Broadband or Fraudband?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Philip, Mar 12, 2006.

  1. Philip

    Philip Guest

    Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
    what I expected.

    It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped
    on about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost
    never get anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the
    loathsome data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over
    the matter of the world's slowest uploads...

    The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
    install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
    the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
    This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
    people suggested it would be.

    Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz,
    and the bicycle of Telecom here.

    What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
    and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
    throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make
    you get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no
    matter how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.

    We really do need now to lobby government for a change.

    I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled to
    offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission
    proposed for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it would
    contest for months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down to
    accepting the piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been pushing -
    the one with the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will ever achieve,
    a miserable 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the snail's pace
    upload speed.

    I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
    contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
    realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will receive
    in their location.

    I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process, and
    that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to stall
    and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the LLU
    tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the
    following day.

    I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the US,
    or Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with coercive
    powers over all participants in the market.

    I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument
    advanced by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are
    separate entities) is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries of
    the OECD. LLU has not been found to be unduly intrusive on private
    property rights, and that in this matter the national interest also has
    a role to play.

    Tell the Minister what you think:


    Phone: 04 470 6667
    Fax: 04 471 2360
    David Cunliffe
    Minister of Communications
    Parliament Buildings
    Wellington

    Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't
    seem to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.

    you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
    http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
    to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.

    It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we really
    do want change.

    Philip
     
    Philip, Mar 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Philip

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Philip" <> wrote in message
    news:4413ce69$...
    > Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
    > what I expected.
    >
    > It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped on
    > about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost never get
    > anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the loathsome
    > data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over the matter
    > of the world's slowest uploads...
    >
    > The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
    > install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
    > the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
    > This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
    > people suggested it would be.
    >
    > Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz, and
    > the bicycle of Telecom here.
    >
    > What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
    > and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
    > throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make you
    > get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no matter
    > how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.
    >
    > We really do need now to lobby government for a change.
    >
    > I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled to
    > offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission proposed
    > for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it would contest for
    > months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down to accepting the
    > piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been pushing - the one with
    > the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will ever achieve, a miserable
    > 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the snail's pace upload speed.
    >
    > I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
    > contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
    > realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will receive
    > in their location.
    >
    > I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process, and
    > that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to stall
    > and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the LLU
    > tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the following
    > day.
    >
    > I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the US, or
    > Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with coercive powers
    > over all participants in the market.
    >
    > I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument advanced
    > by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are separate entities)
    > is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries of the OECD. LLU has not
    > been found to be unduly intrusive on private property rights, and that in
    > this matter the national interest also has a role to play.
    >
    > Tell the Minister what you think:
    >
    >
    > Phone: 04 470 6667
    > Fax: 04 471 2360
    > David Cunliffe
    > Minister of Communications
    > Parliament Buildings
    > Wellington
    >
    > Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't seem
    > to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.
    >
    > you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
    > http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
    > to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.
    >
    > It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we really do
    > want change.
    >
    > Philip


    Pretty obvious that Telecom are just milking it to make as much as they can
    from what customers that they've got. With far more customers using better
    offerings they'd still make real good money out of it.
    The fool from Telecom claimed it would take 3 years, and that suckers are
    flocking to use it.

    I didn't see all of but the guy from ihug seemed to speak very well, a damn
    sight better than Annette Presley from Slingshot.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Mar 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Philip

    Bugalugs Guest

    Philip wrote:
    > Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
    > what I expected.
    >
    > It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped
    > on about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost
    > never get anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the
    > loathsome data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over
    > the matter of the world's slowest uploads...
    >
    > The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
    > install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
    > the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
    > This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
    > people suggested it would be.
    >
    > Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz,
    > and the bicycle of Telecom here.
    >
    > What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
    > and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
    > throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make
    > you get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no
    > matter how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.
    >
    > We really do need now to lobby government for a change.
    >
    > I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled to
    > offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission
    > proposed for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it would
    > contest for months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down to
    > accepting the piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been pushing -
    > the one with the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will ever achieve,
    > a miserable 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the snail's pace
    > upload speed.
    >
    > I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
    > contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
    > realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will receive
    > in their location.
    >
    > I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process, and
    > that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to stall
    > and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the LLU
    > tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the
    > following day.
    >
    > I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the US,
    > or Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with coercive
    > powers over all participants in the market.
    >
    > I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument
    > advanced by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are
    > separate entities) is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries of
    > the OECD. LLU has not been found to be unduly intrusive on private
    > property rights, and that in this matter the national interest also has
    > a role to play.
    >
    > Tell the Minister what you think:
    >
    >
    > Phone: 04 470 6667
    > Fax: 04 471 2360
    > David Cunliffe
    > Minister of Communications
    > Parliament Buildings
    > Wellington
    >
    > Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't
    > seem to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.
    >
    > you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
    > http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
    > to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.
    >
    > It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we really
    > do want change.
    >
    > Philip
    >

    What gets on my tits is this insistence by lesser players in the
    industry, of local loop unbundling. Way back when, 'the gummint' SOLD
    the post office to Telecom.

    Telecom BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR a lot of stuff including the cable in the
    ground. No matter what pople say that was the biggest asset in Telecom
    the the gummint sold. To now insist that while we took your money and
    sold you this asset we now want you to give control of it back to us
    "for free' is ludicrous.

    The gummint screwed up. They took the money. The rest of the industry
    has to live with it. Or is this the only they can structure a govt
    handout because they can't compete.

    Imagine if Caltex sold all its retail outlets to BP. Then 6 years later
    came back to BP and said you have to let us sell Caltex branded petrol
    from those same pumps which YOU own on those petrol stations we sold you.

    BP would have every right to say go away and do something about sex and
    travel.
     
    Bugalugs, Mar 12, 2006
    #3
  4. Philip

    Kyle Guest

    Philip wrote:
    > Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
    > what I expected.
    >


    Bugger I missed the show, did anyone record it?
     
    Kyle, Mar 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Philip

    Philip Guest

    Bugalugs wrote:
    > Philip wrote:
    >> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was
    >> about what I expected.
    >>
    >> It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but
    >> harped on about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you
    >> almost never get anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter
    >> of the loathsome data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios,
    >> skimmed over the matter of the world's slowest uploads...
    >>
    >> The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
    >> install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services
    >> down the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the
    >> home). This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the
    >> panacea the TV people suggested it would be.
    >>
    >> Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz,
    >> and the bicycle of Telecom here.
    >>
    >> What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard
    >> enough and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that
    >> they'll throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km
    >> they'll make you get out and get back on the bike until the end of the
    >> month. And no matter how far you drive, you have to walk back in the
    >> other direction.
    >>
    >> We really do need now to lobby government for a change.
    >>
    >> I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled
    >> to offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission
    >> proposed for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it would
    >> contest for months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down to
    >> accepting the piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been pushing
    >> - the one with the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will ever
    >> achieve, a miserable 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the
    >> snail's pace upload speed.
    >>
    >> I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
    >> contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
    >> realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will
    >> receive in their location.
    >>
    >> I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process,
    >> and that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to
    >> stall and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the
    >> LLU tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the
    >> following day.
    >>
    >> I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the
    >> US, or Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with
    >> coercive powers over all participants in the market.
    >>
    >> I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument
    >> advanced by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are
    >> separate entities) is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries of
    >> the OECD. LLU has not been found to be unduly intrusive on private
    >> property rights, and that in this matter the national interest also
    >> has a role to play.
    >>
    >> Tell the Minister what you think:
    >>
    >>
    >> Phone: 04 470 6667
    >> Fax: 04 471 2360
    >> David Cunliffe
    >> Minister of Communications
    >> Parliament Buildings
    >> Wellington
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't
    >> seem to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.
    >>
    >> you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
    >> http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
    >> to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.
    >>
    >> It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we really
    >> do want change.
    >>
    >> Philip
    >>

    > What gets on my tits is this insistence by lesser players in the
    > industry, of local loop unbundling. Way back when, 'the gummint' SOLD
    > the post office to Telecom.


    No they didn't. They sold the SOE called Telecom to Ameritech and Bell
    South, both of which have since milked all they could from the business
    and moved on. . The Post Office Telephones were split off some years
    before. They undervalued it in every way, failed to recognise the nature
    of the business and effectively flogged taxpayer-owned and paid for
    assets at around a third of their value to the hungry American wolves
    that were panting on the doorstep.

    Blame the idiot Prebble, blame short-sighted politicians desperate to
    make themselves look good for five minutes before the next election.


    >
    > Telecom BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR a lot of stuff including the cable in the
    > ground. No matter what pople say that was the biggest asset in Telecom
    > the the gummint sold. To now insist that while we took your money and
    > sold you this asset we now want you to give control of it back to us
    > "for free' is ludicrous.


    Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Telecom is a public utility, and public
    utilities enjoy privileges that they must pay for. Telecom is a common
    carrier. If you plot a crime over the phone, Telecom can't be held
    liable. That's a privilege and it has to be paid for. It wasn't at
    privatisation. Telecom owns wayleaves - the right to run its cables
    above and below private property. They were never charged the full value
    of that at privatisation. Telecom was given control over the national
    numbering system, and the directories, because stupid Prebble and his
    ignorant advisors didn't even perceive them as a separate businesses.
    Telecom owes the people of New Zealand, and has absolutely no right to
    moan about LLU. They are not being asked to give up control of what they
    have. They have to be told to offer it on the market at a fair price.
    >
    > The gummint screwed up. They took the money. The rest of the industry
    > has to live with it. Or is this the only they can structure a govt
    > handout because they can't compete.


    I don't know what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you could
    re-phrase it?
    >
    > Imagine if Caltex sold all its retail outlets to BP. Then 6 years later
    > came back to BP and said you have to let us sell Caltex branded petrol
    > from those same pumps which YOU own on those petrol stations we sold you.
    >
    > BP would have every right to say go away and do something about sex and
    > travel.


    A different matter. There is a competitive market in motor fuels.
    There's not in telecoms. Telecom must be regulated, or split so that
    there is a real market with real competition. And that's a matter of
    national concern and national interest.

    At present Telecom acts as if it was answerable to nobody. I prefer the
    elected government of New Zealand to make the rules, not an arrogant
    stockholder company that has been ripping off its New Zealand customers
    for the past ten years.

    Philip
     
    Philip, Mar 12, 2006
    #5
  6. Philip

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:57:25 +1300, Bugalugs <!> wrote:

    >Philip wrote:
    >> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
    >> what I expected.
    >>
    >> It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped
    >> on about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost
    >> never get anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the
    >> loathsome data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over
    >> the matter of the world's slowest uploads...
    >>
    >> The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
    >> install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
    >> the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
    >> This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
    >> people suggested it would be.
    >>
    >> Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz,
    >> and the bicycle of Telecom here.
    >>
    >> What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
    >> and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
    >> throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make
    >> you get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no
    >> matter how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.
    >>
    >> We really do need now to lobby government for a change.
    >>
    >> I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled to
    >> offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission
    >> proposed for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it would
    >> contest for months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down to
    >> accepting the piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been pushing -
    >> the one with the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will ever achieve,
    >> a miserable 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the snail's pace
    >> upload speed.
    >>
    >> I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
    >> contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
    >> realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will receive
    >> in their location.
    >>
    >> I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process, and
    >> that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to stall
    >> and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the LLU
    >> tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the
    >> following day.
    >>
    >> I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the US,
    >> or Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with coercive
    >> powers over all participants in the market.
    >>
    >> I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument
    >> advanced by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are
    >> separate entities) is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries of
    >> the OECD. LLU has not been found to be unduly intrusive on private
    >> property rights, and that in this matter the national interest also has
    >> a role to play.
    >>
    >> Tell the Minister what you think:
    >>
    >>
    >> Phone: 04 470 6667
    >> Fax: 04 471 2360
    >> David Cunliffe
    >> Minister of Communications
    >> Parliament Buildings
    >> Wellington
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't
    >> seem to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.
    >>
    >> you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
    >> http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
    >> to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.
    >>
    >> It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we really
    >> do want change.
    >>
    >> Philip
    >>

    >What gets on my tits is this insistence by lesser players in the
    >industry, of local loop unbundling. Way back when, 'the gummint' SOLD
    >the post office to Telecom.
    >
    >Telecom BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR a lot of stuff including the cable in the
    >ground. No matter what pople say that was the biggest asset in Telecom
    >the the gummint sold. To now insist that while we took your money and
    >sold you this asset we now want you to give control of it back to us
    >"for free' is ludicrous.
    >
    >The gummint screwed up. They took the money. The rest of the industry
    >has to live with it. Or is this the only they can structure a govt
    >handout because they can't compete.
    >
    >Imagine if Caltex sold all its retail outlets to BP. Then 6 years later
    >came back to BP and said you have to let us sell Caltex branded petrol
    >from those same pumps which YOU own on those petrol stations we sold you.
    >
    >BP would have every right to say go away and do something about sex and
    >travel.


    Maybe the Govermnent should just build a new nationwide fibre to the door
    network?
     
    Craig Shore, Mar 12, 2006
    #6
  7. Philip

    Barry Lennox Guest

    On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:57:25 +1300, Bugalugs
    <!> wrote:



    snip

    In my opinion, Gattung just did her usual grinning village-idiot
    thing. She never satisfactorily explained why Aust is ahead of us. She
    seemed to be threatening again " If the govt legislates, it will only
    slow us up" A bit like the "share-price will go down" last year.


    >
    >Telecom BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR a lot of stuff including the cable in the
    >ground. No matter what pople say that was the biggest asset in Telecom
    >the the gummint sold. To now insist that while we took your money and
    >sold you this asset we now want you to give control of it back to us
    >"for free' is ludicrous.


    BS, a lot of what Telecom "bought" had been paid for by earlier
    generations, infrastructure, buildings, copper in the ground, incl the
    "local loop", the directory system, their rights to put cable wherever
    they want, and lots more. They "bought" it all for a song. The
    taxpayers of NZ have a lot more right to it than Telecom. Telecom
    never gets that point.

    >
    >The gummint screwed up. They took the money.


    there I agree 100%

    >
    >Imagine if Caltex sold all its retail outlets to BP. Then 6 years later
    >came back to BP and said you have to let us sell Caltex branded petrol
    >from those same pumps which YOU own on those petrol stations we sold you.


    Caltex does not use taxpayers money to build it's outlets.
     
    Barry Lennox, Mar 12, 2006
    #7
  8. The lesson to be learned from the Broadband fiasco , and from what
    happened at the railways and Air New Zealand is that we were very
    very stupid to sell off OUR community assets


    We should make a firm resolution to never ever let any government
    sell off the community owned assets.we still have.


    Patrick
     
    Patrick FitzGerald, Mar 12, 2006
    #8
  9. Philip

    shannon Guest

    Philip wrote:
    > Bugalugs wrote:
    >
    >> Philip wrote:
    >>
    >>> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was
    >>> about what I expected.
    >>>
    >>> It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but
    >>> harped on about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you
    >>> almost never get anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the
    >>> matter of the loathsome data caps, didn't even mention contention
    >>> ratios, skimmed over the matter of the world's slowest uploads...
    >>>
    >>> The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs
    >>> to install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their
    >>> services down the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange
    >>> and the home). This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily
    >>> the panacea the TV people suggested it would be.
    >>>
    >>> Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz,
    >>> and the bicycle of Telecom here.
    >>>
    >>> What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard
    >>> enough and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but
    >>> that they'll throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5
    >>> km they'll make you get out and get back on the bike until the end of
    >>> the month. And no matter how far you drive, you have to walk back in
    >>> the other direction.
    >>>
    >>> We really do need now to lobby government for a change.
    >>>
    >>> I am writing to suggest that as a start, Telecom should be compelled
    >>> to offer all participants the same deal that the Commerce Commission
    >>> proposed for Telstra. This is the deal that Telecom then said it
    >>> would contest for months in the Courts, until it wore Telstra down
    >>> to accepting the piddling and pathetic proposal it has since been
    >>> pushing - the one with the 3.5 MBit download speed which nobody will
    >>> ever achieve, a miserable 4.5 GB data cap and no change at all in the
    >>> snail's pace upload speed.
    >>>
    >>> I am suggesting that Telecom should be compelled by law to publish
    >>> contention ratios on all its offerings, and provide consumers with
    >>> realistic estimates of the real likely download speeds they will
    >>> receive in their location.
    >>>
    >>> I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process,
    >>> and that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts
    >>> to stall and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of
    >>> the LLU tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail
    >>> the following day.
    >>>
    >>> I am suggesting that a telecoms regulator similar to the FCC in the
    >>> US, or Ofcom in the UK, should be established immediately, with
    >>> coercive powers over all participants in the market.
    >>>
    >>> I am suggesting that the "intrusion on private property" argument
    >>> advanced by Telecom and Business New Zealand (so far as they are
    >>> separate entities) is a red herring, and that in 30 other countries
    >>> of the OECD. LLU has not been found to be unduly intrusive on private
    >>> property rights, and that in this matter the national interest also
    >>> has a role to play.
    >>>
    >>> Tell the Minister what you think:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Phone: 04 470 6667
    >>> Fax: 04 471 2360
    >>> David Cunliffe
    >>> Minister of Communications
    >>> Parliament Buildings
    >>> Wellington
    >>>
    >>> Unfortunately, his rather outdated website at cunliffe.org.nz doesn't
    >>> seem to have been updated since the election. That's not a good sign.
    >>>
    >>> you might also like to use the letters-to-the-editor robot at
    >>> http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
    >>> to send your views to the letters columns of a swatch of local papers.
    >>>
    >>> It's time to get the message through to our politicians that we
    >>> really do want change.
    >>>
    >>> Philip
    >>>

    >> What gets on my tits is this insistence by lesser players in the
    >> industry, of local loop unbundling. Way back when, 'the gummint' SOLD
    >> the post office to Telecom.

    >
    >
    > No they didn't. They sold the SOE called Telecom to Ameritech and Bell
    > South, both of which have since milked all they could from the business
    > and moved on. . The Post Office Telephones were split off some years
    > before. They undervalued it in every way, failed to recognise the nature
    > of the business and effectively flogged taxpayer-owned and paid for
    > assets at around a third of their value to the hungry American wolves
    > that were panting on the doorstep.
    >
    > Blame the idiot Prebble, blame short-sighted politicians desperate to
    > make themselves look good for five minutes before the next election.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Telecom BOUGHT AND PAYED FOR a lot of stuff including the cable in the
    >> ground. No matter what pople say that was the biggest asset in Telecom
    >> the the gummint sold. To now insist that while we took your money and
    >> sold you this asset we now want you to give control of it back to us
    >> "for free' is ludicrous.

    >
    >
    > Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Telecom is a public utility, and public
    > utilities enjoy privileges that they must pay for. Telecom is a common
    > carrier. If you plot a crime over the phone, Telecom can't be held
    > liable. That's a privilege and it has to be paid for. It wasn't at
    > privatisation. Telecom owns wayleaves - the right to run its cables
    > above and below private property. They were never charged the full value
    > of that at privatisation. Telecom was given control over the national
    > numbering system, and the directories, because stupid Prebble and his
    > ignorant advisors didn't even perceive them as a separate businesses.
    > Telecom owes the people of New Zealand, and has absolutely no right to
    > moan about LLU. They are not being asked to give up control of what they
    > have. They have to be told to offer it on the market at a fair price.
    >
    >>
    >> The gummint screwed up. They took the money. The rest of the industry
    >> has to live with it. Or is this the only they can structure a govt
    >> handout because they can't compete.

    >
    >
    > I don't know what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you could
    > re-phrase it?
    >
    >>
    >> Imagine if Caltex sold all its retail outlets to BP. Then 6 years
    >> later came back to BP and said you have to let us sell Caltex branded
    >> petrol from those same pumps which YOU own on those petrol stations we
    >> sold you.
    >>
    >> BP would have every right to say go away and do something about sex
    >> and travel.

    >
    >
    > A different matter. There is a competitive market in motor fuels.
    > There's not in telecoms. Telecom must be regulated, or split so that
    > there is a real market with real competition. And that's a matter of
    > national concern and national interest.
    >
    > At present Telecom acts as if it was answerable to nobody. I prefer the
    > elected government of New Zealand to make the rules, not an arrogant
    > stockholder company that has been ripping off its New Zealand customers
    > for the past ten years.
    >
    > Philip
    >


    Vote with a backhoe !!!!! :)
     
    shannon, Mar 12, 2006
    #9
  10. Philip

    Katipo Guest

    "Philip" <> wrote in message
    news:4413ce69$...
    > Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
    > what I expected.
    >
    > It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped on
    > about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost never get
    > anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the loathsome
    > data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over the matter
    > of the world's slowest uploads...
    >
    > The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
    > install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
    > the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
    > This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
    > people suggested it would be.
    >
    > Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz, and
    > the bicycle of Telecom here.
    >
    > What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
    > and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
    > throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make you
    > get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no matter
    > how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.
    >


    Exactly how much better is Broadband in Oz? What sort of speeds are they
    getting there?
    I am not defending Telecom, but the April Issue of APC magazine has a
    comparison of various OZ broadband plans and they don't seem to be much
    different to what Telecom is about to offer us.

    Katipo
     
    Katipo, Mar 12, 2006
    #10
  11. Philip

    george Guest

    Katipo wrote:
    > "Philip" <> wrote in message
    > news:4413ce69$...
    > > Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
    > > what I expected.
    > >
    > > It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped on
    > > about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost never get
    > > anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the loathsome
    > > data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over the matter
    > > of the world's slowest uploads...
    > >
    > > The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
    > > install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
    > > the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
    > > This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
    > > people suggested it would be.
    > >
    > > Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz, and
    > > the bicycle of Telecom here.
    > >
    > > What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
    > > and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
    > > throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make you
    > > get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no matter
    > > how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.
    > >

    >
    > Exactly how much better is Broadband in Oz? What sort of speeds are they
    > getting there?
    > I am not defending Telecom, but the April Issue of APC magazine has a
    > comparison of various OZ broadband plans and they don't seem to be much
    > different to what Telecom is about to offer us.
    >

    Australian broadband doesn't have a cap.
    Australian broadband is available at the same price as Telecon charges
    for their snail email service

    It's the about bit that is the concern.
    about how much and about how fast?
    About when ? When Telecon have been dragged into 2000 technology
     
    george, Mar 12, 2006
    #11
  12. Philip

    k Guest

    Katipo wrote:
    > "Philip" <> wrote in message
    > news:4413ce69$...
    >> Just watched the TV1 Sunday special on broadband in NZ - which was about
    >> what I expected.
    >>
    >> It rightly slammed the pathetic Telecom fraudband offering, but harped on
    >> about headline download speeds, didn't point out that you almost never get
    >> anywhere near those speeds, didn't address the matter of the loathsome
    >> data caps, didn't even mention contention ratios, skimmed over the matter
    >> of the world's slowest uploads...
    >>
    >> The producers majored on Local Loop Unbundling (allowing other ISPs to
    >> install their equipment in Telecom exchanges to feed their services down
    >> the last few km of telephone cable between the exchange and the home).
    >> This is fine as far as it goes but isn't necessarily the panacea the TV
    >> people suggested it would be.
    >>
    >> Their starting comparison was between the Lamborghini of ADSL2 in Oz, and
    >> the bicycle of Telecom here.
    >>
    >> What they should have said was that Telecom will, if pushed hard enough
    >> and paid enough, give you the keys to the Lamborghini, but that they'll
    >> throttle it back to 60 km/h - and when you've gone 4.5 km they'll make you
    >> get out and get back on the bike until the end of the month. And no matter
    >> how far you drive, you have to walk back in the other direction.
    >>

    >
    > Exactly how much better is Broadband in Oz? What sort of speeds are they
    > getting there?
    > I am not defending Telecom, but the April Issue of APC magazine has a
    > comparison of various OZ broadband plans and they don't seem to be much
    > different to what Telecom is about to offer us.
    >
    > Katipo
    >
    >


    After having a quick glance at
    http://www.iprimus.com.au/broadband-pricing.asp the only real difference
    is a bit more speed.

    Our friends over the ditch seem to be stuck with similar data caps to
    what we have over here.
     
    k, Mar 12, 2006
    #12
  13. T'was the Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:11:05 +1300 when I remembered Patrick
    FitzGerald <> saying something like this:

    >We should make a firm resolution to never ever let any government
    >sell off the community owned assets.we still have.


    Would government run assets be as efficient as assets run by
    companies? Didn't it take a while to get a new phone connected with
    Telecom in the days before privatization?

    Imagine how long it would take to get ADSL connected:)
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/
     
    Waylon Kenning, Mar 12, 2006
    #13
  14. Philip

    EMB Guest

    Waylon Kenning wrote:
    > T'was the Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:11:05 +1300 when I remembered Patrick
    > FitzGerald <> saying something like this:
    >
    >
    >>We should make a firm resolution to never ever let any government
    >>sell off the community owned assets.we still have.

    >
    >
    > Would government run assets be as efficient as assets run by
    > companies? Didn't it take a while to get a new phone connected with
    > Telecom in the days before privatization?
    >
    > Imagine how long it would take to get ADSL connected:)


    I'd rather have a bit of a wait for ADSL and get a true braodband
    product than get a crippled offering connected in a fortnight.

    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Mar 12, 2006
    #14
  15. Philip

    EMB Guest

    Philip wrote:

    > I am suggesting that there should be fast-tracking of that process, and
    > that Telecom should be told that if there are any more attempts to stall
    > and delay, then government will legislate the unbundling of the LLU
    > tomorrow, and the splitting of Telecom wholesale and retail the
    > following day.


    I would suggest that it might be a better result if the government just
    bought the local loop back from Telecom (cheap, under threat of
    legislating to make them very sick looking) and ran it as a public asset
    again.

    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Mar 12, 2006
    #15
  16. Philip

    MarkH Guest

    k <> wrote in news:44147bc5$:

    > After having a quick glance at
    > http://www.iprimus.com.au/broadband-pricing.asp the only real
    > difference is a bit more speed.


    Does that site list the contention ratios and the latency? I couldn't see
    any mention of that.

    Hmmm - 8Mbit with a cap of 40GB for $89.95, that seems better than any
    Telecom NZ offer that I have ever seen. Better by a considerable margin!

    Are they the only ISP in Aus, or would there possibly be other ISPs that
    may offer a flat rate plan?



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
    "The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
    young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
    for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
    Maskerade
     
    MarkH, Mar 12, 2006
    #16
  17. Philip

    shannon Guest

    Waylon Kenning wrote:
    > T'was the Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:11:05 +1300 when I remembered Patrick
    > FitzGerald <> saying something like this:
    >
    >
    >>We should make a firm resolution to never ever let any government
    >>sell off the community owned assets.we still have.

    >
    >
    > Would government run assets be as efficient as assets run by
    > companies? Didn't it take a while to get a new phone connected with
    > Telecom in the days before privatization?
    >
    > Imagine how long it would take to get ADSL connected:)
    > --
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Waylon Kenning.
    > See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/


    Ah yes, the old gummint must be slower line
    It doesn't take them long to send out GST returns. :)
     
    shannon, Mar 12, 2006
    #17
  18. Philip

    brazen Guest

    "Waylon Kenning" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > T'was the Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:11:05 +1300 when I remembered Patrick
    > FitzGerald <> saying something like this:
    >
    >>We should make a firm resolution to never ever let any government
    >>sell off the community owned assets.we still have.

    >
    > Would government run assets be as efficient as assets run by
    > companies? Didn't it take a while to get a new phone connected with
    > Telecom in the days before privatization?


    That old chestnut! How about the thousands (?) of people waiting for phone
    connections NOW but arent getting them *at all* because Telecom are
    concentrating on their more lucrative city/town market. At least with govt
    ownership it was seen as infrastructure so rural taxpayers didnt miss out.

    gay
     
    brazen, Mar 12, 2006
    #18
  19. Philip

    RJ Guest

    In article <>, says...
    >
    >
    >
    > The lesson to be learned from the Broadband fiasco , and from what
    > happened at the railways and Air New Zealand is that we were very
    > very stupid to sell off OUR community assets
    >
    >
    > We should make a firm resolution to never ever let any government
    > sell off the community owned assets.we still have.


    What crap. The government went into huge debt over those assets, then
    the government was just about bankrupt. They all lost pots of money
    because the government ran them to buy votes instead of like proper
    businesses.
     
    RJ, Mar 12, 2006
    #19
  20. Philip

    RJ Guest

    In article <dv20q4$bg6$>, says...
    > Waylon Kenning wrote:
    > > T'was the Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:11:05 +1300 when I remembered Patrick
    > > FitzGerald <> saying something like this:
    > >
    > >
    > >>We should make a firm resolution to never ever let any government
    > >>sell off the community owned assets.we still have.

    > >
    > >
    > > Would government run assets be as efficient as assets run by
    > > companies? Didn't it take a while to get a new phone connected with
    > > Telecom in the days before privatization?
    > >
    > > Imagine how long it would take to get ADSL connected:)

    >
    > I'd rather have a bit of a wait for ADSL and get a true braodband
    > product than get a crippled offering connected in a fortnight.


    If it was still the post office there wouldn't be any ADSL. It took
    years before there were any push button phones available, and then they
    were just old dial phones with the dial replaced by a keypad, and the
    horrible pert phones.
     
    RJ, Mar 12, 2006
    #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. Silverstrand

    Review: D-Link DGL-4100 Broadband Gigabit Router

    Silverstrand, Jun 27, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,985
    Silverstrand
    Jun 27, 2005
  2. jo

    sharing cable broadband

    jo, Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,737
  3. David Gartrell

    Connecting a laptop to broadband

    David Gartrell, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    11,624
    Mike Bernstein
    Nov 28, 2004
  4. Philip

    ICANN members shocked at NZ fraudband

    Philip, Mar 26, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    511
    David
    Mar 28, 2006
  5. Bill
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    729
    Nobody
    May 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page