Unbundling Telecom - what will it mean...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Vista, May 4, 2006.

  1. Vista

    Vista Guest

    Although on the surface unbundling looks to be a benefit to consumers
    getting a better broadband deal, what costs will this be at. I am all for
    faster cheaper internet and think telecom haven't been offering NZers with
    the service they need (mainly the slow upload speeds low datacaps), however
    the governments decision to impose this on a private company does setup a
    dangerous precedent.

    The few ISPs that will be able to afford to set up their own equipments in
    telecoms exchanges, and to regually service it, will only set it up in the
    main population concentrations, such as Auckland, Wellington, and
    Christchurch. Areas that aren't profitable for them, they will not bother
    with. Therefore low population areas, such as rural areas may not have any
    competition whatsoever, and in fact may end up paying a lot more for their
    internet. Therefore we are likely to end up with price variations throughout
    the country. Therefore the government would need to impose terms on these
    ISPs so that they setup their equipment in ALL exchanges, and not just the
    profitable ones.

    Will it be the end to Telecoms kiwi share agreement with the governemnt,
    which will mean that an end to free local calling. I am sure the majority of
    mainstream NZers would still prefer free local calling to 'faster' internet.
    Sure they could set up VOIP, but that is no where as easy to setup as your
    basic telephone, and that still costs per minute if you want to phone a
    fixed line number. Also the reliability of this is questionable, and what if
    someone needs to make an emergency phone call and the ISP is having 'network
    problems'.

    Will this mean that Telecom will now not be investing in their next
    generation of Digital telephone services that they were going to invest in.
    Will this mean that Telecom will not be investing further in the existing
    telephone infrastructure, such as fibre optic, instead of older technology
    copper wire. Will this mean a less reliable and aging infrastructure, which
    telecom won't be able to afford to invest in and maintain, whilst still
    providing their investors with a reasonable return on their investment. This
    infact could mean that that NZers on average end up in a worse situaition
    than they currently are, even though they may not be paying as much. A large
    percentage of these investors in Telecom are your average mainstream New
    Zealander anyway, and telecom do make up a whopping 25% of the New Zealand
    sharemarket.The fact is that Telecom will need to generate additional income
    from other areas if their bottom line is affected by unbundling.

    I know a lot of people(probably your average person) who use the internet
    regually, who really don't understand why it needed to be unbundled, and
    they have no compliants about the current situation.
     
    Vista, May 4, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Vista

    Jo Guest

    What scares me is who will actually bear the total cost of maintaining and
    upgrading the exchanges. From what I understad any customer who does not use
    tolls or internet is a loss leader.
     
    Jo, May 4, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Vista

    Nova Guest

    Vista wrote:
    > Although on the surface unbundling looks to be a benefit to consumers
    > getting a better broadband deal, what costs will this be at. I am all for
    > faster cheaper internet and think telecom haven't been offering NZers with
    > the service they need (mainly the slow upload speeds low datacaps), however
    > the governments decision to impose this on a private company does setup a
    > dangerous precedent.
    >
    > The few ISPs that will be able to afford to set up their own equipments in
    > telecoms exchanges, and to regually service it, will only set it up in the
    > main population concentrations, such as Auckland, Wellington, and
    > Christchurch. Areas that aren't profitable for them, they will not bother
    > with. Therefore low population areas, such as rural areas may not have any
    > competition whatsoever, and in fact may end up paying a lot more for their
    > internet. Therefore we are likely to end up with price variations throughout
    > the country. Therefore the government would need to impose terms on these
    > ISPs so that they setup their equipment in ALL exchanges, and not just the
    > profitable ones.


    People that _choose_ to live in rural areas must accept that they are
    always going to have less choice in many areas not just internet. They
    don't have big supermarkets etc should the government force chains of
    shops to open in rural areas? I really think it's a bit cheeky for these
    people that choose to live in the middle of nowhere to expect others to
    fork out loads of $$ to pay for them to get fast internet access.

    >
    > Will it be the end to Telecoms kiwi share agreement with the governemnt,
    > which will mean that an end to free local calling.


    Who knows, but the government has said nothing about ending the kiwi
    share yet in among their plans, so it would look like at the moment it
    won't end.

    I am sure the majority of
    > mainstream NZers would still prefer free local calling to 'faster' internet.
    > Sure they could set up VOIP, but that is no where as easy to setup as your
    > basic telephone, and that still costs per minute if you want to phone a
    > fixed line number. Also the reliability of this is questionable, and what if
    > someone needs to make an emergency phone call and the ISP is having 'network
    > problems'.


    what if, what if.. Well considering almost every NZ'er has a cellphone
    now anyway and cellphones allow free emergency calls and aren't just
    tied to one location.

    >
    > Will this mean that Telecom will now not be investing in their next
    > generation of Digital telephone services that they were going to invest in.
    > Will this mean that Telecom will not be investing further in the existing
    > telephone infrastructure, such as fibre optic, instead of older technology
    > copper wire. Will this mean a less reliable and aging infrastructure, which
    > telecom won't be able to afford to invest in and maintain, whilst still
    > providing their investors with a reasonable return on their investment. This
    > infact could mean that that NZers on average end up in a worse situaition
    > than they currently are, even though they may not be paying as much. A large
    > percentage of these investors in Telecom are your average mainstream New
    > Zealander anyway, and telecom do make up a whopping 25% of the New Zealand
    > sharemarket.The fact is that Telecom will need to generate additional income
    > from other areas if their bottom line is affected by unbundling.


    We will see, I am sure Telecom have something up their sleeves, they
    would have known this is a possibility. Anyway telecom basically chose
    this for themselves they were warned so many times and chose to shaft
    everyone instead and forced the government into taking action, if I was
    a shareholder of telecom I would be pretty damn angry at the way Telecom
    have gone about things.

    Anyway is this really a precedent? maybe here in NZ but certainly not in
    the world. Many Telco's have been regulated or broken up around the
    world.


    >
    > I know a lot of people(probably your average person) who use the internet
    > regually, who really don't understand why it needed to be unbundled, and
    > they have no compliants about the current situation.


    The average NZ'er will always be happy to get more for less I am sure,
    if you put it to them like that I don't think they will mind :). If
    indeed it will mean that..
     
    Nova, May 4, 2006
    #3
  4. On Thu, 04 May 2006 14:14:33 +1200, someone purporting to be Jo didst
    scrawl:

    >
    > What scares me is who will actually bear the total cost of maintaining and
    > upgrading the exchanges. From what I understad any customer who does not use
    > tolls or internet is a loss leader.


    Utter tripe. It's what poor, misunderstood Telecon would like you to
    believe, to be sure, but it's nowhere near accurate.
    Once upon a time, when Clear was just Clear, they offered to buy all
    Telecom's "unprofitable" rural customers. For a very fair market rate.
    Telecom declined. That is not the action of a company that is actually
    losing money.

    The lowest line rental that Telecon gets from any single customer is
    almost $30, for a second line. The lowest stand-alone line rental is
    $34-ish, in WLG and CHC. The rest of us pay $42-something. It doesn't cost
    anything like that much to provide voice service, even with unmetered
    local calls.
    In NYC, for USD14/month, you get dialtone, unmetered local calls (yes,
    we're not the only place in the world where they exist), and a bunch of
    services that we have to pay for on top of the line rental. They also have
    a multitude of phone companies, not just one, so nobody can afford to
    treat dialtone as a loss-leader since they might not be providing any
    other service.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, May 4, 2006
    #4
  5. Vista

    Vista Guest


    > In NYC, for USD14/month, you get dialtone, unmetered local calls (yes,
    > we're not the only place in the world where they exist), and a bunch of
    > services that we have to pay for on top of the line rental. They also have
    > a multitude of phone companies, not just one, so nobody can afford to
    > treat dialtone as a loss-leader since they might not be providing any
    > other service.
    >


    But look at the population, and it is all compressed into a very small area,
    so it wouldn't be fair to compare NYC market with the NZ market.

    It is going to be very interesting to see which ISPs do take up the
    unbundled network and run with it. I suspect that there will only a be a few
    of them, Telstra/Clear/Paradise or what ever they call themselves these
    days, IHug and CallPLus AKA Slingshot will probably only be looking at the
    main centres . However it may mean that some new overseas ones come in,
    possibily AOL

    I am wondering how far $20 million would go in setting up ADSL2 in exchanges
    as that is what iHug plan to spend. Would then cover the whole of NZ? It
    doesn't really sound like a lot for a nationwide service.
     
    Vista, May 4, 2006
    #5
  6. On Thu, 04 May 2006 15:46:51 +1200, someone purporting to be Vista didst
    scrawl:

    >
    >> In NYC, for USD14/month, you get dialtone, unmetered local calls (yes,
    >> we're not the only place in the world where they exist), and a bunch of
    >> services that we have to pay for on top of the line rental. They also have
    >> a multitude of phone companies, not just one, so nobody can afford to
    >> treat dialtone as a loss-leader since they might not be providing any
    >> other service.
    >>

    >
    > But look at the population, and it is all compressed into a very small area,
    > so it wouldn't be fair to compare NYC market with the NZ market.
    >

    The great thing about telecommunications is that what applies in one place
    applies in another. If you can supply a comprehensive voice service in NYC
    for USD14/month, you can do it in NZ, or at least in Auckland, Wellington,
    Christchurch, Hamilton and Dunedin. But even in WLG and CHC, where there
    is a competing network, you cannot get comprehensive voice services for
    that price.

    *SNIP*
    > I am wondering how far $20 million would go in setting up ADSL2 in exchanges
    > as that is what iHug plan to spend. Would then cover the whole of NZ? It
    > doesn't really sound like a lot for a nationwide service.


    It's what they've got ready to spend. Contrary to what Telecon would have
    you believe, it's not all that Ihug are prepared to spend.
    You're right that it's SFA toward a national service, and it's not even
    very much toward connecting Auckland, but you have to start somewhere.
    Ihug doesn't have nine figures of annual profit from which to draw
    investment funding, so it can only start small. Annette Presley was saying
    last night that CallPlus Group are going to spend $300m in network
    investment, though she didn't specify the timeframe for that expenditure.

    If you buy into Telecon's rhetoric, you'll end up taking their word for it
    that this is a bad move for the country.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, May 4, 2006
    #6
  7. Vista

    Jo Guest

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 04 May 2006 14:14:33 +1200, someone purporting to be Jo didst
    > scrawl:
    > Utter tripe. It's what poor, misunderstood Telecon would like you to
    > believe, to be sure, but it's nowhere near accurate.
    > Once upon a time, when Clear was just Clear, they offered to buy all
    > Telecom's "unprofitable" rural customers. For a very fair market rate.
    > Telecom declined. That is not the action of a company that is actually
    > losing money.
    >
    > The lowest line rental that Telecon gets from any single customer is
    > almost $30, for a second line. The lowest stand-alone line rental is
    > $34-ish, in WLG and CHC. The rest of us pay $42-something. It doesn't cost
    > anything like that much to provide voice service, even with unmetered
    > local calls.
    > In NYC, for USD14/month, you get dialtone, unmetered local calls (yes,
    > we're not the only place in the world where they exist), and a bunch of
    > services that we have to pay for on top of the line rental. They also have
    > a multitude of phone companies, not just one, so nobody can afford to
    > treat dialtone as a loss-leader since they might not be providing any
    > other service.
    >

    If you know anything about how a rural community works then you would know
    that the telecom boundaries generally dont match the service area and that
    for many a call to the neighbour is a toll call. Rural customers arent
    unprofitable, they are very profitable. They make toll calls, they have add
    on services and they purchase internet services as a package. Its urban
    customers who never make toll calls and never have any other service other
    than a phone line, add to that a high demand load on exchanges which not
    only have to be up to date, but able to accommodate constantly more
    subscribers. I am not saying unbundling is a bad thing, but who will be
    paying for the exchanges?

    Another thing Matthew, dont you work for a competing ISP? Thats not a dig,
    but a question.
     
    Jo, May 4, 2006
    #7
  8. On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:16:34 +1200, someone purporting to be Jo didst
    scrawl:

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

    *SNIP*
    > If you know anything about how a rural community works then you would know
    > that the telecom boundaries generally dont match the service area and that
    > for many a call to the neighbour is a toll call. Rural customers arent
    > unprofitable, they are very profitable. They make toll calls, they have add


    Profitable for services, to be sure. Definitely not profitable for the
    network. Services is where the money is, but networks are a money sink so
    it balances out. I have no doubt that they're not unprofitable, but I
    doubt they're quite as profitable as you think.

    > on services and they purchase internet services as a package. Its urban
    > customers who never make toll calls and never have any other service
    > other than a phone line, add to that a high demand load on exchanges
    > which not only have to be up to date, but able to accommodate constantly
    > more subscribers. I am not saying unbundling is a bad thing, but who
    > will be paying for the exchanges?
    >

    The companies who put in the equipment. LLU doesn't divest Telecom of its
    exchanges, it just gives competitors access, at a set rate, to install
    their own equipment.
    The big city exchanges, such as Auckland's Mayoral Drive, service
    literally thousands of customers. It's a very efficient exchange from a
    cost perspective, because the density of circuits is so high. Rural
    exchanges can't possibly compete with that.

    > Another thing Matthew, dont you work for a competing ISP? Thats not a
    > dig, but a question.

    I haven't worked in the ISP industry for over three years. I left CallPlus
    at the end of 2002, worked for Axon, then iServe, and am now a student.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, May 4, 2006
    #8
  9. Vista

    k Guest

    Vista wrote:
    > Although on the surface unbundling looks to be a benefit to consumers
    > getting a better broadband deal, what costs will this be at. I am all for
    > faster cheaper internet and think telecom haven't been offering NZers with
    > the service they need (mainly the slow upload speeds low datacaps), however
    > the governments decision to impose this on a private company does setup a
    > dangerous precedent.
    >
    > The few ISPs that will be able to afford to set up their own equipments in
    > telecoms exchanges, and to regually service it, will only set it up in the
    > main population concentrations, such as Auckland, Wellington, and
    > Christchurch. Areas that aren't profitable for them, they will not bother
    > with.


    I stopped at that last sentence and had to comment because I believe you
    are wrong.

    You might remember (if you were an avid Internet user back in the mid to
    late 90's) that IHUG installed POP's ("Points of Presence") in the
    smaller town centers so the users could dial those instead hauling the
    call through the country to Auckland.

    I see the same thing happening with this, it will take a while but _at
    least_ a few of the larger ISPs will eventually cover the entire country.
     
    k, May 4, 2006
    #9
  10. Vista

    Guest

    Vista wrote:
    > the governments decision to impose this on a private company does setup a
    > dangerous precedent.


    Yes, it means that any other company that is deemed to be a monopoly
    and holding the country back from the rest of the world in such a key
    area such as internet services should watch out!

    > which will mean that an end to free local calling. I am sure the majority of
    > mainstream NZers would still prefer free local calling to 'faster' internet.


    Hmmm, I dunno. I've spoken to quite a few people who would like to
    actually to ditch their landline altogether because they would prefer
    to use their mobile only. The only reason they're keeping it is for
    internet access!

    I for one would rather pay for local calls and have decent internet
    speeds than the current situation.

    > I know a lot of people(probably your average person) who use the internet
    > regually, who really don't understand why it needed to be unbundled, and
    > they have no compliants about the current situation.


    The main reason for unbundling is for businesses rather than home
    users. Yes it does please a lot of us who want faster internet from
    home, but there's hardly any econmic reason for the government to want
    this.

    Kris
     
    , May 4, 2006
    #10
  11. Vista

    Vista Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Vista wrote:
    >> the governments decision to impose this on a private company does setup a
    >> dangerous precedent.

    >
    > Yes, it means that any other company that is deemed to be a monopoly
    > and holding the country back from the rest of the world in such a key
    > area such as internet services should watch out!



    What about the oil companies, which provide the illusion of competition, but
    they are essentially a monopoly. These prices rises are causing a huge
    dtrain on the economy and the only winners are the oil companies who are
    making record profits. Would love to see the goverment unbundle the oil.
     
    Vista, May 4, 2006
    #11
  12. On Thu, 04 May 2006 14:25:46 +1200, Nova <> magnanimously
    proffered:

    >Vista wrote:
    >> Although on the surface unbundling looks to be a benefit to consumers
    >> getting a better broadband deal, what costs will this be at. I am all for
    >> faster cheaper internet and think telecom haven't been offering NZers with
    >> the service they need (mainly the slow upload speeds low datacaps), however
    >> the governments decision to impose this on a private company does setup a
    >> dangerous precedent.
    >>
    >> The few ISPs that will be able to afford to set up their own equipments in
    >> telecoms exchanges, and to regually service it, will only set it up in the
    >> main population concentrations, such as Auckland, Wellington, and
    >> Christchurch. Areas that aren't profitable for them, they will not bother
    >> with. Therefore low population areas, such as rural areas may not have any
    >> competition whatsoever, and in fact may end up paying a lot more for their
    >> internet. Therefore we are likely to end up with price variations throughout
    >> the country. Therefore the government would need to impose terms on these
    >> ISPs so that they setup their equipment in ALL exchanges, and not just the
    >> profitable ones.

    >
    >People that _choose_ to live in rural areas must accept that they are
    >always going to have less choice in many areas not just internet. They
    >don't have big supermarkets etc should the government force chains of
    >shops to open in rural areas? I really think it's a bit cheeky for these
    >people that choose to live in the middle of nowhere to expect others to
    >fork out loads of $$ to pay for them to get fast internet access.


    The major difference being that the taxpayer didn't pay for the big
    supermarket chains. But we sure as hell did for Telecom. Telecom has
    been riding on the taxpayer's back since it corporate birth and still
    is.

    Believe it or not, people in rural areas are taxpayers just like
    everyone else, and even though past governments sold us out when they
    allowed the ownership of Telecom to pass from New Zealanders to
    overseas investors, it remains - along with power - an essential
    public utility. IMO those essential public utilities should be back in
    the hands of government and once again run as state owned enterprises
    for the benefit of the original shareholders and investors - the NZ
    taxpayer. Not that there's much chance of that now.
     
    Robert Feigel, May 4, 2006
    #12
  13. Vista

    Steve Guest

    On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:47:29 +1200, k wrote:

    > Vista wrote:
    >> Although on the surface unbundling looks to be a benefit to consumers
    >> getting a better broadband deal, what costs will this be at. I am all for
    >> faster cheaper internet and think telecom haven't been offering NZers with
    >> the service they need (mainly the slow upload speeds low datacaps), however
    >> the governments decision to impose this on a private company does setup a
    >> dangerous precedent.
    >>
    >> The few ISPs that will be able to afford to set up their own equipments in
    >> telecoms exchanges, and to regually service it, will only set it up in the
    >> main population concentrations, such as Auckland, Wellington, and
    >> Christchurch. Areas that aren't profitable for them, they will not bother
    >> with.

    >
    > I stopped at that last sentence and had to comment because I believe you
    > are wrong.
    >
    > You might remember (if you were an avid Internet user back in the mid to
    > late 90's) that IHUG installed POP's ("Points of Presence") in the
    > smaller town centers so the users could dial those instead hauling the
    > call through the country to Auckland.
    >
    > I see the same thing happening with this, it will take a while but _at
    > least_ a few of the larger ISPs will eventually cover the entire country.


    Or alternatively, like T-Mobile in the US, who are planning to offer
    uncapped super 3G access - who needs landlines then, when the charge is
    $15/month?

    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2060

    Steve
     
    Steve, May 4, 2006
    #13
  14. Vista

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    Vista wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Vista wrote:
    >>> the governments decision to impose this on a private company does
    >>> setup a dangerous precedent.

    >>
    >> Yes, it means that any other company that is deemed to be a monopoly
    >> and holding the country back from the rest of the world in such a key
    >> area such as internet services should watch out!

    >
    >
    > What about the oil companies, which provide the illusion of
    > competition, but they are essentially a monopoly. These prices rises
    > are causing a huge dtrain on the economy and the only winners are the
    > oil companies who are making record profits. Would love to see the
    > goverment unbundle the oil.


    Not a good analogy, only really holds if all of the oil came from oil fields
    in NZ and the oil companies got the oil rights from the Government for a
    bargain price.
     
    Nik Coughlin, May 4, 2006
    #14
  15. Vista

    Stu Fleming Guest

    Nik Coughlin wrote:

    > Not a good analogy, only really holds if all of the oil came from oil fields
    > in NZ and the oil companies got the oil rights from the Government for a
    > bargain price.


    Hmmm. Southern Basin. Hunt Petroleum.
     
    Stu Fleming, May 4, 2006
    #15
  16. Vista

    Jedmeister Guest

    What you have described is competition.

    It is not the responsibility of private enterprise to service the
    country bumpkins. These people should move to the city.

    Actually, that is why i have argued that the government should install
    a country wide broadband network. It's costly, but , people in 10 or 20
    years time will marvel at the vision.

    If telecom decide to give up network investment altogether (as they
    threaten), they will end up disappearing. Companies who do not
    invest, die.



    Now, mexico is the only country in the oecd who has not unbundled.
     
    Jedmeister, May 4, 2006
    #16
  17. Vista

    MarkH Guest

    "Vista" <> wrote in news:1146706613.691168@ftpsrv1:

    > The few ISPs that will be able to afford to set up their own
    > equipments in telecoms exchanges, and to regually service it, will
    > only set it up in the main population concentrations, such as
    > Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. Areas that aren't profitable
    > for them, they will not bother with. Therefore low population areas,
    > such as rural areas may not have any competition whatsoever, and in
    > fact may end up paying a lot more for their internet. Therefore we are
    > likely to end up with price variations throughout the country.
    > Therefore the government would need to impose terms on these ISPs so
    > that they setup their equipment in ALL exchanges, and not just the
    > profitable ones.


    This has to be one of the daftest things I have read. How many ISPs could
    afford to put equipment in ALL exchanges? You are suggesting that the
    government after legislating to give access to the local loop to other
    companies should also impose terms to ensure that no ISP in NZ can afford
    access to the local loop.

    What's next? Should the government force Telstra Clear to close their
    cable service because it is not available to the entire country?

    Why not force Wendys to close the hamburger stores in Auckland because they
    are only in Auckland?

    To suggest that Urban internet users are not entitled to a competitive
    service unless rural users also get it is a little silly.

    On the other hand I think that more should be done to provide rural users
    with a better service. I know people that would pay good money just to
    have 256k ADSL, but Telecom is not interested in providing the service.
    This is why I have no problem with the unbundling - Telecom is NOT doing
    the job now they deserve to have this legislation forced upon them.


    --
    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, May 4, 2006
    #17
  18. Vista

    Vista Guest

    "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    news:e3c6sh$3rr$...
    > Vista wrote:
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Vista wrote:
    >>>> the governments decision to impose this on a private company does
    >>>> setup a dangerous precedent.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, it means that any other company that is deemed to be a monopoly
    >>> and holding the country back from the rest of the world in such a key
    >>> area such as internet services should watch out!

    >>
    >>
    >> What about the oil companies, which provide the illusion of
    >> competition, but they are essentially a monopoly. These prices rises
    >> are causing a huge dtrain on the economy and the only winners are the
    >> oil companies who are making record profits. Would love to see the
    >> goverment unbundle the oil.

    >
    > Not a good analogy, only really holds if all of the oil came from oil
    > fields in NZ and the oil companies got the oil rights from the Government
    > for a bargain price.
    >



    OK, how about the electricity market, which is almost identical to Telecoms
    monopoly. The only difference is that it is owned by the goverment. Local
    government (Rates) is also a monopoly that conusmers and businesses have no
    choice on. Both of these have had huge price increases over the last few
    years which I believe are affecting people and businesses and the economy a
    lot more than telecoms monopoly is.
     
    Vista, May 4, 2006
    #18
  19. Vista

    Vista Guest

    "Robert Feigel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 04 May 2006 14:25:46 +1200, Nova <> magnanimously
    > proffered:
    >
    >>Vista wrote:
    >>> Although on the surface unbundling looks to be a benefit to consumers
    >>> getting a better broadband deal, what costs will this be at. I am all
    >>> for
    >>> faster cheaper internet and think telecom haven't been offering NZers
    >>> with
    >>> the service they need (mainly the slow upload speeds low datacaps),
    >>> however
    >>> the governments decision to impose this on a private company does setup
    >>> a
    >>> dangerous precedent.
    >>>
    >>> The few ISPs that will be able to afford to set up their own equipments
    >>> in
    >>> telecoms exchanges, and to regually service it, will only set it up in
    >>> the
    >>> main population concentrations, such as Auckland, Wellington, and
    >>> Christchurch. Areas that aren't profitable for them, they will not
    >>> bother
    >>> with. Therefore low population areas, such as rural areas may not have
    >>> any
    >>> competition whatsoever, and in fact may end up paying a lot more for
    >>> their
    >>> internet. Therefore we are likely to end up with price variations
    >>> throughout
    >>> the country. Therefore the government would need to impose terms on
    >>> these
    >>> ISPs so that they setup their equipment in ALL exchanges, and not just
    >>> the
    >>> profitable ones.

    >>
    >>People that _choose_ to live in rural areas must accept that they are
    >>always going to have less choice in many areas not just internet. They
    >>don't have big supermarkets etc should the government force chains of
    >>shops to open in rural areas? I really think it's a bit cheeky for these
    >>people that choose to live in the middle of nowhere to expect others to
    >>fork out loads of $$ to pay for them to get fast internet access.

    >
    > The major difference being that the taxpayer didn't pay for the big
    > supermarket chains. But we sure as hell did for Telecom. Telecom has
    > been riding on the taxpayer's back since it corporate birth and still
    > is.
    >


    But the government/we sold Telecom, so we don't have any cliam on it when
    you sell something. That is like saying that because you put thousands of
    hours of hard sweat into your house and then you sell it, that you have
    still got a claim on that house.

    A lot of NZers purchased Telecom back as shares, and now the majority of
    Telecom is owned by NZers again.

    > Believe it or not, people in rural areas are taxpayers just like
    > everyone else, and even though past governments sold us out when they
    > allowed the ownership of Telecom to pass from New Zealanders to
    > overseas investors, it remains - along with power - an essential


    'Pass'... you mean that the government sold it. When you sell something, you
    don't have any claim on it at a later date...unless you are a
    government....and then you can make up your own rules.



    > public utility. IMO those essential public utilities should be back in
    > the hands of government and once again run as state owned enterprises
    > for the benefit of the original shareholders and investors - the NZ
    > taxpayer. Not that there's much chance of that now.
    >
    >



    Like they have with the electricity network, and now we are paying huge
    electricity prices
     
    Vista, May 4, 2006
    #19
  20. Vista

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Thu, 04 May 2006 07:20:39 GMT, MarkH <> wrote:

    >On the other hand I think that more should be done to provide rural users
    >with a better service. I know people that would pay good money just to
    >have 256k ADSL, but Telecom is not interested in providing the service.
    >This is why I have no problem with the unbundling - Telecom is NOT doing
    >the job now they deserve to have this legislation forced upon them.


    Possibly because it's not technically possible. Rural users are too far away
    from the exchange for it to work. Normal ADSL requires you to be within 6km of
    the exchange. Rate-Adaptive ADSL will reach out to 10km at typically 256kbps
    down to 56kbps. And on top of that the exhanges themselves will need a high
    speed trunk back to the city.
    Perhaps they need to install fibre to the farm? :)

    Just how far are rural users from the exchanges?

    From what the govt is saying, i'm wondering if they are going to invest
    themselves in getting high speed out to the rural areas?
     
    Craig Shore, May 4, 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. www.BradReese.Com
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    540
    www.BradReese.Com
    Aug 2, 2006
  2. Chris
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    963
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Dec 27, 2003
  3. Chris

    Rivals pressure Swain on unbundling

    Chris, Feb 10, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    448
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Feb 11, 2004
  4. joe_90

    Telecom Gets Unbundling Tick

    joe_90, Oct 9, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    344
  5. news.xtra.co.nz
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    767
    Gavin & Sandy
    May 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page