broadband in the Netherland

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Chris Mayhew, Feb 28, 2004.

  1. Chris Mayhew

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    Chris Mayhew, Feb 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris Mayhew

    Gordon Guest

    On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:32:11 -0800, Chris Mayhew wrote:

    > Not comparable to NZ though but interesting all the same
    > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3551834


    Quote
    For Euros 60 ($109) a month, a subscribing household receives flat-rate
    internet access at 2Mbps (megabits per second). Thrown in is basic
    telephone line rental, 35 pay TV channels and 16 radio stations. Kamphius
    said calling discounts of up to 35 per cent on KPN's pricing were also
    being offered.


    The contracts refer to 100GB monthly traffic limits, unheard of in New
    Zealand for residential broadband plans.

    Unquote

    So which is it Flat or capped at 100GB/ month. ?
     
    Gordon, Feb 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gordon wrote:
    > The contracts refer to 100GB monthly traffic limits, unheard of in New
    > Zealand for residential broadband plans.


    heh, unheard of for most countries... they are the exception rather than
    the rule. comparing to Aussie is much fairer... but still, ecomies of
    scale should be alot better over there.

    --
    Http://www.Dave.net.nz
    Play Hangman
    Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.
     
    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Feb 28, 2004
    #3
  4. Chris Mayhew

    Steven H Guest

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:55:46 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Gordon wrote:
    >> The contracts refer to 100GB monthly traffic limits, unheard of in New
    >> Zealand for residential broadband plans.

    >
    > heh, unheard of for most countries... they are the exception rather than
    > the rule. comparing to Aussie is much fairer... but still, ecomies of
    > scale should be alot better over there.


    and the fact they dont exactly have this big arse pice of water inbetween
    them and the rest of the world!

    --
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Steven H - B.I.T. Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand
    ..net Geek
     
    Steven H, Feb 28, 2004
    #4
  5. On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:37:51 +1300, Steven H wrote:

    > and the fact they dont exactly have this big arse pice of water inbetween
    > them and the rest of the world!


    It costs 3 times as much to distribute Internet traffic around NZ as it
    does to get the traffic into the country in the first place.

    The "big-arse piece of water" is a straw man put up by Telecom and friends
    to hide their gouging.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 28, 2004
    #5
  6. On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:57:49 +1300, Gordon wrote:

    > Quote
    > For Euros 60 ($109) a month, a subscribing household receives flat-rate
    > internet access at 2Mbps (megabits per second). Thrown in is basic
    > telephone line rental, 35 pay TV channels and 16 radio stations. Kamphius
    > said calling discounts of up to 35 per cent on KPN's pricing were also
    > being offered.


    That's a Cable TV service.

    For comparison:

    DSL 1Mb/s down 360kb/s up is EUR 19.95/month, plus phone service
    (10EUR/month)

    Cable 1.5Mb/s down, 360kb/s up is EUR49.90/month inc TV service (phone
    service is another EUR5/month)

    There are no caps on the service (Quicknet, North Holland), however the
    top 1% of users get a warning to moderate usage.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 29, 2004
    #6
  7. On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:37:51 +1300, Steven H
    < - wont work anyway ;)> wrote:

    >On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:55:46 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >
    >> Gordon wrote:
    >>> The contracts refer to 100GB monthly traffic limits, unheard of in New
    >>> Zealand for residential broadband plans.

    >>
    >> heh, unheard of for most countries... they are the exception rather than
    >> the rule. comparing to Aussie is much fairer... but still, ecomies of
    >> scale should be alot better over there.

    >
    >and the fact they dont exactly have this big arse pice of water inbetween
    >them and the rest of the world!


    The netherlands is the fibre optic capital of the world! You just
    wouldn't believe how much there is in the ground. I used to work for
    one of the companies in the mid/late 90's who built a new couple of
    rings, but couldn't sell the bandwidth, the place was saturated (
    well, that and the appalling level of marketing! ).

    The internet access that is being talked about in the article is
    cable-based, not adsl. The bandwidth stated is probably for the local
    loop, which means that it's shared between all subscribers on the loop
    ( I accidentally found out that a good amplifier effectively swamped
    the rest of the users on the loop!) . Although the implementation is
    brand new, I don't think the cost of hardware has fallen that
    dramatically to increase bandwidth to gigabit levels which would be
    required to present that 2 or 4mbit to all subscribers.

    To be fair, this is the culmination of 20+ years of infrastructure
    upgrades. That way the cost is spread over time. Also, as stated in
    the article, the Internet access is one of a number of services
    offered over the cable. One of the main Amsterdam suppliers were
    pinning everything on pay-per-view services over their network. I'm
    not sure that they're winning!

    Most of the cable is fibre almost to the door, which is different at
    least to the UK, where most is copper.

    The other thing you need to remember is that there are 13 million or
    so people to connect up, and they all live in an area only slightly
    bigger than Wellington :) This does raise the earnings potential per
    km of cable by many orders of magnitude when compared to NZ.

    Sad, innit!


    Steve
     
    Steve Holdoway, Feb 29, 2004
    #7
  8. Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:
    >>and the fact they dont exactly have this big arse pice of water inbetween
    >>them and the rest of the world!


    > It costs 3 times as much to distribute Internet traffic around NZ as it
    > does to get the traffic into the country in the first place.
    > The "big-arse piece of water" is a straw man put up by Telecom and friends
    > to hide their gouging.


    So anyone should be able to provide cheap internet in Auckland then?

    So why dont they?

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://Dave.net.nz
    We have Hangman, Pacman, and Space Invaders
     
    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Feb 29, 2004
    #8
  9. On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 09:15:04 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > So anyone should be able to provide cheap internet in Auckland then?


    As long as they _stick_ to Auckland, possibly.

    > So why dont they?


    In the case of the bigger ISPs, they need to make up for reduced margins
    elsewhere and differential pricing gets them screamed at.

    In the case of the smaller ISPs they can't get the cheap tail circuits
    required for delivery inside Auckland, nor can they get cheap lineside
    gear.

    Even delivery inside Auckland usually costs as much again as the
    international circuit.

    A cheap ISP in auckland would have to be dialup only, or have some way of
    distributing radio cheaply. The new satellite systems may have the answer
    needed.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Mar 1, 2004
    #9
  10. Chris Mayhew

    pete Guest

    On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:40:22 +1300, Steve Holdoway wrote:

    > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:37:51 +1300, Steven H
    > < - wont work anyway ;)> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:55:46 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>
    >>> Gordon wrote:
    >>>> The contracts refer to 100GB monthly traffic limits, unheard of in New
    >>>> Zealand for residential broadband plans.
    >>>
    >>> heh, unheard of for most countries... they are the exception rather than
    >>> the rule. comparing to Aussie is much fairer... but still, ecomies of
    >>> scale should be alot better over there.

    >>
    >>and the fact they dont exactly have this big arse pice of water inbetween
    >>them and the rest of the world!

    >
    > The netherlands is the fibre optic capital of the world! You just
    > wouldn't believe how much there is in the ground. I used to work for
    > one of the companies in the mid/late 90's who built a new couple of
    > rings, but couldn't sell the bandwidth, the place was saturated (
    > well, that and the appalling level of marketing! ).

    snipped
    > Sad, innit!
    > Steve


    This is a story I read in a magazine called "Strategic Insight", about
    telcos the world over, especially in connection with fibre. A couple of
    years old, but still interesting.

    When Scandal Isn't Sexy - Geoffrey Colvin

    Strategic Insight June 2002

    It's time to set the record straight on a rather large matter. If you were
    to ask 100 citizens to name the biggest stock market story of the past five
    years, I suspect a considerable majority would answer the dot-com boom and
    bust. Others, with shorter memories, might say the Enron debacle and
    similar fraud-based scandals. Not even close.

    The easy winner by any gauge of dollars lost or human beings affected is
    the telecom bubble, and it's worth asking why this mammoth event sits in
    the hazy background of most people's consciousness. The explanation is not
    especially comforting for those of us in the media.

    Oh, we told you all about this historic rise and fall in ambitions,
    investments and valuations, especially here in Fortune and other business
    publications. But for the ordinary consumer of general-interest media, the
    extraordinary picture of a giant economic sector laid waste was just not
    all that vivid. Yet there has never been anything remotely like it.

    Intoxicated by the prospect of data traffic doubling every three or four
    months indefinitely, telecom firms around the world put down fibre-optic
    cable as fast as they could. The work cost some $US4 trillion over the past
    five years, at least half of it borrowed.

    Pause for a moment. That's trillion, with a "t". It's not a word you see
    all that often in connection with individual industries. For perspective,
    remember that the entire output of the US economy, the planets largest by
    far, is about $US10 trillion.

    The big telecom buildup ran into two major problems: too much cable and not
    enough data traffic, which grew fast but not nearly as fast as the
    companies expected. And they still had to make interest payments of
    hundreds of billions of dollars annually on all that borrowed money.

    The bottom finally fell out last year. When it did, the market
    capitalisation of the firms - AT&T, WorldCom, Lucent, JDS Uniphase Nortel
    and many others - declined from their peaks by about $SU2.5 trillion. Lat
    year alone, the sector laid off more than 500,000 employees. The dot-coms,
    by contrast, vaporised less than $US1 trillion of market cap. Enron, which
    lost $US63 billion of market value, looks like a rounding error by
    comparison.

    Measured by retirements ruined and employees impoverished, the telecom
    meltdown is the biggest financial disaster ever, by a mile. So why didn't
    most of the media present it that way? For a few reasons. The top one, I
    believe, is that the industry is old, sprawling and incomprehensible to
    most people. Legions of consumers still aren't clear on who does what.
    Phone bills are utterly mystifying. Some 23% of Americans think they get
    their local phone service from AT&T, though AT&T got out of that business
    18 years ago and only recently became a tiny player. Explaining how things
    really work is almost impossible without charts and diagrams, a TV-hostile
    form of communication.

    The industry is low on human glamour. The dot-com boom - now there was a
    story you could eat up. Fresh faced twentysomethings who were billionaires
    on paper! Offices in warehouses where obsessed employees slept under their
    desks! Some were arrogant and declared that the rest of us worked in the
    "dirt economy". Ah, was their comeuppance sweet! The stories begged to be
    told. Centenarian companies were putting cable into the ground, and even
    their new competitors were to not going to win the attention of media
    storytellers or their audiences.

    Circumstances were similar on Wall Street, where the telecoms had their
    cheerleaders urging hapless investors to keep on buying. But the dot-com
    analysts, like the companies themselves, were younger and more attractive.
    The average viewer would rather look at Henry Blodget or Mary Meeker than
    at Jack Grubman, the Salomon Smith Barney analyst who was their counterpart
    in the telecom industry. Only recently has Grubman been getting more ink,
    as New York's attorney general and the SEC investigate possible links
    between Wall Street research and investment banking.

    There were other reasons that the telecom disaster didn't spark the fury
    and horror it should have. Though fibre-optic technology is truly amazing,
    consumers couldn't touch it; by contrast they could buy a book or download
    a Pamela Anderson screensaver through a dot-com. Also, most telecom IPOs
    were more sober than the dot-com versions.

    These are hardly good reasons. When wealth gets created and destroyed on
    the most monumental scale ever, the coverage should be similarly
    unprecedented, and it wasn't. Now the market drama has cooled, we'll spend
    more time looking back. When we do, lets not allow juicy details to obscure
    the biggest story about what really happened when the market went insane.
     
    pete, Mar 1, 2004
    #10
  11. pete wrote:
    > Enron, which
    > lost $US63 billion of market value, looks like a rounding error by
    > comparison.


    heh, I like the wording of this article.

    --
    Http://www.Dave.net.nz
    Play Hangman
    Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.
     
    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Mar 1, 2004
    #11
    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. Silverstrand

    Review: D-Link DGL-4100 Broadband Gigabit Router

    Silverstrand, Jun 27, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,991
    Silverstrand
    Jun 27, 2005
  2. jo

    sharing cable broadband

    jo, Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,739
  3. David Gartrell

    Connecting a laptop to broadband

    David Gartrell, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    11,628
    Mike Bernstein
    Nov 28, 2004
  4. =?Utf-8?B?QWRyaWFuIEg=?=

    setting up wireless broadband to router

    =?Utf-8?B?QWRyaWFuIEg=?=, Dec 6, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    4,925
    John Butler
    Dec 9, 2004
  5. Bill
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    732
    Nobody
    May 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page