The hook in Telecon's new DSL plans

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Matthew Poole, Feb 14, 2006.

  1. As explained by Juha, in
    http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/28363DAAB75B1F61CC2571140028E35A,
    if ANY ONE of the ISPs to whom the new UBS offering is made available
    chooses not to accept it, the offer is unavailable to ALL of them! This is
    outright evil on Telecon's part, all the more so that they will be
    offering the faster speeds through Xtra regardless of the existence of a
    wholesale offering.

    A margin of $2.14/customer is completely ridiculous, and it's obscene that
    the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    on regulation!

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Feb 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Matthew Poole

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:21 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    exclaimed:

    >As explained by Juha, in
    >http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/28363DAAB75B1F61CC2571140028E35A,
    >if ANY ONE of the ISPs to whom the new UBS offering is made available
    >chooses not to accept it, the offer is unavailable to ALL of them! This is
    >outright evil on Telecon's part, all the more so that they will be
    >offering the faster speeds through Xtra regardless of the existence of a
    >wholesale offering.
    >
    >A margin of $2.14/customer is completely ridiculous, and it's obscene that
    >the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    >on regulation!


    Haven't you realised, yet? Labour's too weak to actually regulate
    Telecom. They'll spout a lot of hot air, but they've already been
    forced to show their hand last time around.
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:57:52 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    didst scrawl:

    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:21 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    > exclaimed:

    *SNIP*
    >>the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    >>on regulation!

    >
    > Haven't you realised, yet? Labour's too weak to actually regulate
    > Telecom. They'll spout a lot of hot air, but they've already been
    > forced to show their hand last time around.


    Now that Helen is ranting about it, we're more likely to see something
    happen. Cabinet is not a democracy, only an advisory board to give Helen
    information on which to make a decision. It seems that her decision has
    already been made - regulation must occur.

    As for weak, I wouldn't want to rate our chances under National, either.
    We're more likely to see action with Labour than with Act/National, as
    witnessed by the stated philosophies of each of Labour and National with
    regard to regulation.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Feb 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Matthew Poole

    jedmeister Guest

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:57:52 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    > didst scrawl:
    >
    >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:21 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    >> exclaimed:

    > *SNIP*
    >>>the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    >>>on regulation!

    >>
    >> Haven't you realised, yet? Labour's too weak to actually regulate
    >> Telecom. They'll spout a lot of hot air, but they've already been
    >> forced to show their hand last time around.

    >
    > Now that Helen is ranting about it, we're more likely to see something
    > happen. Cabinet is not a democracy, only an advisory board to give Helen
    > information on which to make a decision. It seems that her decision has
    > already been made - regulation must occur.
    >
    > As for weak, I wouldn't want to rate our chances under National, either.
    > We're more likely to see action with Labour than with Act/National, as
    > witnessed by the stated philosophies of each of Labour and National with
    > regard to regulation.
    >
    > --
    > Matthew Poole
    > "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    >


    I doubt you will be proven right - but, I hope so, and have been hoping for
    the last 8 years.
     
    jedmeister, Feb 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Matthew Poole

    shannon Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:57:52 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:

    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:21 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >>As explained by Juha, in
    >>http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/28363DAAB75B1F61CC2571140028E35A,
    >>if ANY ONE of the ISPs to whom the new UBS offering is made available
    >>chooses not to accept it, the offer is unavailable to ALL of them! This is
    >>outright evil on Telecon's part, all the more so that they will be
    >>offering the faster speeds through Xtra regardless of the existence of a
    >>wholesale offering.
    >>
    >>A margin of $2.14/customer is completely ridiculous, and it's obscene that
    >>the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    >>on regulation!

    >
    > Haven't you realised, yet? Labour's too weak to actually regulate
    > Telecom. They'll spout a lot of hot air, but they've already been
    > forced to show their hand last time around.



    You rightards can't decide whether thats a good thing or a bad thing.
     
    shannon, Feb 14, 2006
    #5
  6. On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:02:04 +1300, someone purporting to be jedmeister
    didst scrawl:

    >
    > "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...

    *SNIP*
    > I doubt you will be proven right - but, I hope so, and have been hoping for
    > the last 8 years.


    If it doesn't happen this time around, it's never going to happen. Even I
    recognise that.
    National and Act absolutely will not, ever, do anything, and the time will
    never be better for Labour than it is right now.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Feb 14, 2006
    #6
  7. Matthew Poole

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:00:02 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    exclaimed:

    >On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:57:52 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    >didst scrawl:
    >
    >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:21 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    >> exclaimed:

    >*SNIP*
    >>>the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    >>>on regulation!

    >>
    >> Haven't you realised, yet? Labour's too weak to actually regulate
    >> Telecom. They'll spout a lot of hot air, but they've already been
    >> forced to show their hand last time around.

    >
    >Now that Helen is ranting about it, we're more likely to see something
    >happen. Cabinet is not a democracy, only an advisory board to give Helen
    >information on which to make a decision. It seems that her decision has
    >already been made - regulation must occur.


    I hope you're right. I have my doubts, however. Their track record
    shows otherwise.

    >As for weak, I wouldn't want to rate our chances under National, either.
    >We're more likely to see action with Labour than with Act/National, as
    >witnessed by the stated philosophies of each of Labour and National with
    >regard to regulation.


    ACT, yes. National, I'm not so sure.
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 14, 2006
    #7
  8. On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:08:25 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    didst scrawl:

    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:00:02 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    > exclaimed:

    *SNIP*
    > I hope you're right. I have my doubts, however. Their track record
    > shows otherwise.
    >

    Swain recommended unbundling, Cabinet over-ruled. This time around, Helen
    seems to have got the message that the tail is wagging the dog, and we all
    know how she hates competition.

    >>As for weak, I wouldn't want to rate our chances under National, either.
    >>We're more likely to see action with Labour than with Act/National, as
    >>witnessed by the stated philosophies of each of Labour and National with
    >>regard to regulation.

    >
    > ACT, yes. National, I'm not so sure.


    Before the election, Williamson and Cunliffe were asked their thoughts on
    the competitive environment. Cunliffe said "As much competition as
    possible, as much regulation as necessary." Williamson said "As much
    competition as possible, as little regulation as possible." That strongly
    implies that National would be very reluctant to reign Telecom in, and
    their track record is certainly no better than Labour's - look at the 0867
    debacle for evidence of that.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Feb 14, 2006
    #8
  9. Matthew Poole

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:25:08 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    exclaimed:

    >> ACT, yes. National, I'm not so sure.

    >
    >Before the election, Williamson and Cunliffe were asked their thoughts on
    >the competitive environment. Cunliffe said "As much competition as
    >possible, as much regulation as necessary." Williamson said "As much
    >competition as possible, as little regulation as possible." That strongly
    >implies that National would be very reluctant to reign Telecom in, and
    >their track record is certainly no better than Labour's - look at the 0867
    >debacle for evidence of that.


    True.

    However, I really don't think Labour are capable of negotiating to the
    same extent as National. The kiwishare agreement has loosened a lot
    more under Labour, and is under threat of the government caving
    completely.

    In fact, it must be about that time of year. Telecom will probably
    unbundle (or come up with something similar) in exchange for total
    removal of Kiwishare...

    Will be an interesting year.
     
    Fred Dagg, Feb 14, 2006
    #9
  10. On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:33:43 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    didst scrawl:

    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:25:08 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    > exclaimed:

    *SNIP*
    > However, I really don't think Labour are capable of negotiating to the
    > same extent as National. The kiwishare agreement has loosened a lot
    > more under Labour, and is under threat of the government caving
    > completely.
    >

    *SNIP*

    What's changed about the KSO? Yes the TSO is a complete and utter ballsup,
    but that's not related to the conditions of the KSO.
    The last change to the KSO that I was aware of was the creation of the
    "data calls" definition that allowed for local calls to ISPs to be charged
    if they weren't sent through an 0867 number, and that happened under
    National. Did I miss some other structural change?

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Feb 14, 2006
    #10
  11. Matthew Poole

    Nova Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:
    > As explained by Juha, in
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/28363DAAB75B1F61CC2571140028E35A,
    > if ANY ONE of the ISPs to whom the new UBS offering is made available
    > chooses not to accept it, the offer is unavailable to ALL of them! This is
    > outright evil on Telecon's part, all the more so that they will be
    > offering the faster speeds through Xtra regardless of the existence of a
    > wholesale offering.
    >
    > A margin of $2.14/customer is completely ridiculous, and it's obscene that
    > the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    > on regulation!
    >


    With these new plans with people on faster speeds, if Telecom are not
    going to increase the 24kbit allowance per customer, then these speeds
    of 2megabits and 3.5 megabits are rarely going to be achieved anyway..

    It appears it's all marketing rather than actually delivering anything
    useful...

    What is the point of having 3.5megabits downstream if you can only get
    24kbits if everyone else is using their connection :)

    It's incredible Telecom can just keep rolling out this crap..

    Did anyone see this interview on breakfast?
    http://tvnz.co.nz/cda/tvnz/video_popup_windows_skin/652326?bandwidth=128k
     
    Nova, Feb 14, 2006
    #11
  12. Matthew Poole

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:57:52 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    > didst scrawl:
    >
    >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:21 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    >> exclaimed:

    > *SNIP*
    >>> the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    >>> on regulation!

    >> Haven't you realised, yet? Labour's too weak to actually regulate
    >> Telecom. They'll spout a lot of hot air, but they've already been
    >> forced to show their hand last time around.

    >
    > Now that Helen is ranting about it, we're more likely to see something
    > happen. Cabinet is not a democracy, only an advisory board to give Helen
    > information on which to make a decision. It seems that her decision has
    > already been made - regulation must occur.


    Our best hope, then, is to present this not as being a "technology"
    issue, but as an "Arts" issue.

    ie, NZ appalling broadband is hurting the *arts*, not web or media
    developers or industry.
     
    -=rjh=-, Feb 14, 2006
    #12
  13. Matthew Poole

    Rob Guest

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > As explained by Juha, in
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/28363DAAB75B1F61CC2571140028E35A,
    > if ANY ONE of the ISPs to whom the new UBS offering is made available
    > chooses not to accept it, the offer is unavailable to ALL of them! This is
    > outright evil on Telecon's part, all the more so that they will be
    > offering the faster speeds through Xtra regardless of the existence of a
    > wholesale offering.
    >
    > A margin of $2.14/customer is completely ridiculous, and it's obscene that
    > the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    > on regulation!
    >
    > --
    > Matthew Poole
    > "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    >


    You have to remember that Telecom owns this network, and are the ones who
    have paid and invested in their network. They spend about 20 million dollars
    a week (as quoted from the radio) on their network, and this amount that no
    other ISP could afford to pay. I mean we don't NEED the internet to live.
    Yes it isn't good that we don't have the speed offered in UK, but these ISPs
    who are bitching, such as that moaning woman who owns Slingshot, there is
    nothing stopping them setting up their own network, wired or wireless. Woosh
    have done it.
     
    Rob, Feb 14, 2006
    #13
  14. On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:10:38 +1300, someone purporting to be Rob didst
    scrawl:

    >
    > "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...

    *SNIP*
    > You have to remember that Telecom owns this network, and are the ones who
    > have paid and invested in their network. They spend about 20 million dollars
    > a week (as quoted from the radio) on their network, and this amount that no

    *choke*
    They spend HOW much?! That works out to over a billion dollars a year,
    from a company that had revenue for the '05 financial year of $5.6b.
    That's utter bullshit. Telecom NZ, in that financial year, reported only
    $719m of expenditure in the category into which network management
    expenses fall, and that category includes a whole bunch of other things
    too.
    If they actually spend that much, we shouldn't be seeing OECD reports that
    slate how little is spent on network management in this country.

    > other ISP could afford to pay. I mean we don't NEED the internet to live.
    > Yes it isn't good that we don't have the speed offered in UK, but these ISPs
    > who are bitching, such as that moaning woman who owns Slingshot, there is
    > nothing stopping them setting up their own network, wired or wireless. Woosh
    > have done it.

    *yawn* In the modern era, the 'net is an essential tool for business
    competitiveness. If telecommuting is ever to take off in this country it's
    also essential for residential users.
    Your blinkers need to come off, Rob. Telecom has spent ****-all on
    improving the network from what was purchased from the NZ taxpayer at a
    significant discount. Most of their expenditure has been rolling the
    network out to new subdivisions.

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

    Rob Guest

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:10:38 +1300, someone purporting to be Rob didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >>
    >> "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...

    > *SNIP*
    >> You have to remember that Telecom owns this network, and are the ones who
    >> have paid and invested in their network. They spend about 20 million
    >> dollars
    >> a week (as quoted from the radio) on their network, and this amount that
    >> no

    > *choke*
    > They spend HOW much?! That works out to over a billion dollars a year,
    > from a company that had revenue for the '05 financial year of $5.6b.
    > That's utter bullshit. Telecom NZ, in that financial year, reported only
    > $719m of expenditure in the category into which network management
    > expenses fall, and that category includes a whole bunch of other things
    > too.
    > If they actually spend that much, we shouldn't be seeing OECD reports that
    > slate how little is spent on network management in this country.
    >
    >> other ISP could afford to pay. I mean we don't NEED the internet to
    >> live.
    >> Yes it isn't good that we don't have the speed offered in UK, but these
    >> ISPs
    >> who are bitching, such as that moaning woman who owns Slingshot, there is
    >> nothing stopping them setting up their own network, wired or wireless.
    >> Woosh
    >> have done it.

    > *yawn* In the modern era, the 'net is an essential tool for business
    > competitiveness. If telecommuting is ever to take off in this country it's
    > also essential for residential users.
    > Your blinkers need to come off, Rob. Telecom has spent ****-all on
    > improving the network from what was purchased from the NZ taxpayer at a
    > significant discount. Most of their expenditure has been rolling the
    > network out to new subdivisions.
    >
    > --
    > Matthew Poole
    > "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    >


    $20 million a week is not nothing, (this is quoted from radio reports).
    Telecom are wanting to invest a lot more in an updated telephone system in
    the coming years. Maybe this is just spin, but if it becomes deregulated,
    then this will very unlikely go ahead, as telecom wouldn't have the income
    to support it. No ISP could afford the investment in the infrastructure that
    telecom have invested, not even the company you work for. I am not
    supporting telecom, but am taking a look at both sides. Would NZers prefer
    to lose free local calling in preference to faster cheaper internet, I think
    probably not (some people would, some wouldn't). I happen to know that the
    UK pay an through the nose for local telephone calling. Really it is the
    governements problem, they should never have sold a key piece of New Zealand
    infrastructure. It is because they sold it to a private company that they
    have got thise problem. Telecom is a very easy target, but all they are
    doing is protecting their investments for their investors. Really ISPs
    should be demanding that the government sets up an alternative network
    infrasturcture for interent access, and if all ISPs pitch in for the cost, I
    am sure it would be affordable, and then telecom would have a competitor.
     
    Rob, Feb 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Matthew Poole

    Rob Guest

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:02:04 +1300, someone purporting to be jedmeister
    > didst scrawl:
    >
    >>
    >> "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...

    > *SNIP*
    >> I doubt you will be proven right - but, I hope so, and have been hoping
    >> for
    >> the last 8 years.

    >
    > If it doesn't happen this time around, it's never going to happen. Even I
    > recognise that.
    > National and Act absolutely will not, ever, do anything, and the time will
    > never be better for Labour than it is right now.
    >
    > --
    > Matthew Poole
    > "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."


    Yes it is now or never, as Labour will use it a vote collector, and this
    will be their last term. They however risk damaging the economy if it isn't
    done cautiously.
     
    Rob, Feb 14, 2006
    #16
  17. Matthew Poole

    Rob Guest

    "Fred Dagg" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:25:08 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    > exclaimed:
    >
    >>> ACT, yes. National, I'm not so sure.

    >>
    >>Before the election, Williamson and Cunliffe were asked their thoughts on
    >>the competitive environment. Cunliffe said "As much competition as
    >>possible, as much regulation as necessary." Williamson said "As much
    >>competition as possible, as little regulation as possible." That strongly
    >>implies that National would be very reluctant to reign Telecom in, and
    >>their track record is certainly no better than Labour's - look at the 0867
    >>debacle for evidence of that.

    >
    > True.
    >
    > However, I really don't think Labour are capable of negotiating to the
    > same extent as National. The kiwishare agreement has loosened a lot
    > more under Labour, and is under threat of the government caving
    > completely.
    >
    > In fact, it must be about that time of year. Telecom will probably
    > unbundle (or come up with something similar) in exchange for total
    > removal of Kiwishare...
    >
    > Will be an interesting year.


    I think we will see removal of the kiwishare, and local call will cost, and
    international calls will rise. The price of phone calls in the UK are very
    high, but internet is cheap and fast. It is an either or situation.

    I don't think telecom will be forced to unbundle, but I think they will be
    forced to provide a wholesale product to ISPs that is in the top range of
    the OECD, for cost, and download and upload speeds. I think the consumer
    would be happy with that solution, but probably not the ISPs.
     
    Rob, Feb 14, 2006
    #17
  18. Matthew Poole

    Zonky Guest

    "Rob" <> wrote in news:1139900652.574915@ftpsrv1:

    > The price of phone calls in the UK are very
    > high, but internet is cheap and fast. It is an either or situation.
    >


    The price of phone calls in the UK is _cheaper_ than NZ.

    With various phone companies, you can call for 1.5p (connection fee) then
    0p per minute- nationwide.

    I paid 2p per minute UK -> NZ for international.

    I'd like to see an offer in NZ that can match those figures.

    Z.

    --
    Please remove my_pants when replying by email.
     
    Zonky, Feb 14, 2006
    #18
  19. Matthew Poole

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > As explained by Juha, in
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/28363DAAB75B1F61CC2571140028E35A,
    > if ANY ONE of the ISPs to whom the new UBS offering is made available
    > chooses not to accept it, the offer is unavailable to ALL of them! This is
    > outright evil on Telecon's part, all the more so that they will be
    > offering the faster speeds through Xtra regardless of the existence of a
    > wholesale offering.
    >
    > A margin of $2.14/customer is completely ridiculous, and it's obscene that
    > the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    > on regulation!


    Regulation will be too toothless going on past experience.
     
    Rob J, Feb 14, 2006
    #19
  20. Matthew Poole

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:57:52 +1300, someone purporting to be Fred Dagg
    > didst scrawl:
    >
    > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:21 +1300, Matthew Poole <>
    > > exclaimed:

    > *SNIP*
    > >>the Evil Empire actually think they can get away with such tactics. Roll
    > >>on regulation!

    > >
    > > Haven't you realised, yet? Labour's too weak to actually regulate
    > > Telecom. They'll spout a lot of hot air, but they've already been
    > > forced to show their hand last time around.

    >
    > Now that Helen is ranting about it, we're more likely to see something
    > happen. Cabinet is not a democracy, only an advisory board to give Helen
    > information on which to make a decision. It seems that her decision has
    > already been made - regulation must occur.
    >
    > As for weak, I wouldn't want to rate our chances under National, either.
    > We're more likely to see action with Labour than with Act/National, as
    > witnessed by the stated philosophies of each of Labour and National with
    > regard to regulation.


    National at least can see that throttling Telecom is playing straight
    into the hands of several large Australian-owned ISPs. Strangle Telecom
    too much and Telstra or iinet will be happy to take over, after
    Telecom's plummetting share value has wiped a big chunk off the NZSE40.
     
    Rob J, Feb 14, 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. TMiller

    pc clock losing time since DSL hook up

    TMiller, Jun 6, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,059
    Rick Merrill
    Jun 12, 2005
  2. someone
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    288
    Roland Karlsson
    Sep 23, 2003
  3. Carl Elphick

    New Xtra Jetstream Plans *yawn*

    Carl Elphick, Sep 19, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    534
  4. Carl Elphick

    New DSL plans

    Carl Elphick, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    287
    Gordon
    Feb 15, 2004
  5. Gurble

    Telecon: Time to call for change

    Gurble, Feb 20, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    57
    Views:
    845
Loading...

Share This Page