ADSL service difficulties with Telecom/Xtra.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Crash, Jul 3, 2005.

  1. Crash

    Crash Guest

    Greetings all,

    I am currently an Xtra user with a Jetstream 2mb package.

    I had a standard install with 2 phones only.

    The problem I am having is that I have bouts where the ADSL service
    drops and restarts frequently - can be every 5 minutes at worst. These
    bouts can last up to a day or so. The DSL service simply terminates -
    the ADSL service light on the router goes out - then it reboots.
    Because I work from home I use a VPN client all day every day and
    because every time the service restarts I get a new IP address the VPN
    software simply stops. However between these 'bouts' of problems the
    connection can stay up for days on end.

    I use an Xtra-supplied router, so everything to do with the service is
    Telecom/Xtra supplied.

    So far, Xtra/Telecom have:

    a) Replaced some old jacks with dodgy hardware and physical wiring
    connections. Supplied two replacement filters. Bouts of failures still
    occur but slightly less often.

    b) Installed Splitter as above. It can now be up to a week between
    bouts of failures.

    c) DSL-302G router replaced by a 'stronger' DSL-504G. Problem persists,
    no improvement over (b).

    d) ADSL service connection port changed at the exchange. Problem
    persists, no improvement over (b).

    I am happy with my original decision to go with the closest possible
    'single vendor' option. Xtra tried to point the finger (reasonably) at
    the problem being caused by my phones but (b) put paid to that as if my
    phones had caused the problem the splitter installation would have
    'fixed' it (as explained by Xtra).

    While I am yet to see this months bill, the fact that the problem
    persists means that I cannot be billed for anything (2 visits) because
    the splitter installation proves that the problem is not caused by
    anything at my end. The next stage is the inspection of circuits
    between my house and the exchange.

    So far I am happy with then efforts that Xtra/Telecom have made and
    continue to make. Sometimes they do provide a reasonable service.

    I now have a redundant switch (that sat behind the DSL-302G)...

    Crash.
    Crash, Jul 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Crash

    Gordon Guest

    On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:23:15 +1200, Crash wrote:

    [Snip} of problems with ADSL and Xtra as server

    > So far I am happy with then efforts that Xtra/Telecom have made and
    > continue to make. Sometimes they do provide a reasonable service.


    So what is the point of you posting here?

    Seems to me that you could be being paid by Telcom. As in spining for
    them. Just a thought.
    Gordon, Jul 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Crash

    Peter Guest

    Crash wrote:
    > The problem I am having is that I have bouts where the ADSL service
    > drops and restarts frequently - can be every 5 minutes at worst. These
    > bouts can last up to a day or so. The DSL service simply terminates -
    > the ADSL service light on the router goes out - then it reboots.


    Can you tell us the line attenuation and noise margin (both in dB) reported
    by your router?

    If the problem is the copper between you and the exchange, then this data
    might show it.
    Also, how far are you from the phone exchange you are connecting to?

    HTH

    Peter
    Peter, Jul 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Crash

    Crash Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:23:15 +1200, Crash wrote:
    >
    > [Snip} of problems with ADSL and Xtra as server
    >
    >
    >>So far I am happy with then efforts that Xtra/Telecom have made and
    >>continue to make. Sometimes they do provide a reasonable service.

    >
    >
    > So what is the point of you posting here?
    >

    Why does anyone post here? It was a story to tell, unusual because it
    was not entirely negative, and you never know what pearls of wisdom may
    result.

    > Seems to me that you could be being paid by Telcom. As in spining for
    > them. Just a thought.


    Telecom would pay anyone to do this in a forum used by just a few
    hundred - yeah right :cool: In case there may be doubt I don't own any
    Telecom shares ;-)
    Crash, Jul 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Crash

    Mark Guest

    "Crash" <> wrote in message
    news:5YHxe.12222$...
    > While I am yet to see this months bill, the fact that the problem
    > persists means that I cannot be billed for anything (2 visits) because
    > the splitter installation proves that the problem is not caused by
    > anything at my end. The next stage is the inspection of circuits
    > between my house and the exchange.


    Actually not true, it could be a power issue, the rebooting router indicates
    a problem not associated with the DSL circuit. If the DSL circuit is crappy
    the unit should simply disconnect and reconnect, not reboot. I'm guessing
    you have no power conditioning or protection - expect a bill my friend ;)
    Mark, Jul 4, 2005
    #5
  6. Crash

    Crash Guest

    Mark wrote:
    > "Crash" <> wrote in message
    > news:5YHxe.12222$...
    >
    >>While I am yet to see this months bill, the fact that the problem
    >>persists means that I cannot be billed for anything (2 visits) because
    >>the splitter installation proves that the problem is not caused by
    >>anything at my end. The next stage is the inspection of circuits
    >>between my house and the exchange.

    >
    >
    > Actually not true, it could be a power issue, the rebooting router indicates
    > a problem not associated with the DSL circuit. If the DSL circuit is crappy
    > the unit should simply disconnect and reconnect, not reboot. I'm guessing
    > you have no power conditioning or protection - expect a bill my friend ;)
    >
    >


    OK - this is what I see (top most recent):
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM : PPP Interface Up : Interface - ppp-0
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: NCP Got secondary DNS
    address: 202.27.156.72
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: NCP Got primary DNS address:
    202.27.158.40
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: NCP Got IP address:
    222.152.95.2
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Authorization Successful :
    Interface - ppp-0
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: PAP Authentication Sucessful
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:38 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Config Req packet
    Received.
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:38 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Sending Config Req.
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:35 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Sending Config Req.
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:34 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Config Req packet
    Received.
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:29 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Sending Config Req.
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:29 2005 : STATUS ALARM : ATM VC Up : Interface - aal5-0,
    PortId=7, Vpi=0, Vci=100
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:29 2005 : STATUS ALARM : ATM Interface Up : Interface - atm-0
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:29 2005 : STATUS ALARM : DSL Interface Up
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:06 2005 : WARNING : ATM VC Down : Interface - aal5-0, PortId=7,
    Vpi=0, Vci=100
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:06 2005 : WARNING : PPP Interface Down : Interface - ppp-0
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:06 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Sending Terminate Req.
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:06 2005 : MAJOR ALARM : ATM Interface Down : Interface - atm-0
    Sat Jul 02 17:51:06 2005 : MAJOR ALARM : DSL Interface Down
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    The ADSL light goes out briefly. Throughout this ordeal no mention has ever
    been made about power problems on the router. This does not look like mains
    power disruption to me.

    Crash.
    Crash, Jul 4, 2005
    #6
  7. On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:47:36 +1200, Gordon <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:23:15 +1200, Crash wrote:
    >
    >[Snip} of problems with ADSL and Xtra as server
    >
    >> So far I am happy with then efforts that Xtra/Telecom have made and
    >> continue to make. Sometimes they do provide a reasonable service.

    >
    >So what is the point of you posting here?
    >
    >Seems to me that you could be being paid by Telcom. As in spining for
    >them. Just a thought.


    Seems to me you are a total Telecom hater
    What a waste of breath
    FreedomChooser, Jul 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Crash

    Mark Guest

    "Crash" <> wrote in message
    news:TW3ye.12571$...
    > Mark wrote:
    > > "Crash" <> wrote in message
    > > news:5YHxe.12222$...
    > >
    > >>While I am yet to see this months bill, the fact that the problem
    > >>persists means that I cannot be billed for anything (2 visits) because
    > >>the splitter installation proves that the problem is not caused by
    > >>anything at my end. The next stage is the inspection of circuits
    > >>between my house and the exchange.

    > >
    > >
    > > Actually not true, it could be a power issue, the rebooting router

    indicates
    > > a problem not associated with the DSL circuit. If the DSL circuit is

    crappy
    > > the unit should simply disconnect and reconnect, not reboot. I'm

    guessing
    > > you have no power conditioning or protection - expect a bill my friend

    ;)
    > >
    > >

    >
    > OK - this is what I see (top most recent):
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    >>

    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM : PPP Interface Up : Interface -

    ppp-0
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: NCP Got secondary DNS
    > address: 202.27.156.72
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: NCP Got primary DNS

    address:
    > 202.27.158.40
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: NCP Got IP address:
    > 222.152.95.2
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Authorization Successful :
    > Interface - ppp-0
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:39 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: PAP Authentication

    Sucessful
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:38 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Config Req packet
    > Received.
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:38 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Sending Config

    Req.
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:35 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Sending Config

    Req.
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:34 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Config Req packet
    > Received.
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:29 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Sending Config

    Req.
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:29 2005 : STATUS ALARM : ATM VC Up : Interface - aal5-0,
    > PortId=7, Vpi=0, Vci=100
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:29 2005 : STATUS ALARM : ATM Interface Up : Interface -

    atm-0
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:29 2005 : STATUS ALARM : DSL Interface Up
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:06 2005 : WARNING : ATM VC Down : Interface - aal5-0,

    PortId=7,
    > Vpi=0, Vci=100
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:06 2005 : WARNING : PPP Interface Down : Interface -

    ppp-0
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:06 2005 : STATUS ALARM: PPP Event: LCP: Sending Terminate

    Req.
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:06 2005 : MAJOR ALARM : ATM Interface Down : Interface -

    atm-0
    > Sat Jul 02 17:51:06 2005 : MAJOR ALARM : DSL Interface Down
    >

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    >
    > The ADSL light goes out briefly. Throughout this ordeal no mention has

    ever
    > been made about power problems on the router. This does not look like

    mains
    > power disruption to me.
    >
    > Crash.


    That doesn't entirely rule out power issues at all.

    What I would suggest is seeing if there is anyway to dial back the speed of
    the connection manually, this often helps.
    Mark, Jul 5, 2005
    #8
  9. Crash

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 05:04:04 +1200, FreedomChooser wrote:

    > Seems to me you are a total Telecom hater What a waste of breath


    Yeah! He should see the light and become a breathless Telecom lover
    instead!

    Bloody liberal pinko leftie commie scum!!! Nasty little socialist
    revolutionaries conspiring with rats to overthrow everything that is good
    in the world and deny Teresa her rightful place as head of state! They
    should all be locked up in the name of freedom!

    Suckle from the nipple of benevolent corporate kindness!!! Don't be led
    astray by those subversive Firefox/Linux/Apple/Wireless using DSL hating
    hippies who wouldn't know what's good for them even if it bit them on
    their parabolic antenna!

    Choose freedom instead!!!

    Did I miss anything?

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jul 5, 2005
    #9
  10. Crash

    Crash Guest

    Mark wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > What I would suggest is seeing if there is anyway to dial back the speed of
    > the connection manually, this often helps.


    I had a look around the various configuration options and could find nothing
    obvious to manipulate connection speeds.

    Crash.
    Crash, Jul 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Crash

    shannon Guest

    On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:56:20 +1200, AD. wrote:

    > On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 05:04:04 +1200, FreedomChooser wrote:
    >
    >> Seems to me you are a total Telecom hater What a waste of breath

    >
    > Yeah! He should see the light and become a breathless Telecom lover
    > instead!
    >
    > Bloody liberal pinko leftie commie scum!!! Nasty little socialist
    > revolutionaries conspiring with rats to overthrow everything that is good
    > in the world and deny Teresa her rightful place as head of state! They
    > should all be locked up in the name of freedom!
    >
    > Suckle from the nipple of benevolent corporate kindness!!! Don't be led
    > astray by those subversive Firefox/Linux/Apple/Wireless using DSL hating
    > hippies who wouldn't know what's good for them even if it bit them on
    > their parabolic antenna!
    >
    > Choose freedom instead!!!
    >
    > Did I miss anything?


    Hahahaha
    shannon, Jul 5, 2005
    #11
  12. On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:56:20 +1200, "AD." <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 05:04:04 +1200, FreedomChooser wrote:
    >
    >> Seems to me you are a total Telecom hater What a waste of breath

    >
    >Yeah! He should see the light and become a breathless Telecom lover
    >instead!
    >
    >Bloody liberal pinko leftie commie scum!!! Nasty little socialist
    >revolutionaries conspiring with rats to overthrow everything that is good
    >in the world and deny Teresa her rightful place as head of state! They
    >should all be locked up in the name of freedom!
    >
    >Suckle from the nipple of benevolent corporate kindness!!! Don't be led
    >astray by those subversive Firefox/Linux/Apple/Wireless using DSL hating
    >hippies who wouldn't know what's good for them even if it bit them on
    >their parabolic antenna!
    >
    >Choose freedom instead!!!
    >
    >Did I miss anything?


    Just get sick of people flaming Telecom mindlessly
    Just like people flame Microsoft endlessly
    Dont you?
    FreedomChooser, Jul 6, 2005
    #12
  13. Crash

    AD. Guest

    On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 12:15:07 +1200, FreedomChooser wrote:

    > Just get sick of people flaming Telecom mindlessly Just like people flame
    > Microsoft endlessly Dont you?


    Yep I get tired of both sides of the arguments. Although sometimes I can
    see why people would want to flame those corporations - I'm not sure why
    anyone would want to leap to Microsofts and Telecoms defence with the same
    one eyed vigour though.

    I just prefer to reduce my own dependence on them and take more control of
    my own destiny (eg freedom). Some people don't have quite the same choices
    available though.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jul 6, 2005
    #13
  14. Crash

    Philip Guest

    FreedomChooser wrote:
    > On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:56:20 +1200, "AD." <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 05:04:04 +1200, FreedomChooser wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Seems to me you are a total Telecom hater What a waste of breath

    >>
    >>Yeah! He should see the light and become a breathless Telecom lover
    >>instead!
    >>
    >>Bloody liberal pinko leftie commie scum!!! Nasty little socialist
    >>revolutionaries conspiring with rats to overthrow everything that is good
    >>in the world and deny Teresa her rightful place as head of state! They
    >>should all be locked up in the name of freedom!
    >>
    >>Suckle from the nipple of benevolent corporate kindness!!! Don't be led
    >>astray by those subversive Firefox/Linux/Apple/Wireless using DSL hating
    >>hippies who wouldn't know what's good for them even if it bit them on
    >>their parabolic antenna!
    >>
    >>Choose freedom instead!!!
    >>
    >>Did I miss anything?

    >
    >
    > Just get sick of people flaming Telecom mindlessly


    But they're such a good target.

    They've dragged NZ broadband down to Tanzanian levels with their hugely
    inflated business rates, needless download caps and stupid restrictions.
    NZ business users have been paying around fifty to a hundred times more
    for broadband than their foreign competitors. Even after the 87 percent
    reduction in broadband business costs that comes in on 8 July, Telecom's
    dismal monopoly offer is STILL more expensive than most of the world,
    for a more limited, less useable, service. It's the sort of offer I'd
    have expected from the East German communist telco if they'd had to deal
    with broadband. Mean, restricted and ineffective.

    Do you admire this?

    Telecom refuses to peer with other NZ Internet providers, preferring to
    shunt NZ local data to and from the USA, using the same international
    link they said was so expensive that they had to be one of the world's
    inly Internet carriers charge differentially for international and
    national traffic. Yeah, right.

    If they'd had proper peering in place, would the outage last week have
    been so severe? Do you admire this?

    Telecom crouches like a malevolent toad over the NZ broadband market.
    There is no real competition because the only product available is the
    half-baked, overpriced, underspecified Telecom product.

    Telecom is still firmly rooted in the past with its toll and numbering
    structures. Why do we need area codes in a country of 4-million people?
    Why can't Telecom grasp the customer friendly concept of paying a flat
    fee for access to the network - fullstop? It costs no more to switch a
    call from Cape Reinga to Stewart Island than it does to switch the call
    from 55 Anyplace Road Auckland to 56 Anyplace Road Auckland. Tthe
    switching system and the hardware perceive the network as a unit, so why
    charge as if they didn't.

    Somehow dogs and their goolies come to mind.

    Telecom can see the threat of Skype and other services - and is busy
    spreading FUD as fast as it can. Their spruiker was on the radio the
    other day telling punters that using Skype could lead of viruses and
    other malwasre appearing in their computers. Yeah right. Are they
    offering to do anything about it? Ummm, no. It's FUD. Just like
    Microsoft, another predatory company, Telecom is abusing its dominant
    market position and deserves every bit of kicking we can give it.

    Neither company will really come to heel until there is proper
    regulation, and probably proper regulation to break up their de facto
    monopolies.

    These are companies hostile to freedom, hostile to their customers, and
    harmful to the interests of the nation.

    So we shitbag them. Why don't you?


    Philip

    (and I was weeping so hard never even mentioned termination cbarges and
    number portability)
    Philip, Jul 6, 2005
    #14
  15. Crash

    Crash Guest

    Philip wrote:
    > FreedomChooser wrote:

    [snip]
    >>
    >>
    >> Just get sick of people flaming Telecom mindlessly

    >
    >
    > But they're such a good target.
    >
    > They've dragged NZ broadband down to Tanzanian levels


    Tanzania has broadband? Then the buggers should be able to afford their debt
    repayments :cool:

    > with their hugely
    > inflated business rates, needless download caps and stupid restrictions.
    > NZ business users have been paying around fifty to a hundred times more
    > for broadband than their foreign competitors. Even after the 87 percent
    > reduction in broadband business costs that comes in on 8 July, Telecom's
    > dismal monopoly offer is STILL more expensive than most of the world,
    > for a more limited, less useable, service. It's the sort of offer I'd
    > have expected from the East German communist telco if they'd had to deal
    > with broadband. Mean, restricted and ineffective.
    >
    > Do you admire this?


    No particularly. Woosh and anyone else offering service that does not use
    Telecom must be great then or are you tarring all NZ-based service providers
    with the same brush.
    >
    > Telecom refuses to peer with other NZ Internet providers, preferring to
    > shunt NZ local data to and from the USA, using the same international
    > link they said was so expensive that they had to be one of the world's
    > inly Internet carriers charge differentially for international and
    > national traffic. Yeah, right.
    >


    That's very strange - what Telecom service offerings differentiate?

    > If they'd had proper peering in place, would the outage last week have
    > been so severe? Do you admire this?
    >

    Given Telecom's relative size and the fact that all their services were affected
    to some degree (not just internet) I would be interested in how you could
    possibly believe that other service providers could take up the slack at all.
    Peering is purely a server-to-server service as far as I am aware that is
    designed only to facilitate data exchange not provide services backup. Feel
    free to correct me on this...

    > Telecom crouches like a malevolent toad over the NZ broadband market.
    > There is no real competition because the only product available is the
    > half-baked, overpriced, underspecified Telecom product.
    >

    This is totally inaccurate. There is competition and AFAIK the service from
    Woosh requires no supporting Telecom services being used by their customers.
    There are probably others.
    > Telecom is still firmly rooted in the past with its toll and numbering
    > structures.


    Really? How so? I believe that the model Telecom use is the same as that used
    throughout the western world - but if I am wrong feel free to point out models
    more modern that those of Telecom.

    > Why do we need area codes in a country of 4-million people?


    Its not them population but the geographic spread.

    > Why can't Telecom grasp the customer friendly concept of paying a flat
    > fee for access to the network - fullstop? It costs no more to switch a
    > call from Cape Reinga to Stewart Island than it does to switch the call
    > from 55 Anyplace Road Auckland to 56 Anyplace Road Auckland. Tthe
    > switching system and the hardware perceive the network as a unit, so why
    > charge as if they didn't.
    >
    > Somehow dogs and their goolies come to mind.
    >

    Because the resources required to connect two subscribers who are neighbours is
    far less than two subscribers at opposite ends of the country. Switching costs
    might be similar but transmission costs are not.

    Telecom remains one of the few telcos in the world to offer any form of flat-fee
    calling plan - probably because of kiwishare obligations. care to nominate any
    telco whose calling charges are NOT distance related?

    > Telecom can see the threat of Skype and other services - and is busy
    > spreading FUD as fast as it can. Their spruiker was on the radio the
    > other day telling punters that using Skype could lead of viruses and
    > other malwasre appearing in their computers. Yeah right. Are they
    > offering to do anything about it? Ummm, no. It's FUD. Just like
    > Microsoft, another predatory company, Telecom is abusing its dominant
    > market position and deserves every bit of kicking we can give it.
    >

    By telco standards Telecom is a mid-sized company defending its competitive
    advantage. If you are going to take offence to Telecom using FUD as a defensive
    competitive weapon then I expect that if you are consistent you will post here
    daily for the rest of your life (probably) on every NZ company that used FUD.

    > Neither company will really come to heel until there is proper
    > regulation, and probably proper regulation to break up their de facto
    > monopolies.
    >

    How about good, old-fashioned competition? Its out there - Skype, Woosh, Ihug
    and a slew of other smaller operators.

    > These are companies hostile to freedom,


    No - hostile to competition like all companies.

    hostile to their customers,

    Well they screwed up with me then. I am a Telecom customer and they have NEVER
    been hostile to me - in fact my OP pointed out quite the opposite.

    > and
    > harmful to the interests of the nation.
    >

    Rubbish. Nothing compared to Winston, Don and Helen - all individually let
    alone collectively.

    > So we shitbag them. Why don't you?


    I suppose I might just be a tad more fair-minded.....;-|

    Crash.
    Crash, Jul 6, 2005
    #15
  16. Crash

    Philip Guest

    Crash wrote:
    > Philip wrote:
    >
    >> FreedomChooser wrote:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Just get sick of people flaming Telecom mindlessly

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> But they're such a good target.
    >>
    >> They've dragged NZ broadband down to Tanzanian levels

    >
    >
    > Tanzania has broadband? Then the buggers should be able to afford their
    > debt repayments :cool:


    Maybe so. But as at 7 July 2005 their broadbant service costs the same
    as Telecom's "business broadband". Telecom must be so proud to be able
    to match service and charges with one of the poorest African countries...

    Perhaps they'll do better than Fiji anytime soon?


    >> with their hugely inflated business rates, needless download caps and
    >> stupid restrictions. NZ business users have been paying around fifty
    >> to a hundred times more for broadband than their foreign competitors.
    >> Even after the 87 percent reduction in broadband business costs that
    >> comes in on 8 July, Telecom's dismal monopoly offer is STILL more
    >> expensive than most of the world, for a more limited, less useable,
    >> service. It's the sort of offer I'd have expected from the East German
    >> communist telco if they'd had to deal with broadband. Mean, restricted
    >> and ineffective.
    >>
    >> Do you admire this?

    >
    >
    > No particularly. Woosh and anyone else offering service that does not
    > use Telecom must be great then or are you tarring all NZ-based service
    > providers with the same brush.


    Woosh is only available in parts of the country. They only offer 250Kbps
    download on any plan, and their baseline service has a 200MB a MONTH
    limit. That's crap, and it's not even in the same universe as a real
    broadband service.

    Competition means real national competition on quality and price. Woosh
    offers neither.

    >
    >>
    >> Telecom refuses to peer with other NZ Internet providers, preferring
    >> to shunt NZ local data to and from the USA, using the same
    >> international link they said was so expensive that they had to be one
    >> of the world's inly Internet carriers charge differentially for
    >> international and national traffic. Yeah, right.
    >>

    >
    > That's very strange - what Telecom service offerings differentiate?


    They used to, as I noted. Paradise (and maybe others) still do, and they
    retail what crumbs Telecom wholesales them.

    >
    >> If they'd had proper peering in place, would the outage last week have
    >> been so severe? Do you admire this?
    >>

    > Given Telecom's relative size and the fact that all their services were
    > affected to some degree (not just internet) I would be interested in
    > how you could possibly believe that other service providers could take
    > up the slack at all. Peering is purely a server-to-server service as far
    > as I am aware that is designed only to facilitate data exchange not
    > provide services backup. Feel free to correct me on this...


    How much of the data that was lost in the outage(s) would not have been
    lost if Telecom were properly peering?

    Their attitude reeks of short term profiteering over long-term service
    provision and development of a reliable service to customers.
    >
    >> Telecom crouches like a malevolent toad over the NZ broadband market.
    >> There is no real competition because the only product available is the
    >> half-baked, overpriced, underspecified Telecom product.
    >>

    > This is totally inaccurate. There is competition and AFAIK the service
    > from Woosh requires no supporting Telecom services being used by their
    > customers. There are probably others.


    I live in Northland (population 142 000). There is no Woosh service
    available here. Nor is it available in most of New Zealand.
    >
    >> Telecom is still firmly rooted in the past with its toll and numbering
    >> structures.

    >
    >
    > Really? How so? I believe that the model Telecom use is the same as that
    > used throughout the western world - but if I am wrong feel free to point
    > out models more modern that those of Telecom.


    Calling plans offered in the UK, Germany, Spain, France and Norway and a
    slew of other countries, which are constructed on the basis of network
    access, rather than time/distance.

    >
    >> Why do we need area codes in a country of 4-million people?

    >
    >
    > Its not them population but the geographic spread.

    Illogical - why do I need an area code to tell me the person I am
    calling is in Christchurch ? If I am calling them either I know where
    they are or it doesn't matter.

    >
    >> Why can't Telecom grasp the customer friendly concept of paying a flat
    >> fee for access to the network - fullstop? It costs no more to switch a
    >> call from Cape Reinga to Stewart Island than it does to switch the
    >> call from 55 Anyplace Road Auckland to 56 Anyplace Road Auckland. Tthe
    >> switching system and the hardware perceive the network as a unit, so
    >> why charge as if they didn't.
    >>
    >> Somehow dogs and their goolies come to mind.
    >>

    > Because the resources required to connect two subscribers who are
    > neighbours is far less than two subscribers at opposite ends of the
    > country. Switching costs might be similar but transmission costs are not.


    Either as a national telco they have their network up and running and
    switching calls, or they do not. The days of "service on this exchange
    only between these hours" are gone. Telecom has a planned programme to
    switch to IP routing of all calls. They've used the capital investment
    in this to bully government into holding off regulation of their
    gouging. But the programme sets out very clearly that they perceive the
    network as a single, cohesive, whole.

    It costs the same for me to call Christchurch (over 1000km) as it does
    Paihia (16 km). If I am in Auckland, I can call at "local rate" (free
    per call but charged in the line cost) around 750 000 subscribers. If I
    live in Mangonui, I can call at "local rate" around 9 000 subscribers.
    Because they need to maintain the whole network the cost of those calls
    to Telecom is the same, and indeed some may be routed through Auckland,
    or Whangarei, or Bluff or who knows where as the network distributes the
    load.

    Logically the biggest single drain on the network is Auckland, then
    Wellington, but they don't charge it like that and choose to stick to
    the 1950 model of call charging. The model for call charging has, sooner
    or later, to be the Internet 'flat rate' model available in so many
    countries - but not here. Why do we have to pay one rate for Internet
    and another rate for phone calls when they are the same traffic? Why are
    there data caps?
    >
    > Telecom remains one of the few telcos in the world to offer any form of
    > flat-fee calling plan - probably because of kiwishare obligations. care
    > to nominate any telco whose calling charges are NOT distance related?


    Telcos in Germany, France, UK, Spain, Australia...

    >> Telecom can see the threat of Skype and other services - and is busy
    >> spreading FUD as fast as it can. Their spruiker was on the radio the
    >> other day telling punters that using Skype could lead of viruses and
    >> other malwasre appearing in their computers. Yeah right. Are they
    >> offering to do anything about it? Ummm, no. It's FUD. Just like
    >> Microsoft, another predatory company, Telecom is abusing its dominant
    >> market position and deserves every bit of kicking we can give it.
    >>

    > By telco standards Telecom is a mid-sized company defending its
    > competitive advantage. If you are going to take offence to Telecom using
    > FUD as a defensive competitive weapon then I expect that if you are
    > consistent you will post here daily for the rest of your life (probably)
    > on every NZ company that used FUD.


    I will post here infrequently. FUD is crap customer-hostile practice,
    and is the hallmark of companies that are not competing in a real
    market, but like to pretend that they are.
    >
    >> Neither company will really come to heel until there is proper
    >> regulation, and probably proper regulation to break up their de facto
    >> monopolies.
    >>

    > How about good, old-fashioned competition? Its out there - Skype,
    > Woosh, Ihug and a slew of other smaller operators.


    Skype is one way ahead- but is hampered by Telecom's deliberate
    restraint of uplink speed to below the ITU norm - and the probability
    that if Skype really takes off Telecom will simply fiddle with the
    latency to wreck the product. You miss the point: there is no real
    competition. You can't do Skype without Telecom. You can't have Ihug
    without Telecom. Woosh is only trivially present in the market: most New
    Zealanders can't get it, and at the pathetic speeds offered wouldn't
    want it as their "broadband" offer.
    >
    >> These are companies hostile to freedom,

    >
    >
    > No - hostile to competition like all companies.


    A well-run company meets its competition, welcomes it as a spur to
    better performance, and always seeks to be ahead in the market. It's not
    hostile. It knows, and has persuaded its customers, that it can do better.

    Unlike Telecom and Microsoft, it doesn't have to rely on inherited
    monopoly, manipulation and shonky practices to maintain its position.

    > hostile to their customers,
    >
    > Well they screwed up with me then. I am a Telecom customer and they have
    > NEVER been hostile to me - in fact my OP pointed out quite the opposite


    I do not know what is your OP, but it is obviously an entity whose
    opinion you value. However, if you feel satisfied with your current
    low-speed, high-priced, data capped Internet service and costly voice
    phone service, I can only suppose that you are very easily pleased.

    >> and harmful to the interests of the nation.
    >>

    > Rubbish. Nothing compared to Winston, Don and Helen - all individually
    > let alone collectively.


    You've named a list of politicians you disagree with. Collectively they
    are less harmful to the strategic interests of out nation than Telecom,
    because they have to persuade Parliament and the people to go along with
    their latest lunacy. And they are more or less well-intentioned, and not
    overtly loooking out for the interests of a largely foreign owenership.

    Telecom is answerable effectively to nobody in New Zealand. It takes a
    bullying menacing attitude to regulators, and repeatedly threatens that
    if it does not get its way it will withhold investment. Never mind that
    this will hurt New Zealand - and never mind that it will also damage the
    long-term interest of their 70% foreign shareholders.

    De-peering is a direct hit on the strategic interest of the nation to
    have and maintain a bullet-proof data interchange network. Peering of
    data is part of the process that underpinned the original ARPAnet and
    has carried through to the Internet. It's the process that says that if
    a node is down - whether because of nuclear strike, a shovel through the
    cable or a corpse across the terminal - then the data traffic is routed
    around the blockage.

    Telecom has deliberately and willfully attacked the integrity of that
    network entirely in the interests of short-term profiteering on behalf
    of is mostly foreign shareholders. That looks pretty hostile to me.
    >
    >> So we shitbag them. Why don't you?

    >
    >
    > I suppose I might just be a tad more fair-minded.....;-|
    >


    or just less well-informed?

    Philip
    Philip, Jul 6, 2005
    #16
  17. Crash

    Crash Guest

    Philip wrote:
    > Crash wrote:


    [snip]
    >> Telecom remains one of the few telcos in the world to offer any form
    >> of flat-fee calling plan - probably because of kiwishare obligations.
    >> care to nominate any telco whose calling charges are NOT distance
    >> related?

    >
    >
    > Telcos in Germany, France, UK, Spain, Australia...

    [snip]

    Care to name the Telcos/

    It certainly is NOT BT in the UK (the Telecom equivalent) - at least where I lived.

    Crash.
    Crash, Jul 7, 2005
    #17
  18. Crash

    Philip Guest

    Crash wrote:
    > Philip wrote:
    >
    >> Crash wrote:

    >
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>> Telecom remains one of the few telcos in the world to offer any form
    >>> of flat-fee calling plan - probably because of kiwishare
    >>> obligations. care to nominate any telco whose calling charges are
    >>> NOT distance related?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Telcos in Germany, France, UK, Spain, Australia...

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > Care to name the Telcos/
    >
    > It certainly is NOT BT in the UK (the Telecom equivalent) - at least
    > where I lived.


    one-Tel, ToucanTalk (GBP9.99/month flat rate) JustDial Saver,
    First:Telecom, Tele2, TalkTalk, 18866...

    Most of these companies have distance-independent rates for part or all
    of the day. they buy network access wholesale and retails it as
    competitively as they can. In every case they are ablke to undercut the
    traditional telco because they are using the trad telco's network for
    part of all of their coverage, and not all of them are marketing their
    service in all parts of the country.

    But their presence and marketing packages is the clearest indication yet
    that there#s price gouging in the traditional telco's pricing plans -
    becuase these upstart companies can wholesale the access, redraft the
    price points and still sell at a profit.

    As in UK and other countries, so here. Telecom is gouging and fighting a
    losing battle not to be found out.

    When a call to Auckland from Waimate North is cheaper with a Kia Ora
    calling card than it is with Telecom, there's overcharging in the
    Telecom system.

    i don't think Telecom should be broken up - the Americans did that will
    Bell and it hasn't worked out. But I do think it should have LLU imposed
    on it with a heavy hand, starting at 9 am tomorrow.
    It should be told that it must allow rivals best access to the plant and
    network that it got for a song at privatisation, and was already largely
    paid for by the Kiwi taxpayer.
    It must be ordered to fascilitate rival companies installations in its
    switching centres, exchangess and cabinets so that a full range of
    competing broadband services can be offered.
    Telecom must be forbidden from having any control over the content of a
    broadband package offered by a rival. Specifically it must be banned
    from setting end-user prices, imposing speed limits or data caps. And it
    must be ordered to make these changes within the next two months, or
    face penalties of the order of 10% of turnover for each day they are not
    in compliance.
    Telecom mus be ordered to establish full peering agreements with other
    data carriers. ┬┤They have to be made to pay substantial pemnalties for
    every occasion they export NZ data to other countries and then re-import
    it to avoid peering with a rival.


    And it must be told that if it threatens to withjold investment if a
    particular regulation is brought in, then that area of service will be
    immediately opened to national and international tender, for which
    Telecom will not be a preferred bidder.

    It won't happen - the present government is too frightened of Telecom to
    do any of the above, the likely successor government if National win has
    shown its support for asset stripping of privatised utilities, and
    philosophically objects to regulation.

    Philip
    Philip, Jul 7, 2005
    #18
    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. =?Utf-8?B?ZW5ncmhhcnY=?=

    Is there any provisions for leaning difficulties in the mcse exams

    =?Utf-8?B?ZW5ncmhhcnY=?=, Apr 10, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    480
    HangInThere
    Apr 14, 2005
  2. Chris
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,205
    Chris
    May 23, 2004
  3. 12.wa.us

    VLAN Difficulties?

    12.wa.us, Dec 9, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    731
    12.wa.us
    Dec 10, 2004
  4. iram
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,641
  5. Max
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    591
Loading...

Share This Page