Ihug rejects Telecom's broadband offer

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nova, Mar 9, 2006.

  1. Nova

    Nova Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Nova

    JohnO Guest

    JohnO, Mar 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Nova

    Andrew Guest

    Andrew, Mar 9, 2006
    #3
  4. Nova

    Tony Guest

    >> Didn't Telecom have a clause along the lines of 'if the ISP's don't all
    >> take it up we won't roll it out at all' ???
    >>

    > i believe they had to retract that..


    Telecom (wholesale) trying unfair bully tactics like that... who would
    have believed it.
     
    Tony, Mar 9, 2006
    #4
  5. On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:23:19 -0800, someone purporting to be JohnO didst
    scrawl:

    >
    > Nova wrote:
    >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3598529a13,00.html

    >
    > Didn't Telecom have a clause along the lines of 'if the ISP's don't all
    > take it up we won't roll it out at all' ???


    No, that was retracted. What this does mean, though, is that Ihug (and
    Slingshot, who have also applied for a determination) won't be given
    access to the wholesale plans. They have to wait for the determination to
    be made. Hopefully the determination will be expedited, given the
    seriously anti-competitive nature of that particular provision and the
    fact that multiple ISPs have expressed their displeasure over the terms
    offered.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 9, 2006
    #5
  6. Nova

    MarkH Guest

    Nova <> wrote in news:440fb0b7$:

    > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3598529a13,00.html


    I don't see a real need for 24Mbit, I would be more interested in seeing
    regulation on the 3.5Mbit/512Kbit plan to require reasonable cost (cheaper
    than Telecom's current offer, with better margins to the ISPs) and no worse
    than 50:1 contention ratio.

    What use is 3.5Mbit if that sort of speed can only be achieved in the dead
    of night (if even then).


    --
    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 9, 2006
    #6
  7. Nova

    Craig Sutton Guest

    "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    news:Y8SPf.80925$...
    > Nova <> wrote in news:440fb0b7$:
    >
    > > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3598529a13,00.html

    >
    > I don't see a real need for 24Mbit


    How about a few hundred tv and video on demand channel in hdtv?

    Oh wait that only needs abut 8 mbitt...........

    Normal res tv stuff iptv 2.5mbit
     
    Craig Sutton, Mar 9, 2006
    #7
  8. On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:00:40 +0000, MarkH wrote:

    > I don't see a real need for 24Mbit,


    And Bill Gates saw no need for more than 640k of RAM!


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    Joe Barr: "So the question is not 'Is Microsoft lying?' It's deeper than
    that. The real question is, 'Is Microsoft capable of honesty?' And if you
    decide - as I have - that they are not, the next question becomes, 'Do I
    really want to do business with, to trust my business to, a company like that?'"
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 9, 2006
    #8
  9. Nova

    Jerry Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:00:40 +0000, MarkH wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I don't see a real need for 24Mbit,

    >
    >
    > And Bill Gates saw no need for more than 640k of RAM!


    That quote is an urban legend, he never said it. It sounds good, but no
    one can tell you where or when he said it.
     
    Jerry, Mar 9, 2006
    #9
  10. Nova

    EMB Guest

    Jerry wrote:
    > Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:00:40 +0000, MarkH wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> I don't see a real need for 24Mbit,

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> And Bill Gates saw no need for more than 640k of RAM!

    >
    >
    > That quote is an urban legend, he never said it. It sounds good, but no
    > one can tell you where or when he said it.



    And lets face facts - back then who could afford 640kB of RAM anyway?

    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Mar 9, 2006
    #10
  11. Nova

    Jerry Guest

    EMB wrote:
    > Jerry wrote:
    >
    >> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:00:40 +0000, MarkH wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I don't see a real need for 24Mbit,
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> And Bill Gates saw no need for more than 640k of RAM!

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> That quote is an urban legend, he never said it. It sounds good, but
    >> no one can tell you where or when he said it.

    >
    >
    >
    > And lets face facts - back then who could afford 640kB of RAM anyway?
    >

    Yeah, a gigabyte of RAM would have cost you about what Bill is worth
    today :)

    It is kind of interesting though that in the early 1980s while IBM in
    New York were trying to find a way to get around the 1965 decision to
    limit the system 360 to 24 address bits (16MB) the PC team in Florida
    was building a 640k barrier into the new computer.
     
    Jerry, Mar 9, 2006
    #11
  12. On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:00:40 +0000, someone purporting to be MarkH didst
    scrawl:

    > Nova <> wrote in news:440fb0b7$:
    >
    >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3598529a13,00.html

    >
    > I don't see a real need for 24Mbit, I would be more interested in seeing

    *SNIP*

    If you ever want triple-play, you need at least 20, according to the MED.
    That's one of the reasons that the dialup mentality of so many people in
    NZ is so frustrating. They simply don't understand how limiting it is to
    not have real broadband either available or on the very-near-future
    horizon.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 9, 2006
    #12
  13. Nova

    Nova Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:
    > On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:23:19 -0800, someone purporting to be JohnO didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >> Nova wrote:
    >>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3598529a13,00.html

    >> Didn't Telecom have a clause along the lines of 'if the ISP's don't all
    >> take it up we won't roll it out at all' ???

    >
    > No, that was retracted. What this does mean, though, is that Ihug (and
    > Slingshot, who have also applied for a determination) won't be given
    > access to the wholesale plans. They have to wait for the determination to
    > be made. Hopefully the determination will be expedited, given the
    > seriously anti-competitive nature of that particular provision and the
    > fact that multiple ISPs have expressed their displeasure over the terms
    > offered.
    >


    Isn't that what Telstra did? and spent like a year out of the market
    while in the regulation process? and by the time they had gone through
    that process, telecom had rolled out new plans anyway?
     
    Nova, Mar 9, 2006
    #13
  14. On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:21:18 +1300, someone purporting to be Nova didst
    scrawl:

    > Matthew Poole wrote:

    *SNIP*
    >> No, that was retracted. What this does mean, though, is that Ihug (and
    >> Slingshot, who have also applied for a determination) won't be given
    >> access to the wholesale plans. They have to wait for the determination to
    >> be made. Hopefully the determination will be expedited, given the
    >> seriously anti-competitive nature of that particular provision and the
    >> fact that multiple ISPs have expressed their displeasure over the terms
    >> offered.

    >
    > Isn't that what Telstra did? and spent like a year out of the market
    > while in the regulation process? and by the time they had gone through
    > that process, telecom had rolled out new plans anyway?


    18 months, actually. And that's because the ComCom took forever to release
    a determination. In the end TCL signed up to CUBS anyway to avoid having
    to wait longer while Telescum dragged the issue through the courts. It's a
    nonsense that determinations can be appealed on anything other than points
    of law, and even more of one that such appeals don't require the consent
    of the AG/SG.
    Hopefully Ihug and Slingshot have the testicular fortitude to stick it out
    to the end, because if they cave in and sign up for CUBS it will simply
    reinforce the image that the service is acceptable.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 10, 2006
    #14
  15. Nova

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:11:08 +1300, Craig Sutton wrote:

    >
    > "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    > news:Y8SPf.80925$...
    >> Nova <> wrote in news:440fb0b7$:
    >>
    >> > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3598529a13,00.html

    >>
    >> I don't see a real need for 24Mbit

    >
    > How about a few hundred tv and video on demand channel in hdtv?
    >
    > Oh wait that only needs abut 8 mbitt...........
    >
    > Normal res tv stuff iptv 2.5mbit


    Yep, ADSL came from the desire to whip the cable TV folks.
     
    Gordon, Mar 10, 2006
    #15
  16. On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:53:35 +1300, someone purporting to be Gordon didst
    scrawl:

    > On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:11:08 +1300, Craig Sutton wrote:
    >

    *SNIP*
    > Yep, ADSL came from the desire to whip the cable TV folks.


    But not at shipping TV. It was from a desire by the telco's to be able to
    offer higher speeds over their existing copper, as a way of deferring the
    impending need to upgrade to FTTP.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Mar 10, 2006
    #16
  17. Nova

    RJ Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:00:40 +0000, someone purporting to be MarkH didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    > > Nova <> wrote in news:440fb0b7$:
    > >
    > >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3598529a13,00.html

    > >
    > > I don't see a real need for 24Mbit, I would be more interested in seeing

    > *SNIP*
    >
    > If you ever want triple-play, you need at least 20, according to the MED.
    > That's one of the reasons that the dialup mentality of so many people in
    > NZ is so frustrating. They simply don't understand how limiting it is to
    > not have real broadband either available or on the very-near-future
    > horizon.


    They understand maybe like I do that the whole world doesn't revolve
    around a computer screen.
     
    RJ, Mar 10, 2006
    #17
  18. Nova

    Richard Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:

    > But not at shipping TV. It was from a desire by the telco's to be able to
    > offer higher speeds over their existing copper, as a way of deferring the
    > impending need to upgrade to FTTP.


    Well, you can distil it to the need to make more money without spending too much
    on capital plant.

    For that it has served very well.
     
    Richard, Mar 10, 2006
    #18
  19. Nova

    MarkH Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea <> wrote in
    news:p:

    > On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:00:40 +0000, MarkH wrote:
    >
    >> I don't see a real need for 24Mbit,

    >
    > And Bill Gates saw no need for more than 640k of RAM!


    If you can prove that Bill Gates said that never in the next couple of
    centuries will any computer user ever need more than 640K of RAM then I
    will give you a thousand dollars!


    --
    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 10, 2006
    #19
  20. Nova

    MarkH Guest

    "Craig Sutton" <> wrote in news:duorge$kjo$1
    @lust.ihug.co.nz:

    >
    > "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    > news:Y8SPf.80925$...
    >> Nova <> wrote in news:440fb0b7$:
    >>
    >> > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3598529a13,00.html

    >>
    >> I don't see a real need for 24Mbit

    >
    > How about a few hundred tv and video on demand channel in hdtv?
    >
    > Oh wait that only needs abut 8 mbitt...........
    >
    > Normal res tv stuff iptv 2.5mbit


    I think that some of you are completely missing my point!

    I am with Orcon and have a 2Mbit plan, that gives me up to 2Mbit.
    Sometimes I do get the good speed and see files downloading at 250Kbytes,
    but at other times I only get 20-30Kbytes. What use would 24MBit be if you
    could only get 20-30Kbytes on a download?

    Before we get excited about the stated speed of the BB we need to set a
    standard for the contention ratio - if we can't get 50:1 or better than
    what's the point?


    --
    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 10, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

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. Mike Diack

    Counties/Ihug wireless vs Telecom Jetstream

    Mike Diack, Jun 29, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    754
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Jul 5, 2004
  2. iascoot
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    466
    Vista
    Aug 11, 2006
  3. mickey

    My letter to Telecom & Ihug.

    mickey, Nov 26, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    809
    Zipper
    Nov 27, 2006
  4. Dave Doe
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    596
    Ralph Fox
    Apr 11, 2008
  5. Katipo
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    537
    Geopelia
    Apr 10, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page