connections from
    >> monopolistic telcos are they?

    >
    > You seem to miss the point that the mission here isn't to take all the
    > revenue out of telecommunications but to get beter products and services
    > delivered to the community.


    Ummm, OK. I can see how it came across that way. Problem IMHO is that
    while these services could be provided right now, it's either not
    economic to do so because of the high marginal costs (i.e. $0.1/MB or
    whatever the rate is now), or technically infeasible due to the low
    quality of our connections.

    The *real* problem with Telcos is that very nearly all of their income
    comes from voice, and VoIP is almost infinitely cheap. This leads to all
    sorts of bizarre things happening, like data moving over mobile phone
    networks having *heaps* of latency put on (1500ms is not unheard of) to
    prevent people from running VoIP apps on it and saving themselves a
    fortune. This is why Woosh have just decided not to use VoIP, but use
    the voice channels built into the chipsets instead.

    In order for a whole bunch of "next gen" services to be rolled out, the
    plumbing needs to be put in by people that have no income from an
    existing voice infrastructure. Citylink are an excellent example of this.

    >> BCL have upgraded their network in order to land a bunch of Probe
    >> contracts, Vodafone are going to be dropping 3G in ... it's all too late.

    >
    > Both of which are good for the telecommunications economoy and have
    > created work for many New Zealanders.


    Ahhh! The broken window fallacy, my favourite fallacy of all time.
    Someone breaks a window then does a runner. Everyone stands around
    saying what a shit it is, except something has to keep glaziers, people
    that make glass etc. in business. This is wrong - there is no overall
    economic gain here, and these people would be better used doing
    something that did have a purpose after all.

    Ditto the armada of people patching windows machines constantly,
    complete waste of time.

    While scampering around building new IP infrastructure appears to be
    creating employment, value, wealth etc., had we dropped in a functioning
    infrastructure in the first place then everything would have been much
    better. OTOH a lot of this is entirely new infrastructure, and there is
    little doubt that it's existence, particularly Probe, will create
    genuine wealth and an improvement of the quality of life for many New
    Zealanders.

    >>> Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small
    >>> towns in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how
    >>> hard/easy it would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with
    >>> Gigbit Ethernet.

    >>
    >> Have you visited Citylink and asked?

    >
    > Yes.


    What did they say?

    > I agree that we want a megabit network to every home eventually.
    >
    > Smashing up the telephone network to get it is a dumb idea.


    Yeah, I guess. But if we drop in the right IP infrastructure there will
    be cobwebs hanging off the phone system in a matter of months.

    > So we'd have a fantastic network that a minority of geeks would do what
    > with?


    It's not for a minority of geeks. It's for people. To communicate with.
    It just takes a minority of geeks playing around with it in order to
    make it usable for the ordinary man/woman/child on the street.

    Example? Email. Email took off because everything involved in it was
    free and worked well.

    > Most people are seeing JetStream as nothing more than a way to get your
    > email more quickly.


    I know, but it's not their fault. The applications to do something more
    useful with Jetstream are simply not there. This is because the
    installed base is so low, the marginal costs so high....

    It's infrastructure. The government should own it. Actually, the
    government should have privatised Telecom then used the money to build
    an IP infratructure.

    >> We'd all need to fly from A to B a hell of a lot less. As a country
    >> we'd save tens of billions of dollars a year. But it's not going to
    >> happen.

    >
    > Do some sums and I think you'd find that we'd loose more than we gain if
    > we had a big impact on regional travel.
    >
    > How many business benefit from domestic business travlers?


    Broken windows again. Sure, flying from A to B would become a lot more
    expensive, but the overall quantity of the county's wealth that gets
    turned into kerosene, maintainance and bad coffee in crappy cups would
    go down.

    >> Orcon weren't about to
    >> raise the quarter billion or so dollars it would take to provide
    >> national DSL coverage through their own network ... the VC scene here
    >> is just too conservative.

    >
    > VC = what?


    Venture Capital. The people you call when you want to use more than a
    million dollars for something.

    Cheers,
    Dave
     
    David Preece, May 22, 2004
    #15
  16. Don Gould

    Dave Taylor Guest

    "J.Random Luser" <> wrote in news:user-
    :

    > all I need is a wire to connect them.
    >
    >


    I am lucky enough to be in a location where 2 Mbps cable is available.
    This is what I was used to in Canada, so I got it. I am not used to data
    caps on a cable modem, with overage charges. That part sucks big time.
    Wires do not solve the problem, the service also has to be affordable.
    Burn up some bandwidth by trying this out.
    http://www.researchchannel.org/program/
    The google cluster is a good one to watch.
    http://www.researchchannel.org/program/displayevent.asp?rid=1680
     
    Dave Taylor, May 22, 2004
    #16
  17. Don Gould

    Nil Einne Guest

    Don Gould <> wrote in message news:<O3Tqc.7398$>...
    > I'd like to know how many of you that slag off Swan for following Webb's
    > advise actually know anything about how cable works from first hand
    > experience.
    >
    > I'd also like to know how much research most of you have done into the
    > question around the world other than to quote an OECD report and I'm
    > also guessing most of you have never read either.


    I read some of it, the whole part of NZ. I admit, I'm no expert in the
    telecommunications industry but ifrom what I understood it suggested
    what I had thought all along. Telecom is ripping off most of NZ. They
    may be providing more service to rural areas but is what we are losing
    worth it? Unlikely. If there is really a need to for us to pay for
    rural areas have service, a government sponsored system (Project Probe
    like) would be much better. Whether the money comes from existing
    funds or a new "Kiwi Share" kind of requirement where all ISPs have to
    pay something which the government uses to fund rural development, I'm
    not sure, but it'll be much better then our current system. In ouy
    current system, we are paying a lot more to Telecom then we should, a
    small proportion of which is going into developing access in rural
    areas. We are not getting value for money (in that, a lot of what we
    are paying is not going into anything but to make Telecom richer) and
    even worse, Telecom is the one who gets to choose what to roll out
    regardless of whether it is the best system (in terms of cost
    effectiveness & expandibility). Furthermore, it means Telecom will
    always likely be the one to provide access in these rural areas where
    as, in a better world, other companies would have a far greater chance
    and there will be competition (which goes back to earlier points).
    However, even we do pay, of course, urban and suburban areas are
    always likely to have better access, (possibly) better speeds and
    cheaper prices then rural areas. But this is not wrong. In some cases,
    we cannot expect equilibrium between rural and urban/suburban areas
    and it is likely in some cases things will be better for for
    urband/sururband and in some cases rural (rates are always very
    different so is access to public transport and roads & rural areas
    also do not have the traffic problems urband/sururband areas do)

    > I'd also like to know how many of you have actually talked to people
    > with in Telstra about why they stopped roll out in Christchurch.


    Simple, because it's costs to much with too low returns. Also, there
    were resource consent issues since the only way TelstraClear could
    bring prices down to a decent level were to keep cables above ground
    when it made sense, i.e. when the existing cables were above ground.

    But here's the thing. Telecom already has a substial network which, a
    significant proportion of which was paid for by tax payers moneys.
    More importantly, it doesn't make sense to roll out a new network at
    the current time, except in a few areas given we don't need it yet.
    Under the current system, we are unlikely to ever get a new world
    competitive network. We are leaving it up to Telecom to provide.
    Telecom will provide, when they know that if they don't someone else
    will, but this will be a long time past when it is needed. All others
    players are losing out and will never have an incentive to invest.
    Telecom can easily undercut them whenever they want, and they can
    easily afford to do it, because they have already made a very large
    profit from their network and have used a small part of this profit to
    ensure their network can meet their demands, should they ever need to
    due to competition. If other ISPs/telcos had been allowed access to
    the network, Telecom could not make excessive profit at our expense
    and would have to compete. Other companies would have been large
    enough to consider taking on Telecom without being wiped out.
    Furthermore, Telecom would not have already made such high returns on
    their investment that they could so easily undercut their competition.
    Even worse, broadband uptake in NZ is going to remain low as long as
    prices are so high. This means there is even less incentive to roll
    out a new network which would not even be necessary if we were making
    resonable use of our current network which we are not. This may seem
    counter intuitive but it's not when you think about it. The only way
    you can stimulate broadband uptake is by having low prices. As people
    take up broadband they find how useful it is and use it more. The more
    they use it, the more they demand. But this takes time. If a company
    rolls out a new network, other then running into the problems I
    mentioned above, they are going to find low demand. Sure, with low
    prices, they can stimulate demand somewhat, but it will take time
    before there is enough demand to ensure they get a return. By that
    time, if they are still alive, their network will be outdated. This
    means, for a substanial proportion of the lifetime, it was being used
    at a very low percentage of it's capacity. Ones it's used at it's
    capacity, it's capacity can be considered relatively low. This
    translates to very low (if at all) returns. As demand accelerates,
    they will need to build a new one or otherwise greatly improve the
    existing one. But given how low return they got on the previous one,
    it will be difficult to justify. This may still seem confusing but
    let's think of the reverse scenario. If demand for broadband was
    already high in NZ, the existing network in NZ (Telecom's one) would
    be stretched already. Telecom will probably be building or improving
    their network as well but at the same time, as this other company
    rolls out their new network, even if they don't undercut Telecom,
    there will be immediate demand. They will get a return a lot faster.
    They will probably get much more return as well since there network
    will be used nearer to it's capacity for longer while it is still a
    decent network (since once the network is an outdated, relatively slow
    network, profits will be low as the comparative price for this speed
    is not much). They will probably have to roll out a new network much
    quicker, but they will have much more incentive and so will other
    companies. Of course, some may argue that as long as prices/speed in
    NZ are high, returns will be decent but I don't think this is
    necessarily true. For starters, you have a lot of wasted capacity that
    you barely use. And I think it is very likely that if you had used
    this capacity, at lower returns/amount of your capacity used, you will
    make more then if you had not used this capacity, at higher
    returns/amount of capacity used. Once you start using it, it's no
    longer that great capacity. You might still be making higher
    profits/speed then elsewhere but you still wasted a lot of money. The
    logical solution would be to build a less capable network for less.
    Other then the fact that this means our problem in NZ is going to
    remain, it's unlikely to totally solve the problem. Why? Because, a
    less capable network will be cheaper, but not proportionally. What
    this means is that you won't actually save that much by building a
    less capable network. And takings things as a whole, I think it's
    likely you will still make a lot less compared to as if you had build
    an internationally competitive network and used it at it's capacity a
    lot earlier. Of course, I'm not suggesting you need to use your
    network at a high capacity immedietly, in fact, given the cost in
    building the network, this is obviously not true. There is clearly a
    balance. In NZ, given our geography and population density, the
    balance will be towards using a network for longer. This is why we
    should still be mostly be using the Telecom last mile network when in
    other countries like Japan etc, they are not. The balance is actually
    somewhat self sustaining in normal situations. Our demand is always
    going to be a lot lower then in other countries because of the same
    factors as the factors which make it wise to use the network for
    longer. But the current status is not balanced. We are barely using
    our network because of Telecom's pricing and this is likely to remain
    the case for much longer then it should. We are always going to be
    lagging a lot further behind others then we should be.

    In fact, an example of how important competition is would be in South
    Auckland. Can't remember the name but in the Herald, there was an
    article about Wired Country providing fibre to a new neighbourhood for
    voice and data. The developers had asked Telecom who quoted a
    ridicolous price. Wired Country offered to do it for something like
    1/5 the cost, which made Telecom lower their prices altho it was too
    late (and I think their price was still high). As a result of this,
    this neighbourhood ended up with a lot better service then most of NZ
    and Auckland since Wired Country are willing to use their network
    unlike Telecom. Of course, you might say but this shows unbundling
    would be bad. Actually it doesn't IMHO. However, if you agree with me
    in that unbundling will mean there is more competition in NZ, more
    money available to other companies and more competition to build new
    networks, then the logical conclusion is that this scenario would not
    have happened. Instead, the developers would have gone to all the
    companies willing to supply, looked at their offerings and prices and
    chosen the best one. It might have bene Telecom, it might have been
    Wired Country, it might have been someone else. But in all cases, the
    developers would not have been at risk of being ripped of by Telecom
    and the people who use service would be glad it was Wired County but
    instead wouldn't care, since it didn't matter. More importantly, this
    would happen in most of NZ rather then in a few areas as it is now,
    and will be for a long time.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Telecom. Telecom is a company and
    companies don't make decisions based on what is best for the countries
    they operate in. That is why we need regulation in some cases and in a
    case like telecommunications network, we need it because it's is very
    difficult, and often doesn't make sense to compete with the incumbent
    except when the incumbents existing network can't handle what is
    needed (whether due to long distances like in rural areas or very high
    demands like in central business areas). Where the incumbents network
    can compete, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use it. The
    suburban and less central business areas are the bulk of NZ and the
    network here can compete quite well but Telecom is relucant to do so
    because the way they see it, as they keep prices high, if things
    remain the same, they will get more money overall. Of course, this is
    not likely to happen which is why I believe Telecom is going to make a
    big mistake if they keep things as they are for much longer. For
    starters, even though competition is very hard to carry out and
    doesn't really make sense, it's possible some will try and may even
    succeed. Even trying may be enough. If they try, Telecom may buck up.
    They will probably have lost some of their customers but they may make
    it back if they are able to kill the competition. This is Telecom's
    ideal scenario and it may very well happen, however there are still
    problems for them which I will discuss later. The alternative scenario
    is that by luck, very shrewd business and pricing decisions (keeping
    them high but still competitive) and Telecom being too slow to act,
    the competition will survive. This is good news for NZers (even if not
    as good as unbundling since prices will likely remain higher then is
    necessary), altho not Telecom but there is a good chance it will not
    happen. Obviously this scenario is bad for Telecom since they will
    lose a substail portion of their customers and they will not make this
    back for a long time, if ever. Of course, this may not be that good
    for NZers in the long run depending on how badly it damages Telecom.
    Also, depending on how badly things go, we might end up with a duopoly
    or another monopoly rather then a truly competitive system which we
    are much more likely to end up with if unbundling had been carried
    out. However it's possible the competition will not really arise or
    change things at all (as in the first scenario where Telecom adjusted
    to compete but then remained stagnant again after they killed of the
    competition). In this case, things may seem good for Telecom since
    they keep all their customers. This scenario is bad for NZers but it
    may be worse for Telecom since this may cause NZ to collapse. If we
    do, this will obviously not be good for Telecom. Of course, companies
    don't tend to think about 20 years ahead so much. It kind of makes
    sense since the CEO will be long gone and the smart existing
    shareholders will have run away a long time ago. And the smart
    shareholders are the important ones since they are the ones who
    actually have an idea of what is going on and who need to be kept
    happy. The dumb ones don't matter since regardless of what the company
    does, as long as it isn't extremely ridicolous, they will stay with
    it. Of course, there is also a slight possibility the government may
    unbundle altho by then it will be way too late.


    > I'd also like to know how many of you have any idea what other plans
    > Telstra have cooking in the technology department. For that matter how
    > many of you know anything about what Telstra is actually doing in
    > Christchurch at present?


    No idea. Why does it matter? TelstraClear although not having the best
    plans and prices have always had better prices then Telecom and a lot
    of what Telecom has done has at least partially been in response to
    TelstraClear. More importantly, in a unbundled world, we would not
    need to fixate on TelstraClear since there are a lot of other ISPs out
    there.


    > I'd also like to know how many of you have called up Vodafone and asked
    > them why they don't deliver services in NZ on the same sort of costs
    > that they deliver them in other parts of the world.


    Mostly described above. It isn't cost effective, nor does it make
    sense in NZ. We have what we need for now, we just aren't using it.
    Trying to build what we don't need because we aren't using what we
    have probably won't work.


    > I'd also like to know what you people think would happen to ventures
    > like Woosh (who are just starting to get established) if this unbundling
    > had gone ahead.


    Those that don't make economical sense, would fail. I have no idea if
    Woosh's made economical sense, possibly not since from the way things
    look now, I think they are using technology which is not ready for use
    and is even less suitable for NZ and even worse, gives us even less
    then what we already have (even if we aren't using what we have).
    Wired Country's venture IMHO, is a sensible one, and would have worked
    regardless of whether unbundling happened or not (although they
    probably would have concentrated more or rural areas then they
    currently do). This may be why although they opposed unbundling, they
    didn't care as much as Woosh. To put it simply, a venture would only
    make economical sense if it could provide something we don't already
    have at a sensible price. If it can't, then yes, it would have failed,
    but why the hell should a venture which doesn't provide us anything be
    allowed to succeed because Telecom is refusing to let us use what we
    already have?

    > I'd also like to know what 'new technology' you think Mrs Howard was
    > talking about on the TV last night that's been blocked.
    >
    > Some of you are from small towns. I've visited a number of small towns
    > in the South Island in the last 12 months and looked at how hard/easy it
    > would be to set up a CityLink type of venture with Gigbit Ethernet.


    If it would make ecnonomical sense, then good. I might even support
    the government paying something to help it or forcing us to pay,
    through our telcos/ISPs something towards this. But what I don't
    support is the current climate where Telecom is the most likely one to
    carry out such a venture, even though it may not make economical sense
    amd there are better alternatives or it simple isn't necessary. And we
    are being effectively taxed by Telecom (not because of the
    government), some of which may go towards these ventures but most of
    which costs to the pockets of shareholders or to cash reserves.

    However, I have to wonder if it does make sense for small towns given
    that most of us in the suburbs of Auckland with a lot larger
    populations and higher density aren't likely to get anything like this
    for a long time. I also wonder whether a small town really needs this.
    From the ADSL list, you seem to believe everyone needs 50mbit right
    now because of some application you are developing which needs this
    but I seriously disagree with you. Nor do I see the need for use to
    roll out something which isn't really needed other then so Don can
    launch his application which needs 50mbit if this is what you are
    suggesting (which I doubt). Furthermore, as I have said above, if we
    do want fast connections and new networks, only unbundling is likely
    to ensure this. More government investment will help but without
    unbundling we probably will get nothing or little even with all that
    investment.


    > With public views like those expressed by most of you on this list any
    > suggestion would be just swamped before it got started.


    Don't really get what your saying. I think most of us would support
    this. Of course, many of use will be opposed to small towns getting
    this when we in the suburb of Auckland don't even more so when Telecom
    is using a small part of what they are effectively taxing us with to
    do it (as above)

    > It appears to me that many of your are nothing more than part of the
    > international collective that want to see the telephone network smashed
    > up and replaced by nothing but cable and sat tv.


    What kind of bull are you on about? Most of use want first and
    foremost, decent internet access. I have Sky TV and strongly suspect
    satellite will be a much more suitable form of multicast then
    telecommunications network originally designed for voice. Of course,
    things will change but given we do not and are not likely to have
    decent internet for a very long time due to Telecom, I think most of
    us don't give a damn about cable and sat TV. For that matter, what
    does sat TV have to do with the telecommunications network that
    Telecom has? Are you suggesting if we unbundle, Telecom will destroy
    their network and instead hook up with Sky? The government would never
    let them, if they really don't want their network, they can give it
    the government, which is unlikely, since they know all to well that
    even if they are force to unbundle, they are still going to be very
    profitable. Of course, they will not necessarily be the one to lay out
    the future network and will make less profit in the short run but then
    they knew our laws all to well when they started (and knew the
    government is not required to let them rip everyone off at the expense
    of NZ and it's future), furthermore, they inherited a lot of the
    network from the government (not denying they have since invested a
    lot in it) anyway so I don't see any reason why I should feel sorry
    for them. In fact, I think unbundling, especially if it had been
    carried out earlier, would have made Telecom into a lot more
    successful company then it will be, given the decisions it has made.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not dumb. Of course, it is wrong to think any
    company (especially large ones) really cares about NZ. TelstraClear
    doesn't nor does Telecom (which is also largely internationally owned
    even if it really started here). But what TelstraClear wants is closer
    to what is (IMHO) best for NZ then what Telecom is doing now. This has
    nothing to do with either company being better. Both are just as bad
    and care about the same for NZ. But if two companies are wanting
    nearly opposite things, it's very likely what's best is going to be
    closer to one then other. In this case, as is often the case, what the
    incumbent/dominant company wants is not the best for NZ (IMHO).

    Let us not forget that most of the time, requiring unbundling doesn't
    actually mean unbundle. It occurs when necessary but most of the
    time, unless the incumbent is incredibly dumb, it just means there is
    a check to ensure they aren't stupid like Telecom (altho Telecom isn't
    necessarily stupid because there is no unbundling therefore what they
    are doing makes more sense) and refuse to use their existing network
    when it can be used. Even when unbundling does occur, it is unlikely,
    as experience elsewhere has shown that there will be hundreds of ISPs
    trying to put their own equipmenet. Instead, one or two companies will
    put equipement and the rest will get it either from these two or the
    incumbent.

    In fact, I'm not even 100% sure whether we need unbundling (as with
    quite a number of unbundling supporters I think). Better bitstream
    access with a model which will not allow Telecom to give a run around
    to those that want to use it or charge excessively, might be better,
    as I said I'm not an expert so I'm really not sure which one will be
    better. But given the way things are, and the way things happen
    elsewhere, I seriously think the way things are is very bad for NZ and
    is a very bad decision. It is still possible things may turn around by
    themselves of course, but I think this is a lot less likely and even
    if it occurs, it will not be better then if the government had been a
    driving factor in that turn around.

    P.S. I may have sounded a little harsh to you. Don't get me wrong, I
    don't believe you are a bad individual. Just serious mislead and
    misinformed (IMHO) and therefore don't really understand what
    unbundling supporters want or expect & why we support unbundling. As
    part of this, you also think not unbundling is much more likely to
    work then unbundling when IMHO, it is exactly the opposite. I think we
    both want what's best for NZ, and what is therefore also better for
    us, and both clearly believe our opinions of what is best but have
    almost opposite ideas of what is best. Also, I'm not denying a lot of
    people probably haven't thought that much about unbundling. Even I
    haven't really put that much time in this. However, I think they have
    thought a lot more then what you give them credit for and as said, you
    misunderstand a lot of what they are thinking about. Also, I think a
    lot of unbundling opponents (not you) are just like unbundling
    supporters in that they haven't put much thought it and have failed to
    consider many factors... I'm sure you have more info and read more
    about some of these areas then me, but of course, this does not
    necessarily make you right. IMHO, I think one of the key problems is
    that you think unbundling will discourage competition and investment
    whereas I think it will infact strongly encourage competition and
    investment and development of new networks. Therefore, all your ideas
    about what happens if we don't unbundle are flawed...
     
    Nil Einne, May 22, 2004
    #17
  18. Don Gould

    Nil Einne Guest

    Don Gould <> wrote in message news:<O3Tqc.7398$>...
    > I'd like to know how many of you that slag off Swan for following Webb's
    > advise actually know anything about how cable works from first hand
    > experience.


    Realised I missed this. I don't really get your point though. I have
    some idea on how this cable works but I'm not an physicist or engineer
    so don't really understand things that well. But my question is, why
    does it matter? Specifically, what does it have to do with Swain's
    decision, or Webb's decision. From what I can gather, I suspect Webb
    decided things would be better off without unbundling because he
    believe, as you, although I think this is wrong, it would mean more
    competition etc and that seriously wireless could compete soon. I'm
    not so sure wireless can compete in the immediate future especially
    for urban & suburban areas and high speed access (rural areas might be
    different) nor do I believe time is necessarily ripe to invest in
    wireless and I believe if it is, it will be competitive regardless of
    unbundling (as I suggested in my other post). No I do not see the need
    for us to pay high prices just so we can wireless can become
    competitive when it is not... As for Swain, he probably followed Webb
    because he had similar thoughts and also because he didn't want to go
    too strongly against Webb and possibly because of the governments
    investment in BCL and Probe whereas with unbundling we might not need
    Project Probe, at least in it's current form and in any case, what it
    gave us will become blurred. As I said elsewhere, I am not that sure
    Webb was wrong in deciding not to unbundle, decent bitstream access
    may be better, I'm not sure about that. But the fact is we got neither
    (there is a slight chance Telecom might provide anyway but it's going
    to be a long wait from the looks of things) so IMHO, Swain and Webb
    made the wrong decisions. However, unless Swain and Webb decided
    Telecom's cable shouldn't be unbundled because it is lousy cable and
    they want Telecom to destroy it, then from what I can see, it's mostly
    irrelevant. Are you denying Telecom's cable can support 2mbit
    downstream for many people, often more, with the current ADSL tech
    Telecom uses but no one can use it at a decent price?

    The only other thing I can think of is you were referring to
    TelstraClears cable. Yes I have some idea how this works. I know it is
    a shared network for example and I also know we can't expect 10mbit
    connections from Telecom's ADSL. But I think few of us want this,
    1mbit at decent prices, ala Wired Country would be much better and is
    better then what Telecom is offering and TelstraClear. But as I said
    TelstraClear's offering are better then Telecom anyway so even if
    TelstraClear is being misleading (as Telecom is often misleading in
    suggesting they are the best in the world, so much better then
    everywhere else including Australia) in suggesting we will get 10mbit
    connections from TelstraClear if unbundling occured, we will almost
    certainly get better connections if then the crap Telecom is offering
    at the moment from TC, other ISPs and I'm sure Xtra. BTW, I also know
    they are quite different kinds of networks. But both can handle what
    we want (although Telecom's is not doing so at the moment and TC's
    network is only partially doing so), which is not TV so does it
    matter. As you've probably guessed, I'm not and have never believed
    TelstraClear is some kind of god send. They are not, but they are
    competition and smaller then Telecom here and therefore tend to offer
    better things then Telecom. They are a vital part of ensuring we
    aren't ripped of by Telecom in some areas and have made a difference.
    But a Telecom/TC duopoly is not what I want at all, far from it, and
    the others ISPs etc are very important IMHO and have also made a big
    difference even if they are suffering now and might die if things
    don't change soon.

    P.S. I'm looking at the clock and spent way too long writing these
    messages. However, I think I got everything out so probably won't post
    anymore (probably won't even read since I have this nasty habit of
    being unable to resist the urge to reply). I don't think I will
    convince you altho I do hope they will get you thinking. More
    importantly, I hope that what I said will have some influence on those
    who are less certain and get them thinking. Well those that read all I
    said anyway. And boy am I glad I copied this message before hinting
    post (yes I'm using Google). Altho I am reminded of how much I hate
    what Telecom is doing to us all...
     
    Nil Einne, May 22, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <>, nil_einne1
    @email.com says...

    <huge snip>

    Haven't got the time or inclination to read hundreds of lines, surely you
    can say whatever without spending half an hour writing a thousand word
    thesis.
     
    Patrick Dunford, May 23, 2004
    #19
  20. Don Gould

    Don Hills Guest

    Re: A win for Woosh! unbundling, what a waste of time...

    In article <>,
    Patrick Dunford <> wrote:
    >
    >Haven't got the time or inclination to read hundreds of lines, surely you
    >can say whatever without spending half an hour writing a thousand word
    >thesis.


    Complex scenarios require complex analyses, with a matching attention
    span on the part of the reader to properly understand and respond.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
     
    Don Hills, May 23, 2004
    #20
    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. Neil
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    794
    Rowdy Yates
    Jul 27, 2004
  2. Ad C

    VOIP seems a waste of time

    Ad C, Aug 5, 2005, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    232
    Views:
    3,924
  3. Gonzo Granello
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    455
    Gonzo Granello
    May 21, 2004
  4. Toxickiwi

    Woosh to Woosh

    Toxickiwi, Oct 29, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    453
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,514
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page