Give ADSL ISPs a break

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by a.d., Dec 7, 2005.

  1. a.d.

    a.d. Guest

    These are my thoughts on this. My opinion. Regurgitated rambling.

    I've read through quite a few posts in nz.comp and am amazed how many
    people blame their ISPs for their ADSL speed woes.

    Orcon, iHug, Slingshot, Paradise, etc.... People are continually
    complaining that they never get 2mbps like it was advertised.

    a) The speed is "up to 2mbps" - in other words the current potential top
    speed, and we all know that 7.6/8mbps is possible on copper/ADSL.

    b) Who controls ADSL? Telecom.

    Sure you may be an Orcon customer that barely ever gets above 1mbps on a
    2mbps plan, but hey that's what Unbundled Bitstream (UBS) is all about,
    a substandard offering to shut the competitors mouths up so they don't
    go to the commerce commission. These ISPs can't afford to take on the
    monolithic entity we all know and love.

    A recent newspaper article from Telstra stated that Telecom can go jump
    because UBS is crap, that's why Telstra went wholesale for residential.

    But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter WHO you are with, Telecom
    yanks the strings, master of puppets.... you get the drift.

    New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that do
    not have an unbundled local loop.

    And why would Telecom NOT want to let Slingshot call the shots? Money.
    Shareholders. Heads on a chopping block.

    As with all large corporations and government agencies, you have to
    REALLY stick it to them before they'll move their bulk towards helping
    Joe Consumer.

    I feel sorry for the Telecom front line employee that has to take on
    board the abuse of disgruntled Telecom-hating customers. Don't waste
    your attitudes on the employees, write your letters to upper management
    and CEOs.

    Thanks
    a.d.
     
    a.d., Dec 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. a.d.

    Enkidu Guest

    a.d. wrote:
    > These are my thoughts on this. My opinion. Regurgitated rambling.
    >
    > I've read through quite a few posts in nz.comp and am amazed how many
    > people blame their ISPs for their ADSL speed woes.
    >
    > Orcon, iHug, Slingshot, Paradise, etc.... People are continually
    > complaining that they never get 2mbps like it was advertised.
    >
    > a) The speed is "up to 2mbps" - in other words the current potential top
    > speed, and we all know that 7.6/8mbps is possible on copper/ADSL.
    >
    > b) Who controls ADSL? Telecom.
    >
    > Sure you may be an Orcon customer that barely ever gets above 1mbps on a
    > 2mbps plan, but hey that's what Unbundled Bitstream (UBS) is all about,
    > a substandard offering to shut the competitors mouths up so they don't
    > go to the commerce commission. These ISPs can't afford to take on the
    > monolithic entity we all know and love.
    >
    > A recent newspaper article from Telstra stated that Telecom can go jump
    > because UBS is crap, that's why Telstra went wholesale for residential.
    >
    > But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter WHO you are with, Telecom
    > yanks the strings, master of puppets.... you get the drift.
    >
    > New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that do
    > not have an unbundled local loop.
    >
    > And why would Telecom NOT want to let Slingshot call the shots? Money.
    > Shareholders. Heads on a chopping block.
    >
    > As with all large corporations and government agencies, you have to
    > REALLY stick it to them before they'll move their bulk towards helping
    > Joe Consumer.
    >
    > I feel sorry for the Telecom front line employee that has to take on
    > board the abuse of disgruntled Telecom-hating customers. Don't waste
    > your attitudes on the employees, write your letters to upper management
    > and CEOs.
    >

    Absolutely. The only bright spot (well, very faint glow) is that if
    Telstra were to really try in this country they could roll over Telecom
    and not even notice, and then you'd see what gouging really is.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Dec 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. a.d.

    shannon Guest

    a.d. wrote:

    >
    > New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that do
    > not have an unbundled local loop.
    >


    Thats not correct
     
    shannon, Dec 7, 2005
    #3
  4. a.d.

    Graymond Guest

    shannon wrote:
    > a.d. wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that do
    >> not have an unbundled local loop.
    >>

    >
    > Thats not correct

    Then what is ????
     
    Graymond, Dec 7, 2005
    #4
  5. a.d.

    steve Guest

    a.d. wrote:

    > As with all large corporations and government agencies, you have to
    > REALLY stick it to them before they'll move their bulk towards helping
    > Joe Consumer.
    >


    Which is why it isn't fair or right to expect a private company to do a god
    job of providing core infrastructural services.

    They will always err on the side of profit....and milk Joe Consumer (and Joe
    Business User and Joe Government User - all the Joes).

    The thing should never have been sold.

    We learn in new ways each year why that is the simple truth.
     
    steve, Dec 7, 2005
    #5
  6. a.d.

    steve Guest

    Enkidu wrote:

    > Absolutely. The only bright spot (well, very faint glow) is that if
    > Telstra were to really try in this country they could roll over Telecom
    > and not even notice, and then you'd see what gouging really is.


    Agreed.
     
    steve, Dec 7, 2005
    #6
  7. a.d.

    steve Guest

    Graymond wrote:

    > shannon wrote:
    >> a.d. wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that do
    >>> not have an unbundled local loop.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thats not correct

    > Then what is ????


    Maybe Jersey or Sark or Guernsey haven't unbundled yet.
     
    steve, Dec 7, 2005
    #7
  8. a.d.

    CyiPherX Guest

    On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:01:52 +1300, shannon wrote:

    > a.d. wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that do
    >> not have an unbundled local loop.
    >>

    >
    > Thats not correct


    It's correct as of 23 may 2004, "The New Zealand Government decided on May
    19, 2004 to rubber stamp a Commerce Commission proposal to give rivals
    limited access to Telecom's telephone and internet network. This
    decision to keep the local loop bundled makes NZ the only other OECD
    country other than Mexico to not have full access."

    Source
    http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr124869e.html

    CyiPherX

    --
    Want to tell the world where you are??
    Add yourself to either the nz.comp http://www.frappr.com/nzcompusenetgroup
    or nz linux http://www.frappr.com/nzlinux Frappr maps.
     
    CyiPherX, Dec 7, 2005
    #8
  9. a.d.

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    CyiPherX wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:01:52 +1300, shannon wrote:
    >
    >> a.d. wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that
    >>> do not have an unbundled local loop.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thats not correct

    >
    > It's correct as of 23 may 2004, "The New Zealand Government decided
    > on May 19, 2004 to rubber stamp a Commerce Commission proposal to
    > give rivals limited access to Telecom's telephone and internet
    > network. This decision to keep the local loop bundled makes NZ the
    > only other OECD country other than Mexico to not have full access."
    >
    > Source
    > http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr124869e.html
    >
    > CyiPherX


    This is where some pedant points out that the first statement says "only two
    countries in the word" and the second says "only two countries in the OECD".
    Won't be me though :p
     
    Nik Coughlin, Dec 7, 2005
    #9
  10. a.d.

    Chris Hope Guest

    Nik Coughlin wrote:

    > CyiPherX wrote:
    >> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:01:52 +1300, shannon wrote:
    >>
    >>> a.d. wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that
    >>>> do not have an unbundled local loop.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Thats not correct

    >>
    >> It's correct as of 23 may 2004, "The New Zealand Government decided
    >> on May 19, 2004 to rubber stamp a Commerce Commission proposal to
    >> give rivals limited access to Telecom's telephone and internet
    >> network. This decision to keep the local loop bundled makes NZ the
    >> only other OECD country other than Mexico to not have full access."
    >>
    >> Source
    >>

    http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr124869e.html
    >>
    >> CyiPherX

    >
    > This is where some pedant points out that the first statement says
    > "only two countries in the word" and the second says "only two
    > countries in the OECD". Won't be me though :p


    I was going to and then thought better of it ;)

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
     
    Chris Hope, Dec 8, 2005
    #10
  11. a.d.

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:18:39 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

    > Absolutely. The only bright spot (well, very faint glow) is that if
    > Telstra were to really try in this country they could roll over Telecom
    > and not even notice, and then you'd see what gouging really is.


    So what is stopping them, since it seems that many $ profit is involved.
     
    Gordon, Dec 8, 2005
    #11
  12. a.d.

    ~misfit~ Guest

    shannon wrote:
    > a.d. wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that
    >> do not have an unbundled local loop.
    >>

    >
    > Thats not correct


    Please back up your contention with facts.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Dec 8, 2005
    #12
  13. a.d.

    JC Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:18:39 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Absolutely. The only bright spot (well, very faint glow) is that if
    >>Telstra were to really try in this country they could roll over Telecom
    >>and not even notice, and then you'd see what gouging really is.

    >
    >
    > So what is stopping them, since it seems that many $ profit is involved.
    >

    Well, I don't know if Telstra here is going to be affected, but in
    Aussie, they have a new C.E.O and in the next couple of years, there is
    going to be 8,000 to 12,000 redundancies. That is from a family member
    who currently works for Telstra.
     
    JC, Dec 8, 2005
    #13
  14. a.d.

    Crash Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:18:39 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Absolutely. The only bright spot (well, very faint glow) is that if
    >>Telstra were to really try in this country they could roll over Telecom
    >>and not even notice, and then you'd see what gouging really is.

    >
    >
    > So what is stopping them, since it seems that many $ profit is involved.
    >

    We will never know - but my guess is that with the many Ks of cable laid by
    Saturn that TC now own, the fact that TC are not laying any more indicates that
    the $ to be made are not worth the $ it costs to lay more cable.

    The existing PSTN was largely cabled before Telecom was privatised so in laying
    new cable TC face laying cable at today's cost then competing with Telecom who
    have far less invested in the cable they use in competition with TC. To counter
    that, TC offer a TV service as well as phone and high-speed internet (IIRC)
    whereas Telecom don't offer a TV service.

    Crash.
     
    Crash, Dec 8, 2005
    #14
  15. a.d.

    shannon Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > shannon wrote:
    >> a.d. wrote:
    >>
    >>> New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that
    >>> do not have an unbundled local loop.
    >>>

    >> Thats not correct

    >
    > Please back up your contention with facts.


    Why, its the OPs unsubstantiated assertion that is contested ?
    Look it up for yourself
    See if you can find ANY link that supports it.
    Start with wikipedias entry on local loop unbundling and see the entry
    for Switzerland for instance.
    I can see the argument for unbundling, but supporting it with bullshit
    is the wrong way to go about it.
     
    shannon, Dec 8, 2005
    #15
  16. a.d.

    ~misfit~ Guest

    shannon wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> shannon wrote:
    >>> a.d. wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that
    >>>> do not have an unbundled local loop.
    >>>>
    >>> Thats not correct

    >>
    >> Please back up your contention with facts.

    >
    > Why, its the OPs unsubstantiated assertion that is contested ?


    Yeah, but any fool can post "Thats (sic) not correct" on the end of a post.
    That's just plain lazy and dismissive. You'd get taken a lot more seriously
    if you provided corroborating evidence.

    > Look it up for yourself


    You are the one disagreeing, you can't expect me to believe you just because
    you say so and, if you expect me to either prove or disprove everything you
    say, then you're in a dream-world.

    > See if you can find ANY link that supports it.


    No thanks, I'm not calling people liars.

    > Start with wikipedias entry on local loop unbundling and see the entry
    > for Switzerland for instance.


    See above.

    > I can see the argument for unbundling, but supporting it with bullshit
    > is the wrong way to go about it.


    And getting into childish "You're wrong" type statements without showing
    evidence is also not the right way to go about it.

    Pot - Kettle - Black.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Dec 8, 2005
    #16
  17. a.d.

    shannon Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > shannon wrote:
    >> ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>> shannon wrote:
    >>>> a.d. wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that
    >>>>> do not have an unbundled local loop.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Thats not correct
    >>> Please back up your contention with facts.

    >> Why, its the OPs unsubstantiated assertion that is contested ?

    >
    > Yeah, but any fool can post "Thats (sic) not correct" on the end of a post.
    > That's just plain lazy and dismissive.



    Certainly dismissive
     
    shannon, Dec 8, 2005
    #17
  18. a.d.

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > These are my thoughts on this. My opinion. Regurgitated rambling.
    >
    > I've read through quite a few posts in nz.comp and am amazed how many
    > people blame their ISPs for their ADSL speed woes.
    >
    > Orcon, iHug, Slingshot, Paradise, etc.... People are continually
    > complaining that they never get 2mbps like it was advertised.
    >
    > a) The speed is "up to 2mbps" - in other words the current potential top
    > speed, and we all know that 7.6/8mbps is possible on copper/ADSL.
    >
    > b) Who controls ADSL? Telecom.
    >
    > Sure you may be an Orcon customer that barely ever gets above 1mbps on a
    > 2mbps plan, but hey that's what Unbundled Bitstream (UBS) is all about,
    > a substandard offering to shut the competitors mouths up so they don't
    > go to the commerce commission. These ISPs can't afford to take on the
    > monolithic entity we all know and love.
    >
    > A recent newspaper article from Telstra stated that Telecom can go jump
    > because UBS is crap, that's why Telstra went wholesale for residential.
    >
    > But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter WHO you are with, Telecom
    > yanks the strings, master of puppets.... you get the drift.
    >
    > New Zealand and Mexico are the only two countries in the world that do
    > not have an unbundled local loop.


    We have an unbundled electricity loop, that made f-all difference in the
    electricity market.

    > And why would Telecom NOT want to let Slingshot call the shots? Money.
    > Shareholders. Heads on a chopping block.
    >
    > As with all large corporations and government agencies, you have to
    > REALLY stick it to them before they'll move their bulk towards helping
    > Joe Consumer.


    Well. Perhaps, just think about it for a moment, kiwishare price
    screwdown really could make residential calling services uneconomic.
     
    Rob J, Dec 12, 2005
    #18
  19. a.d.

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > a.d. wrote:
    >
    > > As with all large corporations and government agencies, you have to
    > > REALLY stick it to them before they'll move their bulk towards helping
    > > Joe Consumer.
    > >

    >
    > Which is why it isn't fair or right to expect a private company to do a god
    > job of providing core infrastructural services.
    >
    > They will always err on the side of profit....and milk Joe Consumer (and Joe
    > Business User and Joe Government User - all the Joes).
    >
    > The thing should never have been sold.
    >
    > We learn in new ways each year why that is the simple truth.


    Nope, we learn that, really, socialists can't bear to have anything in
    the public sector actually run along commercial lines. They should all
    be lossmakers, wells that governments pour money down regularly for
    fringe political causes.
     
    Rob J, Dec 12, 2005
    #19
  20. a.d.

    Rob J Guest

    In article <FrRlf.6572$>,
    lid says...
    > Gordon wrote:
    > > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:18:39 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Absolutely. The only bright spot (well, very faint glow) is that if
    > >>Telstra were to really try in this country they could roll over Telecom
    > >>and not even notice, and then you'd see what gouging really is.

    > >
    > >
    > > So what is stopping them, since it seems that many $ profit is involved.
    > >

    > We will never know - but my guess is that with the many Ks of cable laid by
    > Saturn that TC now own, the fact that TC are not laying any more indicates that
    > the $ to be made are not worth the $ it costs to lay more cable.


    What it indicates is that Telstra figured they could make more money by
    getting the government to rap Telecom over the knuckles than competing
    openly with them. Go figure...

    >
    > The existing PSTN was largely cabled before Telecom was privatised so in laying
    > new cable TC face laying cable at today's cost then competing with Telecom who
    > have far less invested in the cable they use in competition with TC. To counter
    > that, TC offer a TV service as well as phone and high-speed internet (IIRC)
    > whereas Telecom don't offer a TV service.


    Different infrastructure. Telecom has said they will upgrade their
    network, provided LLU isn't forced on them.
     
    Rob J, Dec 12, 2005
    #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. lib
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    507
  2. lib
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    626
  3. damnfine

    Wrapping Give me a break

    damnfine, Mar 27, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    65
    Views:
    1,474
    Nonymous
    Apr 2, 2005
  4. l#

    GIVE ME FILM OR GIVE ME DEATH

    l#, Jul 14, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    580
    Lookingglass
    Jul 14, 2005
  5. Anuj
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    481
Loading...

Share This Page