Get Ready for chaeaer faster broadband

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Gordon, Mar 18, 2006.

  1. Gordon

    Gordon Guest

    Telcom's spin doctors have been telling us

    Get ready for cheaper, faster broadband.

    In the very, very small print are the words, When the local loop is
    unbundled.

    I am sure that I am not the only one who can see them. Let us hope our
    elected members to parliament can, majority wise.
     
    Gordon, Mar 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gordon

    Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > Telcom's spin doctors have been telling us
    >
    > Get ready for cheaper, faster broadband.
    >
    > In the very, very small print are the words, When the local loop is
    > unbundled.
    >
    > I am sure that I am not the only one who can see them. Let us hope our
    > elected members to parliament can, majority wise.


    but how long can Telecom fight this through the courts? 2 years? 3 years?

    Then we could have the Nats in, bye bye legislation....

    regards

    Thing
     
    , Mar 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gordon

    Richard Guest

    y wrote:
    > but how long can Telecom fight this through the courts? 2 years? 3 years?
    >
    > Then we could have the Nats in, bye bye legislation....


    Or, by then we could have a new loop, so who cares about telecoms one?
     
    Richard, Mar 18, 2006
    #3
  4. Gordon

    colinco Guest

    In article Gordon says...
    > In the very, very small print are the words, When the local loop is
    > unbundled.
    >

    Good job that the ISPs will primarily only be interested in AK as the
    roads there will be totally choked by then.

    Isn't the big problem here not the DSLAM-customer link but the size of
    the links back to the ISP and from there to the USA.
     
    colinco, Mar 18, 2006
    #4
  5. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:18:43 +1300, someone purporting to be colinco didst
    scrawl:

    > In article Gordon says...

    *SNIP*
    > Isn't the big problem here not the DSLAM-customer link but the size of
    > the links back to the ISP and from there to the USA.


    The links to the ISP's are crippled by Telecom. If they would implement
    NNI it would solve the back haul issue quickly - of course, they'd no
    longer be able to charge ISP's $4k/month/end for ATM circuits, so they
    have zero incentive to get it going.
    As for the link to the US, we've got a 40+Gbps cable, fully paid for,
    between Auckland, Australia and the US. Capacity internationally is not at
    all a constraint, unless you're Telescum trying to justify gouging the
    nation.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 18, 2006
    #5
  6. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:18:43 +1300, colinco wrote:

    > Isn't the big problem here not the DSLAM-customer link but the size of
    > the links back to the ISP and from there to the USA.


    I think that the Southern Cross Cable is more than capable of taking any
    quantity of data that we presently want to throw across it.

    The problem is that Telecom - one of the owners of the Sourthern Cross
    Cable - is not wanting to have all that bandwidth available to its
    customers - it will reduce the price it can extort for it.

    And yeah - the links from the various DSLAMs back to some central place(s)
    (however Telecom does it) are simply not big enough to take all the data
    that its customers are wanting to throw across it.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 18, 2006
    #6
  7. Gordon

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:49:44 +1300, ""
    <> exclaimed:

    >Gordon wrote:
    >> Telcom's spin doctors have been telling us
    >>
    >> Get ready for cheaper, faster broadband.
    >>
    >> In the very, very small print are the words, When the local loop is
    >> unbundled.
    >>
    >> I am sure that I am not the only one who can see them. Let us hope our
    >> elected members to parliament can, majority wise.

    >
    >but how long can Telecom fight this through the courts? 2 years? 3 years?
    >
    >Then we could have the Nats in, bye bye legislation....
    >

    Why do so many people seem to think that National wouldn't sort out
    this mess that's been festering under Labour?

    Whilst National has made it clear that their *preference* is to not to
    have to legislate, they're probably the only ones that have got the
    balls to actually do something about it. Labour's definately shown
    that they don't, despite their sound bites.
     
    Fred Dagg, Mar 18, 2006
    #7
  8. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:18:21 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    didst scrawl:

    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:49:44 +1300, ""
    > <> exclaimed:

    *SNIP*
    > Why do so many people seem to think that National wouldn't sort out
    > this mess that's been festering under Labour?
    >

    Because they spent nine years letting it develop. 0867 ring any bells?

    > Whilst National has made it clear that their *preference* is to not to
    > have to legislate, they're probably the only ones that have got the
    > balls to actually do something about it. Labour's definately shown
    > that they don't, despite their sound bites.


    Nobody has any faith in National because Maurice Williamson was in charge
    during their last term and will likely be in charge whenever they're next
    in power. That does not inspire confidence, especially when you consider
    that National have been dreadfully quiet about the current mess. That
    suggests that they don't think that it's a problem to just let the market
    sort itself out. Or not.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 18, 2006
    #8
  9. Gordon

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:30:23 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    exclaimed:

    >On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:18:21 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    >didst scrawl:
    >
    >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:49:44 +1300, ""
    >> <> exclaimed:

    >*SNIP*
    >> Why do so many people seem to think that National wouldn't sort out
    >> this mess that's been festering under Labour?
    >>

    >Because they spent nine years letting it develop. 0867 ring any bells?
    >
    >> Whilst National has made it clear that their *preference* is to not to
    >> have to legislate, they're probably the only ones that have got the
    >> balls to actually do something about it. Labour's definately shown
    >> that they don't, despite their sound bites.

    >
    >Nobody has any faith in National because Maurice Williamson was in charge
    >during their last term and will likely be in charge whenever they're next
    >in power. That does not inspire confidence, especially when you consider
    >that National have been dreadfully quiet about the current mess. That
    >suggests that they don't think that it's a problem to just let the market
    >sort itself out. Or not.


    Yeah, but it's not like Labour have done anything about it. Whilst
    they like to talk a lot when the cameras are on, they've been given
    the biggest opportunities to date to fix the problems, and they've
    been pathetically impotent on the issue.
     
    Fred Dagg, Mar 18, 2006
    #9
  10. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:01:23 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    didst scrawl:

    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:30:23 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    > exclaimed:
    >

    *SNIP*
    > Yeah, but it's not like Labour have done anything about it. Whilst
    > they like to talk a lot when the cameras are on, they've been given
    > the biggest opportunities to date to fix the problems, and they've
    > been pathetically impotent on the issue.


    So because Labour haven't done anything substantial so far (setting up the
    Telecommunications Commissioner and the Telecommunications Act 2001 isn't
    doing nothing) you somehow came to the conclusion that National have
    gained a clue, ditched their love affair with big business, and would be
    an effective regulatory power?
    Pull the other one, Fred. Surely you're not THAT ideologically blinded
    that you cannot see how stupid it is to believe that National would do
    anything differently?

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 18, 2006
    #10
  11. Gordon

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:21:37 +1200, Matthew Poole <>
    exclaimed:

    >On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:01:23 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    >didst scrawl:
    >
    >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:30:23 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    >> exclaimed:
    >>

    >*SNIP*
    >> Yeah, but it's not like Labour have done anything about it. Whilst
    >> they like to talk a lot when the cameras are on, they've been given
    >> the biggest opportunities to date to fix the problems, and they've
    >> been pathetically impotent on the issue.

    >
    >So because Labour haven't done anything substantial so far (setting up the
    >Telecommunications Commissioner and the Telecommunications Act 2001 isn't
    >doing nothing)


    And gee, that's make a lick of difference. Again, ineffective measures
    to an ever-increasing problem.

    > you somehow came to the conclusion that National have
    >gained a clue, ditched their love affair with big business, and would be
    >an effective regulatory power?


    National gets things done. Labour doesn't. There's a clear difference.

    Of course National would prefer not to have to regulate Telecon,
    however, presented with the current situation and Telecom's attitude
    to it, I honestly believe National would have had no option but to
    sort it out. At least they have a few clues. Half of the Labour bench
    don't even know how to turn a computer on.

    >Pull the other one, Fred. Surely you're not THAT ideologically blinded
    >that you cannot see how stupid it is to believe that National would do
    >anything differently?


    I don't think it's me that is ideologically blinded. Even though
    Labour have caved at every turn, conclusively shown they do not even
    understand the issues, and have been totally ineffective in this
    matter, you still hold blind faith that they will sort it out?
    Nutty...
     
    Fred Dagg, Mar 19, 2006
    #11
  12. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:18:18 +1200, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    didst scrawl:

    > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:21:37 +1200, Matthew Poole <>
    > exclaimed:
    >

    *SNIP*
    >>Pull the other one, Fred. Surely you're not THAT ideologically blinded
    >>that you cannot see how stupid it is to believe that National would do
    >>anything differently?

    >
    > I don't think it's me that is ideologically blinded. Even though
    > Labour have caved at every turn, conclusively shown they do not even
    > understand the issues, and have been totally ineffective in this
    > matter, you still hold blind faith that they will sort it out?


    When have I ever said that I'm sure that Labour will sort it out? I'm sure
    that National won't, which is quite a big difference from being sure that
    Labour will.
    I'm HOPEFUL that Labour will sort it out, and I trust them to do something
    more than I trust National, but I'm far from convinced.

    Also, by the time National next get a shot it will be too late. If things
    aren't resolved to some extent within the next year to 18 months we'll be
    so far behind that the situation will simply not be able to be rectified.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 19, 2006
    #12
  13. Gordon

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:39:48 +1200, Matthew Poole <>
    exclaimed:

    >Also, by the time National next get a shot it will be too late. If things
    >aren't resolved to some extent within the next year to 18 months we'll be
    >so far behind that the situation will simply not be able to be rectified.


    Actually, I agree with you there. Realistically, not unbundling last
    time around (2004) was the big mistake. I personally think the horse
    has now bolted, and unbundling would work in Telecom's favour. They've
    already rolled out ADS2 in many exchanges, and just haven't enabled
    it. As soon as unbundling occurs, they'll release ADSL2, but not have
    to share. Telstra's the only one that could afford to rapidly
    implement anything resembling being competitive, and they've shown
    themselves to be just as bad (worse?) as Telecom. Oh, and they've also
    indicated they no longer want to invest in infrastructure in NZ.

    Too little, too late. It should have been sorted 2 years ago.
     
    Fred Dagg, Mar 19, 2006
    #13
  14. Gordon

    thing2 Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:49:44 +1300, ""
    > <> exclaimed:
    >
    >
    >>Gordon wrote:
    >>
    >>>Telcom's spin doctors have been telling us
    >>>
    >>>Get ready for cheaper, faster broadband.
    >>>
    >>>In the very, very small print are the words, When the local loop is
    >>>unbundled.
    >>>
    >>>I am sure that I am not the only one who can see them. Let us hope our
    >>>elected members to parliament can, majority wise.

    >>
    >>but how long can Telecom fight this through the courts? 2 years? 3 years?
    >>
    >>Then we could have the Nats in, bye bye legislation....
    >>

    >
    > Why do so many people seem to think that National wouldn't sort out
    > this mess that's been festering under Labour?
    >
    > Whilst National has made it clear that their *preference* is to not to
    > have to legislate, they're probably the only ones that have got the
    > balls to actually do something about it. Labour's definately shown
    > that they don't, despite their sound bites.


    What, you mean Maurice "MS" Williamson might actually do something? fat
    chance.....

    The Business roundtable only looks after its big mates and has National
    in its pocket....

    I would not hold my breadth.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing2, Mar 20, 2006
    #14
  15. Gordon

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:22:16 +1200, thing2 <>
    exclaimed:

    >
    >The Business roundtable only looks after its big mates and has National
    >in its pocket....


    The whole "business roundtable has National in their pocket" is *sooo*
    80s. Hell, they're not even called that anymore!!
     
    Fred Dagg, Mar 20, 2006
    #15
  16. Gordon

    Murray Symon Guest

    On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:24:38 +1200, Fred Dagg wrote:

    > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:22:16 +1200, thing2 <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >
    >>The Business roundtable only looks after its big mates and has National
    >>in its pocket....

    >
    > The whole "business roundtable has National in their pocket" is *sooo*
    > 80s. Hell, they're not even called that anymore!!


    Which one?
    The National Party? http://www.national.org.nz/
    or the NZ Business Roundtable? http://www.nzbr.org.nz/
     
    Murray Symon, Mar 20, 2006
    #16
  17. Gordon

    Robert Cooze Guest

    thing2 wrote:
    > Fred Dagg wrote:
    >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:49:44 +1300, ""
    >> <> exclaimed:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Gordon wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Telcom's spin doctors have been telling us
    >>>>
    >>>> Get ready for cheaper, faster broadband.
    >>>>
    >>>> In the very, very small print are the words, When the local loop is
    >>>> unbundled.
    >>>>
    >>>> I am sure that I am not the only one who can see them. Let us hope our
    >>>> elected members to parliament can, majority wise.
    >>>
    >>> but how long can Telecom fight this through the courts? 2 years? 3
    >>> years?
    >>>
    >>> Then we could have the Nats in, bye bye legislation....
    >>>

    >>
    >> Why do so many people seem to think that National wouldn't sort out
    >> this mess that's been festering under Labour?
    >>
    >> Whilst National has made it clear that their *preference* is to not to
    >> have to legislate, they're probably the only ones that have got the
    >> balls to actually do something about it. Labour's definately shown
    >> that they don't, despite their sound bites.

    >
    > What, you mean Maurice "MS" Williamson might actually do something? fat
    > chance.....
    >
    > The Business roundtable only looks after its big mates and has National
    > in its pocket....
    >
    > I would not hold my breadth.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >
    >
    >

    Well Even MS thinks and knows there is a problem in NZ there latest Live
    products may not work as well as they should and the performance drop
    would be like using a 386 again

    --
    http://cooze.co.nz home of the RecyclerMan aka Robert Cooze

    / __/ / / / / /__ / / ___/ / __/ / / / |/ / /__ /
    / / / /_/ / / /_/ / _-' / __/ / / / /_/ / / /| / _-'
    ___\ ____/ ____/ /___/ /____/ /_/ ___\ ____/ /_/ /_/ |_/ /___/
     
    Robert Cooze, Mar 20, 2006
    #17
    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. Tom
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    347
  2. Vista

    Cheaper Faster Broadband

    Vista, Mar 17, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    541
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Mar 18, 2006
  3. canon paora
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    310
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Aug 19, 2006
  4. Squiggle
    Replies:
    83
    Views:
    1,609
    Enkidu
    Feb 20, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,450
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page