Jetstream rip-off

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Adam R, Jul 4, 2004.

  1. Adam R

    Adam R Guest

    Does anyone on here know what the rationale behind Telecom putting usage
    limits on ADSL is? Particularly for people who do nto use Xtra as their ISP.

    As I understand it, the whole reason traffic limits were imposed in the
    first place is because it costs the ISPs to purchase traffic from their
    upstream providers, particularly international traffic.

    So with a Jetstream customer who uses a different ISP, the only traffic
    Telecom are handling is between the ISP and the customer. So shouldn't it be
    the ISP who imposes the traffic limits? And more to the point, shouldn't the
    ISP receive payment when that limit is exceeded?

    How much extra does it cost Telecom to carry 5000 instead of 1000 MB of
    traffic from paradise net to me?

    It seems the business model behind Telecom's ADSL pricing still reflects the
    initial situation where XTRA were the only ISP you could have through ADSL.
    In which case of course it would be valid for Telecom to be charging the
    excess usage.

    Anybody got a clearer understanding of this?

    A
    Adam R, Jul 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Adam R

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:28:17 +1200, "Adam R" <>
    wrote:

    >Does anyone on here know what the rationale behind Telecom putting usage
    >limits on ADSL is? Particularly for people who do nto use Xtra as their ISP.
    >
    >As I understand it, the whole reason traffic limits were imposed in the
    >first place is because it costs the ISPs to purchase traffic from their
    >upstream providers, particularly international traffic.
    >
    >So with a Jetstream customer who uses a different ISP, the only traffic
    >Telecom are handling is between the ISP and the customer. So shouldn't it be
    >the ISP who imposes the traffic limits? And more to the point, shouldn't the
    >ISP receive payment when that limit is exceeded?
    >
    >How much extra does it cost Telecom to carry 5000 instead of 1000 MB of
    >traffic from paradise net to me?
    >
    >It seems the business model behind Telecom's ADSL pricing still reflects the
    >initial situation where XTRA were the only ISP you could have through ADSL.
    >In which case of course it would be valid for Telecom to be charging the
    >excess usage.
    >
    >Anybody got a clearer understanding of this?


    The ISP does set your limit on Jetstart, which is probably why Paradise had 10gb
    and P2P services weren't throttled back when Xtra users couldn't use p2p and had
    only 5gb a year or so ago.

    With the full speed ADSL and the new surf plans, as far as I know all the
    traffic is carried by Telecom (not xtra), all your ISP is billing you for is
    email, newsgroups, a homepage, and support.

    Up until recently (this week) Paradise has been very reliable in carrying the
    traffic (always working, always fast) for me on Jetstart. I'm really reluctant
    to move to any other plan where Telecom carries the traffic for this reason.
    Craig Shore, Jul 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Adam R

    Brendan Guest

    On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:28:17 +1200, Adam R wrote:

    > Does anyone on here know what the rationale behind Telecom putting usage
    > limits on ADSL is? Particularly for people who do nto use Xtra as their ISP.


    Because Telecom is a monopoly for most people, they do not have to offer
    decent service or innovate.

    Hence, they can improve profits by simply charging more.

    They are therefore not a business. They are instead extortionists.

    In civilised countries, such 'companies' are either regulated heavily or
    face robust competition. In such cases, full speed ADSL with no cap or a
    very large one can cost $40/month.

    I think the government can flex it's muscle a little. If it's good enough
    for the yanks and the brits to invade other countries on ****-all
    justification, little NZ can exercise it's sovereign rights on Telecom:
    regulate them to achieve prices similar to other countries.

    --

    .... Brendan

    "Seek simplicity, and distrust it." -- Alfred North Whitehead

    Note: All my comments are copyright 5/07/2004 12:25:40 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Jul 5, 2004
    #3
  4. Adam R

    Adam R Guest

    "Brendan" <> wrote in message
    news:1up6sbolxr8vx$...
    > On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:28:17 +1200, Adam R wrote:
    >
    > I think the government can flex it's muscle a little. If it's good enough
    > for the yanks and the brits to invade other countries on ****-all
    > justification, little NZ can exercise it's sovereign rights on Telecom:
    > regulate them to achieve prices similar to other countries.


    Conflict of interest. Telecom is a taxpayer. Why would the government want
    to do anything to potentially reduce the amount of tax they pay?
    Adam R, Jul 5, 2004
    #4
  5. Adam R

    JedMeister Guest

    Competition generally reduces inefficiencies thus increasing the
    productivity of the fixed labour pool and generating greater taxable
    revenues for the govt.


    "Adam R" <> wrote in message
    news:zx2Gc.6435$...
    >
    > "Brendan" <> wrote in message
    > news:1up6sbolxr8vx$...
    > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:28:17 +1200, Adam R wrote:
    > >
    > > I think the government can flex it's muscle a little. If it's good

    enough
    > > for the yanks and the brits to invade other countries on ****-all
    > > justification, little NZ can exercise it's sovereign rights on Telecom:
    > > regulate them to achieve prices similar to other countries.

    >
    > Conflict of interest. Telecom is a taxpayer. Why would the government want
    > to do anything to potentially reduce the amount of tax they pay?
    >
    >
    JedMeister, Jul 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Adam R

    Brendan Guest

    On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 13:54:26 +1200, Adam R wrote:

    > Conflict of interest. Telecom is a taxpayer. Why would the government want
    > to do anything to potentially reduce the amount of tax they pay?


    True.

    But I think a lot more tax could be collected if more commerce was allowed
    at a lower entry point with lower adsl pricing.

    Telecom is also in danger of being made irrelevant: they are fostering an
    enviroment that is anti-telecom and ripe for wifi and successors.

    --

    .... Brendan

    "Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and
    he'll be warm for the rest of his life." -- The Patrician, via Terry
    Pratchett

    Note: All my comments are copyright 5/07/2004 4:09:14 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Jul 5, 2004
    #6
  7. Adam R

    Gordon Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:20:07 +1200, Brendan wrote:

    > Telecom is also in danger of being made irrelevant: they are fostering an
    > enviroment that is anti-telecom and ripe for wifi and successors.


    Yes, but in the meantime they will have made a killing.
    Gordon, Jul 5, 2004
    #7
  8. Adam R

    Gordon Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:32:39 +1200, JedMeister wrote:

    > Competition generally reduces inefficiencies thus increasing the
    > productivity of the fixed labour pool and generating greater taxable
    > revenues for the govt.


    Plaese read this as, In theory competition generally reduces
    inefficiencies thus increasing the productivity of the fixed labour pool
    and generating greater taxable revenues for the govt.
    Gordon, Jul 5, 2004
    #8
  9. Adam R

    Gordon Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 10:28:17 +1200, Adam R wrote:

    > Does anyone on here know what the rationale behind Telecom putting usage
    > limits on ADSL is? Particularly for people who do nto use Xtra as their ISP.


    Money/profit. Getting people hooked.

    At present there are people who believe in competition and act accordinly.
    They pay someone else to act as their ISP.

    Now I guess TC want to get these people onto ADSL beofore they use another
    form of broadband connection so that TC will get the profit for many
    months after Real Competition on the "level" playing field arrives.

    It is another sign that competition is breathing hard on TC wallet and
    TC sees it as a threat.

    Under ADSL, espically now that the local loop went very much closed, means
    that TC gets another $30/month for using something that is already
    largely in place. Now that has to be the rip off, opps, sorry meant profit.

    Also think about this as long as people use dial up, they are getting a
    "bargin", in that its an all you can eat off TC situation.
    Gordon, Jul 5, 2004
    #9
  10. Adam R

    Nihil Guest

    On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:44:04 +1200, Brendan wrote:

    > On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:28:17 +1200, Adam R wrote:
    >
    >> Does anyone on here know what the rationale behind Telecom putting usage
    >> limits on ADSL is? Particularly for people who do nto use Xtra as their ISP.

    >
    > Because Telecom is a monopoly for most people, they do not have to offer
    > decent service or innovate.


    I'm getting better service from Telecom than I did with Ihug.

    > Hence, they can improve profits by simply charging more.


    The cost of my Jetstream connection has dropped since I joined Telecom, and
    when I bundled everything (Telephone/Fax/mobile/Call Minder/Call
    Waiting/Jetstream) I got some cheaper toll rates and what not. Also,
    sometimes when I ring up an whine about something they give me a credit.

    > They are therefore not a business. They are instead extortionists.


    I can only speak for myself but I don't feel I'm being extorted.

    > In civilised countries, such 'companies' are either regulated heavily or
    > face robust competition. In such cases, full speed ADSL with no cap or a
    > very large one can cost $40/month.
    >
    > I think the government can flex it's muscle a little.
    >
    > If it's good enough for the yanks and the brits to invade other countries
    > on ****-all justification, little NZ can exercise it's sovereign rights
    > on Telecom: regulate them to achieve prices similar to other countries.


    I think it may have to do with our economy being smaller compared to
    others, so the Govt doesn't want to mess with such a great source of Tax
    income.

    -- Nihil
    Nihil, Jul 5, 2004
    #10
  11. Adam R

    Nihil Guest

    On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:32:39 +1200, JedMeister wrote:

    > Competition generally reduces inefficiencies thus increasing the
    > productivity of the fixed labour pool and generating greater taxable
    > revenues for the govt.


    Competition generally drives down prices thus reduces profit margins of the
    industry pool generating less taxable revenues for the govt.

    -- Nihil
    Nihil, Jul 5, 2004
    #11
  12. Adam R

    Brendan Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:06:20 +1200, Gordon wrote:

    > Yes, but in the meantime they will have made a killing.


    All too true :(


    --

    .... Brendan

    "Welcome to the outside of the disease."
    - "ER"

    Note: All my comments are copyright 5/07/2004 7:24:25 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Jul 5, 2004
    #12
  13. Adam R

    Nihil Guest

    On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 13:54:26 +1200, Adam R wrote:

    > Telecom is a taxpayer. Why would the government want
    > to do anything to potentially reduce the amount of tax they pay?


    To win votes in election year of course.

    When is Brashes next Orewa speech? You just never know!

    -- Nihil
    Nihil, Jul 5, 2004
    #13
  14. Adam R

    Brendan Guest

    On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:24:42 +1200, Nihil wrote:

    > Competition generally drives down prices thus reduces profit margins of the
    > industry pool generating less taxable revenues for the govt.


    Debateable.

    Perhaps what we should do then, is sell the entire country to one company.
    Surely then, by your logic, the tax therefore collected would pay for
    everything we'd ever want.

    Or: we could force Telecom out of it's monopoly positions to foster
    competition. Properly managed the result would be more collectable tax; or
    at the very least a range of players that are collectivly less prone to
    economic collapse. Imagine if Telecom went bankrupt (it happens - look at
    the big collapses in the US in the last few years - all bigger than
    Telecom). We'd be fucked - the taxpayer would end up paying for it all, and
    then have some pack of fuckwits like National sell it all again when in
    power. And so the cycle repeats...

    Not that I think governments are any better at running things mind you;
    it's just that IF we are going to have one or the other pack of useless
    bastards running things, I'll pick the bunch that can be voted out next
    election thanks...

    What do *I* think would work best then ? No idea, but maybe what could be
    done is the taxpayer owns the lines, and leases them to the telecom's of
    the country:
    1. cost of ownership is paid for by the leasee's (e.g. not the taxpayer).
    2. cost of entry would be relatively low.
    3. companies based anywhere in the country can compete with all others.
    4. should make a tidy profit for the gov coffers.
    5. the taxpayer is in control - not the tail-wagging-the-dog situation we
    have with telecom.

    --

    .... Brendan

    Your body is a temple.
    Mine's an amusement park.

    Note: All my comments are copyright 5/07/2004 10:49:47 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Jul 5, 2004
    #14
  15. Adam R

    Brendan Guest

    On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:07:21 +1200, Nihil wrote:

    >> Because Telecom is a monopoly for most people, they do not have to offer
    >> decent service or innovate.

    >
    > I'm getting better service from Telecom than I did with Ihug.


    That is not too surprising: IHUG has a very bad reputation all by itself.

    >> Hence, they can improve profits by simply charging more.

    >
    > The cost of my Jetstream connection has dropped since I joined Telecom,


    In direct response to the threat of regulation.

    >and
    > when I bundled everything (Telephone/Fax/mobile/Call Minder/Call
    > Waiting/Jetstream) I got some cheaper toll rates and what not. Also,
    > sometimes when I ring up an whine about something they give me a credit.


    A lot of that is due to the law.

    Very little of it is due to Telecom being nice.

    >> They are therefore not a business. They are instead extortionists.

    >
    > I can only speak for myself but I don't feel I'm being extorted.


    In most parts of this country, to have the phone on means to be paying
    Telecom. Telecom dictates terms and conditions, charges what they like when
    they like without recourse.

    >> If it's good enough for the yanks and the brits to invade other countries
    >> on ****-all justification, little NZ can exercise it's sovereign rights
    >> on Telecom: regulate them to achieve prices similar to other countries.

    >
    > I think it may have to do with our economy being smaller compared to
    > others, so the Govt doesn't want to mess with such a great source of Tax
    > income.


    That may be correct. But in the event it is, this is not what we have
    governments FOR. We have them to protect us FROM the parasitic
    monopolisers, NOT to foster them. It is the sort of short sighted neo-right
    ideology that has been a proven failure time and again.

    You may be happy with your Telecom service. You may even be happy for them
    to creep the price up in various ways. You might even like the fact we pay
    more for broadband than comparable economies. Most are NOT.

    --

    .... Brendan

    "A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire

    Note: All my comments are copyright 5/07/2004 10:42:17 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Jul 5, 2004
    #15
  16. Adam R

    JedMeister Guest

    People released from their jobs (due to the efficiencies of the market
    economy) are free to pursue other revenue generating activities. You have
    not thought of those guys in your equation - who knows, maybe one of these
    will go on to invent the next 'cellphone' whereas otherwise they would have
    been ferrying paper from one clerk to the next.


    "Nihil" <.@.> wrote in message
    news:mkwxulo1hv7y$...
    > On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:32:39 +1200, JedMeister wrote:
    >
    > > Competition generally reduces inefficiencies thus increasing the
    > > productivity of the fixed labour pool and generating greater taxable
    > > revenues for the govt.

    >
    > Competition generally drives down prices thus reduces profit margins of

    the
    > industry pool generating less taxable revenues for the govt.
    >
    > -- Nihil
    JedMeister, Jul 5, 2004
    #16
  17. Adam R

    Mutlley Guest

    "JedMeister" <> wrote:

    >People released from their jobs (due to the efficiencies of the market
    >economy) are free to pursue other revenue generating activities. You have
    >not thought of those guys in your equation - who knows, maybe one of these
    >will go on to invent the next 'cellphone' whereas otherwise they would have
    >been ferrying paper from one clerk to the next.
    >


    I don't think so. Lots of the one I used to work with in Telecom etc
    are now in low paid jobs mowing lawns, working in small shops etc.
    The same pattern that is happening in the US is happening here as
    companies cut cost= cut staff. Service goes to crap and staff get
    laid of. Even worse are the NZ companies that relocate to china or
    the like and still charge like the stuff was made here in NZ..
    Mutlley, Jul 6, 2004
    #17
  18. Adam R

    Brendan Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:22:31 +1200, Mutlley wrote:

    > I don't think so. Lots of the one I used to work with in Telecom etc
    > are now in low paid jobs mowing lawns, working in small shops etc.
    > The same pattern that is happening in the US is happening here as
    > companies cut cost= cut staff. Service goes to crap and staff get
    > laid of. Even worse are the NZ companies that relocate to china or
    > the like and still charge like the stuff was made here in NZ..


    All part of the glorious market economy the majority of NZ voted the Right
    in for during the 1990's.

    Luckily, most people took only ten years to realise the stupidity of their
    actions and booted the Right out in a profound manner. But we still have a
    few lunatics who think we should go back to it...

    --

    .... Brendan

    "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." -- Will Rogers

    Note: All my comments are copyright 6/07/2004 12:49:07 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Jul 6, 2004
    #18
  19. Adam R

    No Wei Guest

    On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:00:43 +1200, Brendan <>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:22:31 +1200, Mutlley wrote:
    >
    >> I don't think so. Lots of the one I used to work with in Telecom etc
    >> are now in low paid jobs mowing lawns, working in small shops etc.
    >> The same pattern that is happening in the US is happening here as
    >> companies cut cost= cut staff. Service goes to crap and staff get
    >> laid of. Even worse are the NZ companies that relocate to china or
    >> the like and still charge like the stuff was made here in NZ..

    >
    >All part of the glorious market economy the majority of NZ voted the Right
    >in for during the 1990's.
    >
    >Luckily, most people took only ten years to realise the stupidity of their
    >actions and booted the Right out in a profound manner. But we still have a
    >few lunatics who think we should go back to it...

    Ahemm - I must have missed the booting you refer to. If it happened
    earlier today, then that would explain it.

    Bb
    No Wei, Jul 6, 2004
    #19
  20. Adam R

    Brendan Guest

    On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:40:05 +1200, No Wei wrote:

    >>All part of the glorious market economy the majority of NZ voted the Right
    >>in for during the 1990's.
    >>
    >>Luckily, most people took only ten years to realise the stupidity of their
    >>actions and booted the Right out in a profound manner. But we still have a
    >>few lunatics who think we should go back to it...


    > Ahemm - I must have missed the booting you refer to. If it happened
    > earlier today, then that would explain it.


    National had it's biggest defeat in it's history, and 3 years later had
    another loss of similar proportions.

    If that does not count as 'profoundly booted out' perhaps you should give a
    better example for NZ.

    Obviously your knowledge of recent political affairs is woefully
    inadequate. I suggest you not stick your nose in until you know a bit more
    about it.

    --

    .... Brendan

    "To die for an idea is to set a rather high price on conjecture." -- Anatole France

    Note: All my comments are copyright 6/07/2004 4:01:28 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
    Brendan, Jul 6, 2004
    #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. Just Taylor

    Stoopid is pissed that he can't rip his bank off!!!!

    Just Taylor, Jul 26, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    998
    longshotjohn7
    Aug 2, 2003
  2. Smirnoff

    Publishers/non-rip-off

    Smirnoff, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    380
    Smirnoff
    Aug 18, 2003
  3. Debbi

    Premium rate number rip off

    Debbi, Apr 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    740
  4. Wendell

    converting accuset 1200 HW rip to software rip

    Wendell, Jun 5, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,040
    Wendell
    Jun 5, 2004
  5. Radox The Green

    UK Council Tax, What a rip off

    Radox The Green, Mar 22, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    476
    David Griffin
    Mar 23, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page