At cross roads - time to act ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by David, Dec 4, 2005.

  1. David

    David Guest

    T'com line owners are increasingly using monopoly positions to ramp up the
    profits they extract from customers.

    But there is an oportunity to reverse this. Telecommunications is at a
    cross-road. Over the next decade(s) the existing copper network will
    likely be replaced by fibre.

    Are we going to let the t'coms extend their monopoly powers over us for the
    next 50-100 yrs?

    Communities have a once in a lifetime chance to regain control over a
    critical resource. The costs to install a fibre network may seem
    prohibitive, but either way users pay. If we let the t'coms do it, we pay
    both the capital cost and for their longterm monopoly profits.

    It's too important. Would we accept a monopoly / duopoly owning the local
    streets and throttling useage to leverage every last cent they can for
    profit?

    It will not be easy, but that is no reason to forgo this one-off chance.
    It has to be done carefully with community ownership models that have
    iron-cast protection against future political whims. It will also require
    deeds, not just words.

    Local & national government should facilitate, but ultimately the local
    networks need to be owned by communities, not governments - been there,
    done that! Its time to assert ownership and not let the streets again
    become a conduit for monopoly usury.

    It's starting to happen elsewhere
    (http://www.canarie.ca/advnet/fibre.html). Some NZ councils such as
    Christchurch are also making moves, but this needs to be extended much
    wider, with or without council support. (And while at it, lets put the
    damn stuff underground whereever possible.)

    D
     
    David, Dec 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David

    Jerry Guest

    David wrote:
    > T'com line owners are increasingly using monopoly positions to ramp up the
    > profits they extract from customers.
    >
    > But there is an oportunity to reverse this. Telecommunications is at a
    > cross-road. Over the next decade(s) the existing copper network will
    > likely be replaced by fibre.
    >
    > Are we going to let the t'coms extend their monopoly powers over us for the
    > next 50-100 yrs?
    >
    > Communities have a once in a lifetime chance to regain control over a
    > critical resource. The costs to install a fibre network may seem
    > prohibitive, but either way users pay. If we let the t'coms do it, we pay
    > both the capital cost and for their longterm monopoly profits.
    >
    > It's too important. Would we accept a monopoly / duopoly owning the local
    > streets and throttling useage to leverage every last cent they can for
    > profit?
    >
    > It will not be easy, but that is no reason to forgo this one-off chance.
    > It has to be done carefully with community ownership models that have
    > iron-cast protection against future political whims. It will also require
    > deeds, not just words.
    >
    > Local & national government should facilitate, but ultimately the local
    > networks need to be owned by communities, not governments - been there,
    > done that! Its time to assert ownership and not let the streets again
    > become a conduit for monopoly usury.
    >
    > It's starting to happen elsewhere
    > (http://www.canarie.ca/advnet/fibre.html). Some NZ councils such as
    > Christchurch are also making moves, but this needs to be extended much
    > wider, with or without council support. (And while at it, lets put the
    > damn stuff underground whereever possible.)


    This would reverse the trent councils have of selling assets and
    squandering the money. Wellington has sold Capital Power, the buses,
    virtually any asset they have. What iron-cast protection do you know of
    that would work?
     
    Jerry, Dec 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David

    PAM. Guest

    "David" <> wrote in message
    > But there is an oportunity to reverse this. Telecommunications is at a
    > cross-road. Over the next decade(s) the existing copper network will
    > likely be replaced by fibre.


    Is there a reason that fibre is being put down (bad fibre, naughty fibre, in
    your bed) when wireless would do or am I missing something

    PAM.
     
    PAM., Dec 4, 2005
    #3
  4. "PAM." <> wrote in message
    news:x7Ikf.5657$...
    > "David" <> wrote in message
    >> But there is an oportunity to reverse this. Telecommunications is at a
    >> cross-road. Over the next decade(s) the existing copper network will
    >> likely be replaced by fibre.

    >
    > Is there a reason that fibre is being put down (bad fibre, naughty fibre,
    > in
    > your bed) when wireless would do or am I missing something
    >
    > PAM.
    >
    >


    you are missing something.
     
    news.xtra.co.nz, Dec 4, 2005
    #4
  5. On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:14:42 +1300, someone purporting to be PAM. didst
    scrawl:

    > "David" <> wrote in message

    *SNIP*
    > Is there a reason that fibre is being put down (bad fibre, naughty fibre, in
    > your bed) when wireless would do or am I missing something
    >

    Wireless won't do for anyone requiring very high speeds, a
    moderately-secure medium, or absolute reliability of service.
    Wireless has its place, to be sure, but it's never going to be as fast as
    terrestrial links. It's also insecure, in that anyone can tap your link
    and you have no way of knowing that they're doing so. You can encrypt,
    yes, but there are still security benefits to physical cable.
    Geographic and architectural features can have quite a significant effect
    on wireless, and effect that terrestrial links obviously don't give a hoot
    about. Atmospheric interference is similarly a problem.

    At my last job, there was a digital pre-production company next door. They
    were upgrading their network backbone to 10Gb/s, with 1Gb/s to the
    desktop, when I left. They send customer content around on DVDs and
    removable hard-drives, by courier, because it's faster and cheaper than a
    "broadband" *cough cough* connection, but even if connections were fast
    and affordable wireless wouldn't cut it. They're after 100Mb/s into the
    national backbone, but that's far too expensive for both them and their
    clients.

    Some applications will never be wireless. The classified defence and
    intelligence networks will always be carried by protected, terrestrial
    cable. Banks will never use radio wireless for account-detail
    communications, though they might be OK with an encrypted, LoS laser link.

    For you, wireless may well be enough. For a lot of companies, it won't be
    now and likely never will be. Since a lot of the companies that have the
    most use for really fast connections are light-commercial, and in or next
    to residential areas, trying to draw a clean line just gets too difficult.
    It's easier to simply lay fibre everywhere.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Dec 5, 2005
    #5
  6. David

    Gordon Guest

    On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:01:03 +1300, Matthew Poole wrote:

    > On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:14:42 +1300, someone purporting to be PAM. didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >> "David" <> wrote in message

    > *SNIP*
    >> Is there a reason that fibre is being put down (bad fibre, naughty fibre, in
    >> your bed) when wireless would do or am I missing something
    >>

    > Wireless won't do for anyone requiring very high speeds, a
    > moderately-secure medium, or absolute reliability of service.
    > Wireless has its place, to be sure, but it's never going to be as fast as
    > terrestrial links. It's also insecure, in that anyone can tap your link
    > and you have no way of knowing that they're doing so. You can encrypt,
    > yes, but there are still security benefits to physical cable.
    > Geographic and architectural features can have quite a significant effect
    > on wireless, and effect that terrestrial links obviously don't give a hoot
    > about. Atmospheric interference is similarly a problem.
    >
    > At my last job, there was a digital pre-production company next door. They
    > were upgrading their network backbone to 10Gb/s, with 1Gb/s to the
    > desktop, when I left. They send customer content around on DVDs and
    > removable hard-drives, by courier, because it's faster and cheaper than a
    > "broadband" *cough cough* connection, but even if connections were fast
    > and affordable wireless wouldn't cut it. They're after 100Mb/s into the
    > national backbone, but that's far too expensive for both them and their
    > clients.
    >
    > Some applications will never be wireless. The classified defence and
    > intelligence networks will always be carried by protected, terrestrial
    > cable. Banks will never use radio wireless for account-detail
    > communications, though they might be OK with an encrypted, LoS laser link.
    >
    > For you, wireless may well be enough. For a lot of companies, it won't be
    > now and likely never will be. Since a lot of the companies that have the
    > most use for really fast connections are light-commercial, and in or next
    > to residential areas, trying to draw a clean line just gets too difficult.
    > It's easier to simply lay fibre everywhere.


    Seems to me that we have a fibre for commerical users arguement here.

    The point about fibre is that it can take so much data in a so little
    thread and the loss is SFA.
     
    Gordon, Dec 5, 2005
    #6
  7. David

    Gordon Guest

    On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 02:28:24 +1300, David wrote:

    > It's starting to happen elsewhere
    > (http://www.canarie.ca/advnet/fibre.html). Some NZ councils such as
    > Christchurch are also making moves, but this needs to be extended much
    > wider, with or without council support. (And while at it, lets put the
    > damn stuff underground whereever possible.)


    Central Wellington has one huge LAN. Busineses enjoy the ability to send
    data around the LAN at only their share in mtce.
     
    Gordon, Dec 5, 2005
    #7
  8. On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:47:52 +1300, someone purporting to be Gordon didst
    scrawl:

    > On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:01:03 +1300, Matthew Poole wrote:
    >

    *SNIP*
    > Seems to me that we have a fibre for commerical users arguement here.
    >

    I'd argue fibre for everyone. Its bandwidth potential is effectively
    unlimited, certainly it can do, right now, far in excess of what a
    household would need. Wireless can keep up with the average NZ household's
    needs today, but what about in two years' time? Another standard, new
    equipment, more cost. Run fibre to the home now and you have the ability
    to support 10Gb/s immediately with potential for more as new standards are
    created. No new media, only new terminating equipment - equipment that
    will inter-operate backwards, so there's no need to upgrade your end just
    because the telco is upgrading theirs.

    > The point about fibre is that it can take so much data in a so little
    > thread and the loss is SFA.

    It's also cheap to purchase the fibre itself. Trenching is expensive, but
    you have that cost regardless of what you're laying in the trenches. Plus,
    by laying fibre now they effectively lay the infrastructure for the next
    50 years.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Dec 5, 2005
    #8
  9. David

    steve Guest

    David wrote:

    > Communities have a once in a lifetime chance to regain control over a
    > critical resource.  The costs to install a fibre network may seem
    > prohibitive, but either way users pay.  If we let the t'coms do it, we pay
    > both the capital cost and for their longterm monopoly profits.
    >
    > It's too important.  Would we accept a monopoly / duopoly owning the local
    > streets and throttling useage to leverage every last cent they can for
    > profit?


    We used to own Telecom...and it only took ONE f-witted government to sell it
    off.

    Like those 60 million year old rain forests gone in days at the hands of
    stupid people with chain saws and tree harvesters.

    A community COULD build its own fibre network.....and sooner or later when
    the folks who had the idea and understood why it was a good thing, some
    business guys will get elected for bashing Maori or banging on about
    crime....and they will sell the thing to the people who donated money to
    get them elected.

    Sure a bears shit in the woods.
     
    steve, Dec 5, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?QWxhbiBTYW5kZXJz?=

    configure a wireless pci/usb adaptor to act as an access point

    =?Utf-8?B?QWxhbiBTYW5kZXJz?=, Jul 2, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    5,953
    =?Utf-8?B?VmljdG9y?=
    Jul 5, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?TWlrZSBM?=

    Mappoint GPS locator and missing roads

    =?Utf-8?B?TWlrZSBM?=, Mar 31, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    849
    =?Utf-8?B?TWlrZQ==?=
    Apr 4, 2005
  3. Ben Long
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    609
    Aaron Leonard
    Jan 16, 2004
  4. MahaRaj

    UK roads software

    MahaRaj, Jun 18, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,954
    MahaRaj
    Jun 20, 2004
  5. TheNIGHTCRAWLER

    316 the next of the Toll Roads

    TheNIGHTCRAWLER, Jan 8, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    515
    TheNIGHTCRAWLER
    Jan 9, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page