NZ 'better off than others' in broadband

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nova, Feb 22, 2006.

  1. Nova

    Nova Guest

    Nova, Feb 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nova

    Allistar Guest

    Nova wrote:

    > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3581293a13,00.html
    >
    >
    > They are probably shareholders in Telecom :)


    That's for business. How many truly broadband plans are there for
    residential customers of any ISP? Not many, and very few that are ADSL.

    I get by with my non-broadband (2Mb/128kb) connection, having true broadband
    would be nice though.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Feb 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Nova" <> wrote in message news:...
    > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3581293a13,00.html
    >
    >
    > They are probably shareholders in Telecom :)


    I was working in a small european country in 2001. My uncapped 512/256kbps
    (download/upload) connection cost $70 per month.

    Now, I would prefer that 5 year old plan , than any of telecoms newly
    announced plans.
     
    news.xtra.co.nz, Feb 22, 2006
    #3
  4. Nova

    MarkH Guest

    "news.xtra.co.nz" <> wrote in
    news:TF4Lf.151991$:

    >
    > "Nova" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3581293a13,00.html
    >>
    >>
    >> They are probably shareholders in Telecom :)

    >
    > I was working in a small european country in 2001. My uncapped
    > 512/256kbps (download/upload) connection cost $70 per month.
    >
    > Now, I would prefer that 5 year old plan , than any of telecoms newly
    > announced plans.


    Personally I like the new 3.5Mbit/512Kbit plan, provided that I can
    typically get those speeds of course. I would also like to download as
    much a I like (I am happy to pay Orcon $10/10GB for the privilege).

    However, if the plan is a con by Telecom and they only allow an average of
    24Kbit between Telecom and the ISP then it is hard to consider the plan
    able to satisfactorily provide 3.5M/512K.

    Clearly since Xtra are going to offer a 40GB limit on the top plan then we
    would expect Orcon to be able to get as much as 96Kbit per customer on the
    top priced connection plan. We would also expect it to allow a reasonable
    mark-up if retailed at the same price as Xtra offer. Anything less would
    be an abuse of their near-monopoly market position.



    --
    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, Feb 23, 2006
    #4
  5. "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    news:ic7Lf.163500$...
    > "news.xtra.co.nz" <> wrote in
    > news:TF4Lf.151991$:
    >
    >>
    >> "Nova" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3581293a13,00.html
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> They are probably shareholders in Telecom :)

    >>
    >> I was working in a small european country in 2001. My uncapped
    >> 512/256kbps (download/upload) connection cost $70 per month.
    >>
    >> Now, I would prefer that 5 year old plan , than any of telecoms newly
    >> announced plans.

    >
    > Personally I like the new 3.5Mbit/512Kbit plan, provided that I can
    > typically get those speeds of course. I would also like to download as
    > much a I like (I am happy to pay Orcon $10/10GB for the privilege).
    >
    > However, if the plan is a con by Telecom and they only allow an average of
    > 24Kbit between Telecom and the ISP then it is hard to consider the plan
    > able to satisfactorily provide 3.5M/512K.
    >
    > Clearly since Xtra are going to offer a 40GB limit on the top plan then we
    > would expect Orcon to be able to get as much as 96Kbit per customer on the
    > top priced connection plan. We would also expect it to allow a reasonable
    > mark-up if retailed at the same price as Xtra offer. Anything less would
    > be an abuse of their near-monopoly market position.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > 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


    it is the cap that annoys me.
     
    news.xtra.co.nz, Feb 23, 2006
    #5
  6. Nova

    EMB Guest

    news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    > "Nova" <> wrote in message news:...
    >
    >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3581293a13,00.html
    >>
    >>
    >>They are probably shareholders in Telecom :)

    >
    >
    > I was working in a small european country in 2001. My uncapped 512/256kbps
    > (download/upload) connection cost $70 per month.
    >
    > Now, I would prefer that 5 year old plan , than any of telecoms newly
    > announced plans.


    A mate of mine in the UK is currewntly paying about that for a similar
    plan, and it includes the phone line rental.


    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Feb 23, 2006
    #6
  7. T'was the Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:19:26 GMT when I remembered MarkH
    <> saying something like this:

    >I am happy to pay Orcon $10/10GB for the privilege


    So am I. I'm not too sure why people want to treat internet access any
    differently from other utilities, such as power or water. We don't
    have unlimited access to those (in some cases there's unmetered
    water), and we shouldn't. All our resources aren't infinite, and so we
    shouldn't treat them as such.

    That's why I think Orcon's $10 for 10GB is a good idea. You pay for
    what you use. It doesn't slow down, and the prices are reasonable.
    Charging X amount of cents per MB doesn't communicate costs as clearly
    as X amount of dollars per GB.
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/
     
    Waylon Kenning, Feb 23, 2006
    #7
  8. Nova

    Chris Hope Guest

    Waylon Kenning wrote:

    > T'was the Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:19:26 GMT when I remembered MarkH
    > <> saying something like this:
    >
    >>I am happy to pay Orcon $10/10GB for the privilege

    >
    > So am I. I'm not too sure why people want to treat internet access any
    > differently from other utilities, such as power or water. We don't
    > have unlimited access to those (in some cases there's unmetered
    > water), and we shouldn't. All our resources aren't infinite, and so we
    > shouldn't treat them as such.
    >
    > That's why I think Orcon's $10 for 10GB is a good idea. You pay for
    > what you use. It doesn't slow down, and the prices are reasonable.
    > Charging X amount of cents per MB doesn't communicate costs as clearly
    > as X amount of dollars per GB.


    It's no wonder Telecom/Xtra show the overage cost as a charge per MB
    instead of per GB. At 2c per megabyte you'd be paying $20 per GB which
    is pretty expensive, especially when compared with Orcon where you'd
    get 20 GB for that amount of money.

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
     
    Chris Hope, Feb 23, 2006
    #8
  9. Nova

    Nova Guest

    Waylon Kenning wrote:
    > T'was the Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:19:26 GMT when I remembered MarkH
    > <> saying something like this:
    >
    >> I am happy to pay Orcon $10/10GB for the privilege

    >
    > So am I. I'm not too sure why people want to treat internet access any
    > differently from other utilities, such as power or water. We don't
    > have unlimited access to those (in some cases there's unmetered
    > water), and we shouldn't. All our resources aren't infinite, and so we
    > shouldn't treat them as such.
    >
    > That's why I think Orcon's $10 for 10GB is a good idea. You pay for
    > what you use. It doesn't slow down, and the prices are reasonable.
    > Charging X amount of cents per MB doesn't communicate costs as clearly
    > as X amount of dollars per GB.
    > --
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Waylon Kenning.
    > See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/


    I guess as many other countries seem to manage to be able to give
    uncapped internet and far faster speeds than us both on uplink and
    downlink a lot of us expect that to be available here. If you are happy
    having less than those countries and settling for second rate internet ,
    well that is your opinion. NZ that is always saying that it wants to be
    up with the play in technology and yet we have sub standard internet and
    people that seem to think that's how it.

    I as you can gather am anticap, I would prefer paying a bit more and
    getting unlimited or even throttled to 256kbits (not 64/128 which is not
    even broadband).

    If you went to live in London for a year, you'd come back and wonder
    what the hell NZ is doing with it's internet and why we are being robbed.

    Also, there is no reason why national traffic should be capped. Telecom
    keep harping on about how its the internatinal bandwidth which is where
    the costs are. Why can't things be setup so that we get unlimited
    national traffic and at full speed but maybe cap international and have
    it at lower speeds or something?

    This would encourage businesses to host things in NZ more, would
    encourage users in NZ to use NZ sites more etc etc.

    That is the end my rant. :)
     
    Nova, Feb 23, 2006
    #9
  10. Nova

    stenknz Guest

    > it is the cap that annoys me.

    Yeah same with me. The speed is not to bad, but you are capped at 10Gig
    and that in my opinion is not good enough!

    I have the Adventure Plan that will go up to 3.5down and upsteam will
    still remain at 128, now that is not so much of an issue for me but I
    am sure there are lots of people that would have liked to have an
    upstream connection rise to 512 also!

    Regards,

    Sten
     
    stenknz, Feb 23, 2006
    #10
  11. Nova

    frederick Guest

    Nova wrote:

    >
    > If you went to live in London for a year, you'd come back and wonder
    > what the hell NZ is doing with it's internet and why we are being robbed.
    >


    An urban center with 4 times or more NZ's total population is a poor
    comparison and the UK is a bad example:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/689887.stm
    If you check links to adsl providers that the other 40 million(?) in the
    UK have access to (ie they don't have cable at the door), they are
    expensive, and on the sites I checked you have to really dig around to
    find up speeds - most being 256k max.
    Despite this, around 64% of UK with internet access have "broadband"
    (loose definition - ie faster than dial-up)
     
    frederick, Feb 23, 2006
    #11
  12. Nova

    Nova Guest

    frederick wrote:
    > Nova wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> If you went to live in London for a year, you'd come back and wonder
    >> what the hell NZ is doing with it's internet and why we are being robbed.
    >>

    >
    > An urban center with 4 times or more NZ's total population is a poor
    > comparison and the UK is a bad example:
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/689887.stm
    > If you check links to adsl providers that the other 40 million(?) in the
    > UK have access to (ie they don't have cable at the door), they are
    > expensive, and on the sites I checked you have to really dig around to
    > find up speeds - most being 256k max.
    > Despite this, around 64% of UK with internet access have "broadband"
    > (loose definition - ie faster than dial-up)


    When I was there I was on a 1megabit/256kbit but that was on a
    contention ratio of 50:1 and there was no capping/throttling at all.
    And as you point out UK isnt the greatest.

    There is no point in saying ahh but we have 3.5 megabits because as we
    all know that is a load when you are with 148 other people, plus only
    allocated 3 gigs each and ahh what was it? 24kbits.

    maybe I am missing something... but I just cannot see what the
    population has to do with anything in this scenario? If we have ADSL
    that is capable of more but is _deliberately_ throttled how is that
    affected by population? I can see if we were talking about rolling out
    cable or fibre that it would be very exepensive etc but we are talking
    about a network that is already there so how is that affected by population?
     
    Nova, Feb 23, 2006
    #12
  13. Nova

    Nova Guest

    frederick wrote:
    > Nova wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> If you went to live in London for a year, you'd come back and wonder
    >> what the hell NZ is doing with it's internet and why we are being robbed.
    >>

    >
    > An urban center with 4 times or more NZ's total population is a poor
    > comparison and the UK is a bad example:
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/689887.stm
    > If you check links to adsl providers that the other 40 million(?) in the
    > UK have access to (ie they don't have cable at the door), they are
    > expensive, and on the sites I checked you have to really dig around to
    > find up speeds - most being 256k max.
    > Despite this, around 64% of UK with internet access have "broadband"
    > (loose definition - ie faster than dial-up)


    Perhaps I could compare it with a city named Cordoba which is in central
    Argentina, this is a city with about 1.4 million people, similar to
    Auckland, except of course Argentina is a developing nation with a lot
    of poor people. Yet I was able to sign up for ADSL there and get
    1.5megabits/256kbits for about 80 pesos a month.. that is about 40 NZD a
    month. Again there were no caps and no throttling, I don't know about
    the contention ratio there however but I always seemed to be on maximum
    speed. Only a very small percentage of people have internet at home in
    Cordoba as most families cannot afford a computer so Auckland has far
    more customers so I'm not sure how the population argument would work in
    this case, pehaps the government there regulates things, I am not sure,
    but anyway I had better internet there than I do here which is a little
    embarrsing I think.

    If a developing nation can achieve 1.5megabits/256kbits up uncapped,
    unthrottled surely NZ can do better? what is the cloest we have? Orcons
    256/128 uncapped/unthrottled/but shaped which I think you cant even sign
    up for now?
     
    Nova, Feb 23, 2006
    #13
  14. Nova

    frederick Guest

    Nova wrote:
    > frederick wrote:
    >
    >> Nova wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> If you went to live in London for a year, you'd come back and wonder
    >>> what the hell NZ is doing with it's internet and why we are being
    >>> robbed.
    >>>

    >>
    >> An urban center with 4 times or more NZ's total population is a poor
    >> comparison and the UK is a bad example:
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/689887.stm
    >> If you check links to adsl providers that the other 40 million(?) in
    >> the UK have access to (ie they don't have cable at the door), they are
    >> expensive, and on the sites I checked you have to really dig around to
    >> find up speeds - most being 256k max.
    >> Despite this, around 64% of UK with internet access have "broadband"
    >> (loose definition - ie faster than dial-up)

    >
    >
    > When I was there I was on a 1megabit/256kbit but that was on a
    > contention ratio of 50:1 and there was no capping/throttling at all.
    > And as you point out UK isnt the greatest.
    >
    > There is no point in saying ahh but we have 3.5 megabits because as we
    > all know that is a load when you are with 148 other people, plus only
    > allocated 3 gigs each and ahh what was it? 24kbits.
    >
    > maybe I am missing something... but I just cannot see what the
    > population has to do with anything in this scenario? If we have ADSL
    > that is capable of more but is _deliberately_ throttled how is that
    > affected by population? I can see if we were talking about rolling out
    > cable or fibre that it would be very exepensive etc but we are talking
    > about a network that is already there so how is that affected by
    > population?
    >
    >

    The ratios in UK seem to be around 50:1 - so much better than here.
    The high broadband uptake there is probably mainly due to *outrageous*
    pricing for dial-up.
    I posted the wrong link above, the right one is:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4247133.stm

    Visit some of the ISP sites, and you will see that in their "headline"
    price offers, and in so-called further information, they seem not to
    want to talk about caps / data charges, and upload speeds. I know that
    there is a lot of fuss about caps and upload speeds here, but I don't
    think the *average* user cares about upload speed, is unaware of
    contention ratios, and unless you are being charged for local traffic,
    or are a fan of streaming video or pirated movies, then a couple of GB
    is probably ample.
     
    frederick, Feb 23, 2006
    #14
  15. Nova

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>, Nova <> wrote:


    > Also, there is no reason why national traffic should be capped. Telecom
    > keep harping on about how its the internatinal bandwidth which is where
    > the costs are. Why can't things be setup so that we get unlimited
    > national traffic and at full speed but maybe cap international and have
    > it at lower speeds or something?


    Yet I have heard that Telecoms proxy servers are located in the USA, can
    anyone confirm that. Seems to me that is international bandwidth was an
    issue then they would have the servers here in NZ.
     
    whoisthis, Feb 23, 2006
    #15
  16. Nova

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <ic7Lf.163500$>,
    MarkH <> wrote:

    > "news.xtra.co.nz" <> wrote in
    > news:TF4Lf.151991$:
    >
    > >
    > > "Nova" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3581293a13,00.html
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> They are probably shareholders in Telecom :)

    > >
    > > I was working in a small european country in 2001. My uncapped
    > > 512/256kbps (download/upload) connection cost $70 per month.
    > >
    > > Now, I would prefer that 5 year old plan , than any of telecoms newly
    > > announced plans.

    >
    > Personally I like the new 3.5Mbit/512Kbit plan, provided that I can
    > typically get those speeds of course. I would also like to download as
    > much a I like (I am happy to pay Orcon $10/10GB for the privilege).


    An there lies the problem, you will typically NOT get those speeds at
    all. It is a snow job.
     
    whoisthis, Feb 23, 2006
    #16
  17. Nova

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:35:41 +1300, Nova wrote:

    > Perhaps I could compare it with a city named Cordoba which is in central
    > Argentina, this is a city with about 1.4 million people, similar to
    > Auckland, except of course Argentina is a developing nation with a lot
    > of poor people. Yet I was able to sign up for ADSL there and get
    > 1.5megabits/256kbits for about 80 pesos a month.. that is about 40 NZD a
    > month. Again there were no caps and no throttling,


    What is the average wage in Cordoba cf Auckland?
     
    Gordon, Feb 23, 2006
    #17
  18. Nova

    Philip Guest

    news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    > "Nova" <> wrote in message news:...
    >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3581293a13,00.html
    >>
    >>
    >> They are probably shareholders in Telecom :)

    >
    > I was working in a small european country in 2001. My uncapped 512/256kbps
    > (download/upload) connection cost $70 per month.
    >
    > Now, I would prefer that 5 year old plan , than any of telecoms newly
    > announced plans.
    >
    >
    >
    >

    I note that in the survey commissioned by Business NZ, and presented to
    support their case that there should be no regulation, the base Telecom
    "broadband" plan with its laughable 200MB cap is the worst in the whole
    world. And that's before you look at the undisclosed contention levels -
    148 is spoken of by Russell Brown, but it may even be higher.

    Now is the time to write to David Cunliffe and argue for tough
    independent regulation to set New Zealand free from the shackles of Telecom.

    E-mail to
    Snailmail to: Office of Hon. David Cunliffe, NZ Government, Wellington

    If they get enough complaints they will react. Ten thousand snail mail
    letters should be the target.

    Write now.

    Philip
     
    Philip, Feb 23, 2006
    #18
  19. Nova wrote:
    >
    > maybe I am missing something... but I just cannot see what the
    > population has to do with anything in this scenario? If we have ADSL
    > that is capable of more but is _deliberately_ throttled how is that
    > affected by population? I can see if we were talking about rolling out
    > cable or fibre that it would be very exepensive etc but we are talking
    > about a network that is already there so how is that affected by
    > population?
    >


    It's got something to do with the fact the Telecom is a business not a
    charity, their job is to return maximum profits to their shareholders.
    It is easier to make a profit from a possible 40 million people.

    I'm paying $86 per month for phone and broadband 3Mb/384kb with a 40GB
    cap in Ireland (they have a similar population to NZ). I was reading
    this morning that the company that wants to buy Eircom (Irish Telecom)
    is thinking of splitting it into two indepenant companies (sales and
    network), Telecom needs this type of thing to happen to it speed things up.
     
    Jason Fanning, Feb 23, 2006
    #19
  20. Nova

    El Penguino Guest

    On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:00:37 +1300, Philip <>
    wrote:

    >If they get enough complaints they will react. Ten thousand snail mail
    >letters should be the target.


    Are letters to MPs freepost ?

    Cheers,
    Chris
     
    El Penguino, Feb 23, 2006
    #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. jim evans
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    357
    tomcas
    May 17, 2007
  2. dh@.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    471
    PTravel
    Aug 28, 2008
  3. Commax
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,400
    Commax
    Apr 25, 2009
  4. farhan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,422
    farhan
    Apr 25, 2009
  5. farwan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,604
    farwan
    Apr 25, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page