JetStream availability database

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, May 22, 2004.

  1. I bought a new house recently, but before I did so, one of the things I
    wanted to check was whether JetStream would be available in this part of
    Hamilton (south Dinsdale). So I put the previous owner's phone number
    into the JetStream availability Web page
    <http://www.telecom.co.nz/tools/1,3907,100551-202472,00.html>, and was
    slightly worried to discover that it was available, but did not meet
    minimum requirements: the expected bandwidth would be anything from
    1.4Mb/s down to zero.

    Anyway, it being such a nice place, I went ahead with the deal, figuring
    I could switch to some other option if JetStream turned out to be
    unusable.

    Anyway, what did I discover but JetStream works fine. My router reports
    a downstream rate of about 3.8Mb/s, which is well above minimum.
    (Upstream is over 700kb/s.) When I put my new phone number into the
    availablility check, it says it isn't valid! But now when I put in the
    previous owner's phone number, it says JetStream is available, without
    any caveats about not meeting minimum bandwidth requirements.

    Moral: you can't always trust the availability database. Hopefully it's
    always likely to err on the side of pessimism, not optimism...
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, May 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    SNOman Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > I bought a new house recently, but before I did so, one of the things I
    > wanted to check was whether JetStream would be available in this part of
    > Hamilton (south Dinsdale). So I put the previous owner's phone number
    > into the JetStream availability Web page
    > <http://www.telecom.co.nz/tools/1,3907,100551-202472,00.html>, and was
    > slightly worried to discover that it was available, but did not meet
    > minimum requirements: the expected bandwidth would be anything from
    > 1.4Mb/s down to zero.
    >
    > Anyway, it being such a nice place, I went ahead with the deal, figuring
    > I could switch to some other option if JetStream turned out to be
    > unusable.
    >
    > Anyway, what did I discover but JetStream works fine. My router reports
    > a downstream rate of about 3.8Mb/s, which is well above minimum.
    > (Upstream is over 700kb/s.) When I put my new phone number into the
    > availablility check, it says it isn't valid! But now when I put in the
    > previous owner's phone number, it says JetStream is available, without
    > any caveats about not meeting minimum bandwidth requirements.
    >
    > Moral: you can't always trust the availability database. Hopefully it's
    > always likely to err on the side of pessimism, not optimism...


    The database is bullshit!

    I moved recently (having had jetstream) and was told that jetstream was
    available at my exchange but they couldn't confirm that I could get it
    until they actually tried to install it. Low and behold, no, sorry, you
    can't get it as we do not have a continuous copper feed to your street
    so nows it's back to shitty old dialup and with NO unbundling,
    absolutely NO hope of getting anything faster.
     
    SNOman, May 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <c8rfti$s6k$>,
    says...

    > I moved recently (having had jetstream) and was told that jetstream was
    > available at my exchange but they couldn't confirm that I could get it
    > until they actually tried to install it. Low and behold, no, sorry, you
    > can't get it as we do not have a continuous copper feed to your street
    > so nows it's back to shitty old dialup and with NO unbundling,
    > absolutely NO hope of getting anything faster.


    Why is unbundling the great white hope for telecommunications when power
    line unbundling has not delivered on its promises?
     
    Patrick Dunford, May 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:08:08 +1200, Patrick Dunford
    <> wrote:

    >In article <c8rfti$s6k$>,
    >says...
    >
    >> I moved recently (having had jetstream) and was told that jetstream was
    >> available at my exchange but they couldn't confirm that I could get it
    >> until they actually tried to install it. Low and behold, no, sorry, you
    >> can't get it as we do not have a continuous copper feed to your street
    >> so nows it's back to shitty old dialup and with NO unbundling,
    >> absolutely NO hope of getting anything faster.

    >
    >Why is unbundling the great white hope for telecommunications when power
    >line unbundling has not delivered on its promises?


    Powerline unbundling as you call it entailed the separation of
    generators from the lines companys from the retailers. The purpose has
    been largely defeated by the state-owned generators buying up many of
    the retailers. The lines companies are merely the meat in the
    sandwhich. The Telecoms situation is entirely different.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, May 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    SNOman Guest

    Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > In article <c8rfti$s6k$>,
    > says...
    >
    >
    >>I moved recently (having had jetstream) and was told that jetstream was
    >>available at my exchange but they couldn't confirm that I could get it
    >>until they actually tried to install it. Low and behold, no, sorry, you
    >>can't get it as we do not have a continuous copper feed to your street
    >>so nows it's back to shitty old dialup and with NO unbundling,
    >>absolutely NO hope of getting anything faster.

    >
    >
    > Why is unbundling the great white hope for telecommunications when power
    > line unbundling has not delivered on its promises?


    In my case unbundling would have meant that Telescum's competition may
    have looked at our area and decided that it was viable to push broadband
    technology into and I would be able to get it reasonable soon. No
    unbundling means that Telescum has no incentive to put it into my area
    so it's probably on the bottom of the list and I won't get it for years.
     
    SNOman, May 24, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:08:08 +1200, Patrick Dunford
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <c8rfti$s6k$>,
    > >says...
    > >
    > >> I moved recently (having had jetstream) and was told that jetstream was
    > >> available at my exchange but they couldn't confirm that I could get it
    > >> until they actually tried to install it. Low and behold, no, sorry, you
    > >> can't get it as we do not have a continuous copper feed to your street
    > >> so nows it's back to shitty old dialup and with NO unbundling,
    > >> absolutely NO hope of getting anything faster.

    > >
    > >Why is unbundling the great white hope for telecommunications when power
    > >line unbundling has not delivered on its promises?

    >
    > Powerline unbundling as you call it entailed the separation of
    > generators from the lines companys from the retailers. The purpose has
    > been largely defeated by the state-owned generators buying up many of
    > the retailers. The lines companies are merely the meat in the
    > sandwhich. The Telecoms situation is entirely different.


    Most of the lines companies were owned by retailers. Powerline unbundling
    separated retail ownership from lines ownership. It has if anything
    resulted in higher charging from the lines companies which are now being
    subject to regulatory requirements.

    If as you say the generators now own retailers then that situation is not
    actually a great deal different from Telecom at all as they both supply
    services (generate) and retail services, as well as owning the lines. The
    lines get farmed out to another company, which then has no particular
    interest in reducing the cost of lines access.
     
    Patrick Dunford, May 27, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <c8tqi5$h2g$>,
    says...
    > Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > > In article <c8rfti$s6k$>,
    > > says...
    > >
    > >
    > >>I moved recently (having had jetstream) and was told that jetstream was
    > >>available at my exchange but they couldn't confirm that I could get it
    > >>until they actually tried to install it. Low and behold, no, sorry, you
    > >>can't get it as we do not have a continuous copper feed to your street
    > >>so nows it's back to shitty old dialup and with NO unbundling,
    > >>absolutely NO hope of getting anything faster.

    > >
    > >
    > > Why is unbundling the great white hope for telecommunications when power
    > > line unbundling has not delivered on its promises?

    >
    > In my case unbundling would have meant that Telescum's competition may
    > have looked at our area and decided that it was viable to push broadband
    > technology into and I would be able to get it reasonable soon. No
    > unbundling means that Telescum has no incentive to put it into my area
    > so it's probably on the bottom of the list and I won't get it for years.


    If your area is not viable now then why is that? Probably on the grounds
    of cost vs return.

    Now why would a stand alone lines business have any greater interest in
    spending the money, they have to make a return on it and if the cost is
    high then the charges will also be high and no one will want to pay them.

    The kiwishare means that Telecom is not allowed to recoup the actual
    costs involved
     
    Patrick Dunford, May 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    SNOman Guest

    Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > In article <c8tqi5$h2g$>,
    > says...
    >
    >>Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <c8rfti$s6k$>,
    >>>says...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I moved recently (having had jetstream) and was told that jetstream was
    >>>>available at my exchange but they couldn't confirm that I could get it
    >>>>until they actually tried to install it. Low and behold, no, sorry, you
    >>>>can't get it as we do not have a continuous copper feed to your street
    >>>>so nows it's back to shitty old dialup and with NO unbundling,
    >>>>absolutely NO hope of getting anything faster.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Why is unbundling the great white hope for telecommunications when power
    >>>line unbundling has not delivered on its promises?

    >>
    >>In my case unbundling would have meant that Telescum's competition may
    >>have looked at our area and decided that it was viable to push broadband
    >>technology into and I would be able to get it reasonable soon. No
    >>unbundling means that Telescum has no incentive to put it into my area
    >>so it's probably on the bottom of the list and I won't get it for years.

    >
    >
    > If your area is not viable now then why is that? Probably on the grounds
    > of cost vs return.


    This may be how Telecom sees it but not necessarily how a competitor
    would see it.
     
    SNOman, May 28, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <c967bg$5qn$>,
    says...
    > Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > > In article <c8tqi5$h2g$>,
    > > says...
    > >
    > >>Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>In article <c8rfti$s6k$>,
    > >>>says...
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>I moved recently (having had jetstream) and was told that jetstream was
    > >>>>available at my exchange but they couldn't confirm that I could get it
    > >>>>until they actually tried to install it. Low and behold, no, sorry, you
    > >>>>can't get it as we do not have a continuous copper feed to your street
    > >>>>so nows it's back to shitty old dialup and with NO unbundling,
    > >>>>absolutely NO hope of getting anything faster.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>Why is unbundling the great white hope for telecommunications when power
    > >>>line unbundling has not delivered on its promises?
    > >>
    > >>In my case unbundling would have meant that Telescum's competition may
    > >>have looked at our area and decided that it was viable to push broadband
    > >>technology into and I would be able to get it reasonable soon. No
    > >>unbundling means that Telescum has no incentive to put it into my area
    > >>so it's probably on the bottom of the list and I won't get it for years.

    > >
    > >
    > > If your area is not viable now then why is that? Probably on the grounds
    > > of cost vs return.

    >
    > This may be how Telecom sees it but not necessarily how a competitor
    > would see it.


    I doubt a competitor would be interested in subsidising the cost. Plenty
    of examples from the real world show us that competing companies will
    focus on the most profitable areas and ignore the provision of marginally
    economic services.
     
    Patrick Dunford, May 28, 2004
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Patrick Dunford <> wrote:

    >In article <c967bg$5qn$>,
    >says...
    >> Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >> > In article <c8tqi5$h2g$>,
    >> > says...
    >> >
    >> >>Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>>In article <c8rfti$s6k$>,
    >> >>>says...
    >> >>>
    >> >>>>I moved recently (having had jetstream) and was told that jetstream was
    >> >>>>available at my exchange but they couldn't confirm that I could get it
    >> >>>>until they actually tried to install it. [Lo] and behold, no, sorry, you
    >> >>>>can't get it as we do not have a continuous copper feed to your street
    >> >>>>so nows it's back to shitty old dialup and with NO unbundling,
    >> >>>>absolutely NO hope of getting anything faster.
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>>Why is unbundling the great white hope for telecommunications when power
    >> >>>line unbundling has not delivered on its promises?
    >> >>
    >> >>In my case unbundling would have meant that Telescum's competition may
    >> >>have looked at our area and decided that it was viable to push broadband
    >> >>technology into and I would be able to get it reasonable soon. No
    >> >>unbundling means that Telescum has no incentive to put it into my area
    >> >>so it's probably on the bottom of the list and I won't get it for years.
    >> >
    >> > If your area is not viable now then why is that? Probably on the grounds
    >> > of cost vs return.

    >>
    >> This may be how Telecom sees it but not necessarily how a competitor
    >> would see it.

    >
    >I doubt a competitor would be interested in subsidising the cost.


    That's not how competition is supposed to work. Competition is supposed
    to bring new, alternative viewpoints to existing markets. Thus, where
    Telecom might decide an existing market segment is unprofitable, a
    competitor might see a way to make a profit there. Which in turn is
    supposed to spur Telecom into rethinking its approach so it, too, can
    compete in the same segment.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 2, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <>, ldo@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand says...
    > In article <>,
    > Patrick Dunford <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <c967bg$5qn$>,
    > >says...
    > >> Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > >> > In article <c8tqi5$h2g$>,
    > >> > says...
    > >> >
    > >> >>Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>>In article <c8rfti$s6k$>,
    > >> >>>says...
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>>>I moved recently (having had jetstream) and was told that jetstream was
    > >> >>>>available at my exchange but they couldn't confirm that I could get it
    > >> >>>>until they actually tried to install it. [Lo] and behold, no, sorry, you
    > >> >>>>can't get it as we do not have a continuous copper feed to your street
    > >> >>>>so nows it's back to shitty old dialup and with NO unbundling,
    > >> >>>>absolutely NO hope of getting anything faster.
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>>Why is unbundling the great white hope for telecommunications when power
    > >> >>>line unbundling has not delivered on its promises?
    > >> >>
    > >> >>In my case unbundling would have meant that Telescum's competition may
    > >> >>have looked at our area and decided that it was viable to push broadband
    > >> >>technology into and I would be able to get it reasonable soon. No
    > >> >>unbundling means that Telescum has no incentive to put it into my area
    > >> >>so it's probably on the bottom of the list and I won't get it for years.
    > >> >
    > >> > If your area is not viable now then why is that? Probably on the grounds
    > >> > of cost vs return.
    > >>
    > >> This may be how Telecom sees it but not necessarily how a competitor
    > >> would see it.

    > >
    > >I doubt a competitor would be interested in subsidising the cost.

    >
    > That's not how competition is supposed to work. Competition is supposed
    > to bring new, alternative viewpoints to existing markets. Thus, where
    > Telecom might decide an existing market segment is unprofitable, a
    > competitor might see a way to make a profit there. Which in turn is
    > supposed to spur Telecom into rethinking its approach so it, too, can
    > compete in the same segment.


    The fact is that competition in a number of spheres has led to the
    businesses concerned going after the most profitable business and leaving
    the marginal stuff by the wayside. How many private hospitals have A&E
    departments?
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 2, 2004
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    Patrick Dunford <> wrote:

    >In article <>, ldo@geek-
    >central.gen.new_zealand says...
    >
    >> Competition is supposed
    >> to bring new, alternative viewpoints to existing markets. Thus, where
    >> Telecom might decide an existing market segment is unprofitable, a
    >> competitor might see a way to make a profit there. Which in turn is
    >> supposed to spur Telecom into rethinking its approach so it, too, can
    >> compete in the same segment.

    >
    >The fact is that competition in a number of spheres has led to the
    >businesses concerned going after the most profitable business and leaving
    >the marginal stuff by the wayside. How many private hospitals have A&E
    >departments?


    Oddly enough, the healthcare industry is about the worst example you can
    offer of free-market competition in action.

    Computing and telecommunications, on the other hand, do seem to benefit
    a lot from free-market competition. With perhaps a modicum of a
    regulation damper to prevent the Microsoft effect from taking over
    completely...
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 4, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <>, ldo@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand says...
    > In article <>,
    > Patrick Dunford <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, ldo@geek-
    > >central.gen.new_zealand says...
    > >
    > >> Competition is supposed
    > >> to bring new, alternative viewpoints to existing markets. Thus, where
    > >> Telecom might decide an existing market segment is unprofitable, a
    > >> competitor might see a way to make a profit there. Which in turn is
    > >> supposed to spur Telecom into rethinking its approach so it, too, can
    > >> compete in the same segment.

    > >
    > >The fact is that competition in a number of spheres has led to the
    > >businesses concerned going after the most profitable business and leaving
    > >the marginal stuff by the wayside. How many private hospitals have A&E
    > >departments?

    >
    > Oddly enough, the healthcare industry is about the worst example you can
    > offer of free-market competition in action.


    Rubbish. What happens in healthcare has been seen over and over in the
    private sector where monopolies are opened to competition or public
    sector agencies offer services alongside the private sector.

    Examples:
    * Mortage competition when banks were deregulated. As banks were forced
    to cut the cost of mortgages to compete, previously subsidised account
    charges were recovered by higher user charges for customers.

    * Health insurance. Price competition for policies in lower age bands saw
    higher age band policy charges rise sharply as cross subsidisation was
    removed.

    * ACC. Some charges were greatly increased when ACC was opened to private
    competition.

    * Housing. Housing at the low end of the market is almost all provided by
    government agencies. The private sector goes for the middle and high end
    of the market where the money is.

    > Computing and telecommunications, on the other hand, do seem to benefit
    > a lot from free-market competition. With perhaps a modicum of a
    > regulation damper to prevent the Microsoft effect from taking over
    > completely...


    Computing? That's rich. If you regard suppliers going bust regularly as a
    positive outcome of competition, LOL. No telecommunications supplier is
    going to be the slightest bit interested in providing services that lose
    them money. Marginal or uneconomic services that Telecom might have
    provided under the kiwishare obligations will no longer be available.
    There won't be any kind of cross subsidisation because of price
    competition.

    The power lines are a pretty good example, daily supply charges now make
    some installations even less viable than was the case before e.g.
    campsites and places that aren't occupied every day of the year.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 4, 2004
    #13
    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. Guy Cox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,305
    sharon
    Jul 9, 2003
  2. Fluker
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,066
    Fluker
    Jul 9, 2003
  3. Howard

    Jetstream availability?

    Howard, Nov 23, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    511
    Jerry
    Nov 25, 2003
  4. DataBase DataBase DataBase DataBase

    , Sep 26, 2012, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,037
  5. Database Database Database Database

    , Sep 27, 2012, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    896
Loading...

Share This Page