TelstraClear broadband

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Sep 19, 2010.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    TelstraClear has kicked off a publicity campaign to persuade the
    Government to stop or slow down broadband rollout in areas where it
    has its cable system. At first glance it does seem sensible to
    concentrate the rollout to areas where people have access to no better
    than ADSL (copper pair) broadband. Possibly, the coax cable system is
    doomed in due course.

    For broadband, coax cable is superior to copper pairs but will remain
    inferior to fibre optic. The key thing that drives capacity for a coax
    cable system is the cable length and number of customers served.
    Capacity and speed can be increased by extending the fibre optic
    'overlay' on the cable network, in other words a continuing capital
    investment in coaxial 'heads' and limited fibre optic extensions. The
    cost would be far smaller than 'last mile' fibre to each customer. For
    schools, libraries, etc, where fibre is desirable only limited fibre
    extensions would be needed to connect either to TelstraClear or
    Telecom fibre.

    However there has been and to some extent still is customer irritation
    at TelstraClear which would count against allowing it a 'priviliged'
    situation. But IMO it would be far better for the Government and
    TelstraClear to sort these out so broadband investment can go where it
    is really needed.

    As I see it, irritations past and present would be:
    1. Poor customer interaction.
    2. Forced bundling of phone service (but I think they now have some
    'bare' broadband plans).
    3. Network bottlenecking (when overlay investment lags increasing
    demand).
    4. Ridiculously high 'overuse' charges in the past.
    5. Apparent over zealous caching of web pages on their servers so
    customers are fed out of date pages.
    6. 'Landing' charges when other NZ ISP's etc send pages to
    TelstraClear customers (who also pay to receive pages). Citylink in
    Wellington for example blocked services such as 'mirror' servers and
    webcams to TelstraClear because of 'landing' charges whereas
    originally the TelstraClear service in Wellington was 'peered' with
    Citylink etc with nil data charges.
    7. Exploitation of a non competitive situation.

    Perhaps there are discussions on this in the background but
    TelstraClear is finding the Government too hard nosed for its liking
    so is trying to rally some public opinion on its side.
     
    peterwn, Sep 19, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. In message
    <>, peterwn
    wrote:

    > Perhaps there are discussions on this in the background but
    > TelstraClear is finding the Government too hard nosed for its liking
    > so is trying to rally some public opinion on its side.


    In the US the ISPs have filed lawsuits to stop competition from municipal
    wifi/fibre rollouts.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 20, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 20/09/2010 9:29 a.m., peterwn wrote:
    > Perhaps there are discussions on this in the background but
    > TelstraClear is finding the Government too hard nosed for its liking
    > so is trying to rally some public opinion on its side.



    Don't be fooled.
    TCs cable tv system is nothing like what is being proposed for UFB
    TCs system is a Hybrid Fiber Coax distribution system, its not the same
    as a fiber to the home/curb IP network, definitely not as robust or
    future proof.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_fiber-coaxial

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTTx

    Even though TC is currently a fast option they charge top dollar and
    give the minimum standard of support they can get away with.
     
    victor, Sep 20, 2010
    #3
  4. peterwn

    Simon Guest

    On Sep 20, 9:29 am, peterwn <> wrote:

    > Perhaps there are discussions on this in the background but
    > TelstraClear is finding the Government too hard nosed for its liking
    > so is trying to rally some public opinion on its side.


    Community-fibre rollout is a popular alternative in many countries,
    although in some cases local Telco's are fighting them in the courts.

    This article appeared in the NZ Herald recently and is an example of
    what's happening locally: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/small-business/news/article.cfm?c_id=85&objectid=10674273
     
    Simon, Sep 20, 2010
    #4
  5. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 20/09/2010 9:29 a.m., peterwn wrote:
    > TelstraClear has kicked off a publicity campaign to persuade the
    > Government to stop or slow down broadband rollout in areas where it
    > has its cable system. At first glance it does seem sensible to
    > concentrate the rollout to areas where people have access to no better
    > than ADSL (copper pair) broadband. Possibly, the coax cable system is
    > doomed in due course.
    >
    > For broadband, coax cable is superior to copper pairs but will remain
    > inferior to fibre optic. The key thing that drives capacity for a coax
    > cable system is the cable length and number of customers served.
    > Capacity and speed can be increased by extending the fibre optic
    > 'overlay' on the cable network, in other words a continuing capital
    > investment in coaxial 'heads' and limited fibre optic extensions. The
    > cost would be far smaller than 'last mile' fibre to each customer. For
    > schools, libraries, etc, where fibre is desirable only limited fibre
    > extensions would be needed to connect either to TelstraClear or
    > Telecom fibre.
    >


    <snipped stuff I agree with>


    VDSL is capable of up to 52Mb/s on copper twisted pair
    DOCSIS is capable of up to 42Mb/s using 256 QAM on coax.
    So docsis doesn't even look that special compared to telecoms
    cabinetized dsl.

    One is a compromise to use phone systems to transport data to the home,
    the other is a compromise to use cable tv systems to transport data to
    the home. The real solution is to use a data network.

    Citylink are the pioneers in rolling out a metro data network in
    Wellington, which is also TCs coverage area, it just wouldn't make sense
    to delay the roll-out in Wellington to indulge TC any more than it would
    delaying it elsewhere to indulge DSL providers.
     
    victor, Sep 20, 2010
    #5
  6. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Sep 20, 9:34 pm, victor <> wrote:

    > VDSL is capable of up to 52Mb/s on copper twisted pair


    Under optimal circumstances I presume, like having a cabinet outside
    your front gate and pristine copper right up to the modem.

    > DOCSIS is capable of up to 42Mb/s using 256 QAM on coax.
    > So docsis doesn't even look that special compared to telecoms
    > cabinetized dsl.


    This would seem an average rather than optimal amount.

    >
    > One is a compromise to use phone systems to transport data to the home,
    > the other is a compromise to use cable tv systems to transport data to
    > the home. The real solution is to use a data network.


    The issue as I see it - are these data rates satisfactory for say 95%
    of households for say the next 10 years.

    >
    > Citylink are the pioneers in rolling out a metro data network in
    > Wellington, which is also TCs coverage area,


    The two are pretty well mutually exclusive - Citylink in th commercial
    areas and TC in the residential areas.

    > it just wouldn't make sense
    > to delay the roll-out in Wellington to indulge TC any more than it would
    > delaying it elsewhere to indulge DSL providers.


    It makes sense with respect to households that have access to
    satisfactory broadband or access that can fairly readily be made
    satisfactory. IMO the areas that should be getting priority are
    schools, businesses, public libraries, etc as well as areas currently
    with crummy broadband service.

    I agree that copper pairs and coax needto be upgraded in due course,
    but I am at a loss to understand why those who have plenty should get
    more early on, whereas those with poor service have to wait some
    years.

    Interestingly, there is one big advantage of copper right back to a
    reasonably large exchange. They had both batteries (two sets of 25 or
    so hoary big lead acid cells in large glass tanks) and standby
    generators. Hence an ordinary phone kept working even if the power was
    off. Cabinets AFAIK have very limited 'reserve' power capacity.
     
    peterwn, Sep 20, 2010
    #6
  7. peterwn

    Enkidu Guest

    On 20/09/10 09:29, peterwn wrote:
    >
    > TelstraClear has kicked off a publicity campaign to persuade the
    > Government to stop or slow down broadband rollout in areas where it
    > has its cable system. At first glance it does seem sensible to
    > concentrate the rollout to areas where people have access to no
    > better than ADSL (copper pair) broadband. Possibly, the coax cable
    > system is doomed in due course.
    >

    It seems that TelstraClear a) is scared of competition, b) has no plans
    to expand its coverage its present coverage.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Sep 21, 2010
    #7
  8. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 22/09/2010 12:12 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    > On Sep 22, 11:05 am, victor<> wrote:
    >> On 22/09/2010 9:39 a.m., peterwn wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sep 21, 10:16 pm, Enkidu<> wrote:
    >>>> On 20/09/10 09:29, peterwn wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> TelstraClear has kicked off a publicity campaign to persuade the
    >>>>> Government to stop or slow down broadband rollout in areas where it
    >>>>> has its cable system. At first glance it does seem sensible to
    >>>>> concentrate the rollout to areas where people have access to no
    >>>>> better than ADSL (copper pair) broadband. Possibly, the coax cable
    >>>>> system is doomed in due course.

    >>
    >>>> It seems that TelstraClear a) is scared of competition, b) has no plans
    >>>> to expand its coverage its present coverage.

    >>
    >>> Any company needs to be able to meet the competition. In the case of
    >>> TC's cable system, the system would now seem to be in its twilight
    >>> years. In its heyday it offered multi channel TV delivery and
    >>> broadband superior to what Telecom could deliver. Sky satellite TV and
    >>> Telecom cabinetisation now compete head to head with cable such that
    >>> it is not worth TC extending the cable network, although it would
    >>> probably undertake limited capacity gain projects. TC will probably
    >>> dismantle its coax cable and associated copper pair network in the
    >>> next 10 years or so if fibre to home is installed in TC's cable areas.

    >>
    >>> The issue for TC is to optimise its revenue from the cable network
    >>> from now until its demise (which is when residual revenue is less than
    >>> operating costs, pole rental etc). To do this, it needs to try and
    >>> head off UFB rollout in its cable area. To succeed with this, it will
    >>> need to convince the government that it can (say) meet 95% of its
    >>> prospective customers' broadband needs, sharpen up its priving and
    >>> offer 'bare' cable modem service.

    >>
    >>> As can be seen from comments here, TC's traditional crappy call centre
    >>> service and previous high pricing is not exactly going to work in its
    >>> favour.

    >>
    >> Its not any more convincing a case than that for DSL being a replacement
    >> for UFB.
    >> The high speed enhancement to the cable modem service is a high priced
    >> restricted availability premium product where the same speed would be
    >> the entry level of UFB connections.

    >
    > As I said, TC would need to significantly sharpen up its pricing if it
    > were to persuade Stephen Joyce to allow TC cable to serve as an
    > interim solution. Even with fibre to every home that wants it, the
    > significant 'last mile' costs have to be met by someone. The options
    > are a relatively high 'fixed' monthly charge to give a return on the
    > 'last mile' investment, or spread the 'last mile' cost between a lower
    > fixed charge and variable data charges.
    >
    > Another related charging problem may be where neighbours share a fibre
    > connection and run cat 5 cables through their back yards.


    There is no need for an interim solution, and neither cable nor adsl is
    an interim solution, its do or do not. Its not a matter for debate, the
    government has made its commitment and the electorate expects them to
    honor it. TC are too late, their advertising is to draw subscribers,
    they won't alter or re-litigate the case for UFB

    The specification is already written and agreed in the draft standard
    published on the TCF site for the last mile using passive optical
    network (PON) splitters for the FTTP service, the providers have been
    shortlisted and the technology has been decided. The last mile costs
    will drop below coax and copper pairs just by economies of scale.

    Ironically TC could sell access for the UFB fiber to be blown/pulled
    through their ducting, (so could Telecom).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network
     
    victor, Sep 21, 2010
    #8
  9. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Sep 21, 10:16 pm, Enkidu <> wrote:
    > On 20/09/10 09:29, peterwn wrote:
    >
    > > TelstraClear has kicked off a publicity campaign to persuade the
    > > Government to stop or slow down broadband rollout in areas where it
    > > has its cable system. At first glance it does seem sensible to
    > > concentrate the rollout to areas where people have access to no
    > > better than ADSL (copper pair) broadband. Possibly, the coax cable
    > > system is doomed in due course.

    >
    > It seems that TelstraClear a) is scared of competition, b) has no plans
    > to expand its coverage its present coverage.
    >


    Any company needs to be able to meet the competition. In the case of
    TC's cable system, the system would now seem to be in its twilight
    years. In its heyday it offered multi channel TV delivery and
    broadband superior to what Telecom could deliver. Sky satellite TV and
    Telecom cabinetisation now compete head to head with cable such that
    it is not worth TC extending the cable network, although it would
    probably undertake limited capacity gain projects. TC will probably
    dismantle its coax cable and associated copper pair network in the
    next 10 years or so if fibre to home is installed in TC's cable areas.

    The issue for TC is to optimise its revenue from the cable network
    from now until its demise (which is when residual revenue is less than
    operating costs, pole rental etc). To do this, it needs to try and
    head off UFB rollout in its cable area. To succeed with this, it will
    need to convince the government that it can (say) meet 95% of its
    prospective customers' broadband needs, sharpen up its priving and
    offer 'bare' cable modem service.

    As can be seen from comments here, TC's traditional crappy call centre
    service and previous high pricing is not exactly going to work in its
    favour.
     
    peterwn, Sep 21, 2010
    #9
  10. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 22/09/2010 9:39 a.m., peterwn wrote:
    > On Sep 21, 10:16 pm, Enkidu<> wrote:
    >> On 20/09/10 09:29, peterwn wrote:
    >>
    >>> TelstraClear has kicked off a publicity campaign to persuade the
    >>> Government to stop or slow down broadband rollout in areas where it
    >>> has its cable system. At first glance it does seem sensible to
    >>> concentrate the rollout to areas where people have access to no
    >>> better than ADSL (copper pair) broadband. Possibly, the coax cable
    >>> system is doomed in due course.

    >>
    >> It seems that TelstraClear a) is scared of competition, b) has no plans
    >> to expand its coverage its present coverage.
    >>

    >
    > Any company needs to be able to meet the competition. In the case of
    > TC's cable system, the system would now seem to be in its twilight
    > years. In its heyday it offered multi channel TV delivery and
    > broadband superior to what Telecom could deliver. Sky satellite TV and
    > Telecom cabinetisation now compete head to head with cable such that
    > it is not worth TC extending the cable network, although it would
    > probably undertake limited capacity gain projects. TC will probably
    > dismantle its coax cable and associated copper pair network in the
    > next 10 years or so if fibre to home is installed in TC's cable areas.
    >
    > The issue for TC is to optimise its revenue from the cable network
    > from now until its demise (which is when residual revenue is less than
    > operating costs, pole rental etc). To do this, it needs to try and
    > head off UFB rollout in its cable area. To succeed with this, it will
    > need to convince the government that it can (say) meet 95% of its
    > prospective customers' broadband needs, sharpen up its priving and
    > offer 'bare' cable modem service.
    >
    > As can be seen from comments here, TC's traditional crappy call centre
    > service and previous high pricing is not exactly going to work in its
    > favour.
    >
    >

    Its not any more convincing a case than that for DSL being a replacement
    for UFB.
    The high speed enhancement to the cable modem service is a high priced
    restricted availability premium product where the same speed would be
    the entry level of UFB connections.
     
    victor, Sep 22, 2010
    #10
  11. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Sep 22, 11:05 am, victor <> wrote:
    > On 22/09/2010 9:39 a.m., peterwn wrote:
    >
    > > On Sep 21, 10:16 pm, Enkidu<>  wrote:
    > >> On 20/09/10 09:29, peterwn wrote:

    >
    > >>> TelstraClear has kicked off a publicity campaign to persuade the
    > >>> Government to stop or slow down broadband rollout in areas where it
    > >>> has its cable system. At first glance it does seem sensible to
    > >>> concentrate the rollout to areas where people have access to no
    > >>> better than ADSL (copper pair) broadband. Possibly, the coax cable
    > >>> system is doomed in due course.

    >
    > >> It seems that TelstraClear a) is scared of competition, b) has no plans
    > >> to expand its coverage its present coverage.

    >
    > > Any company needs to be able to meet the competition. In the case of
    > > TC's cable system, the system would now seem to be in its twilight
    > > years. In its heyday it offered multi channel TV delivery and
    > > broadband superior to what Telecom could deliver. Sky satellite TV and
    > > Telecom cabinetisation now compete head to head with cable such that
    > > it is not worth TC extending the cable network, although it would
    > > probably undertake limited capacity gain projects. TC will probably
    > > dismantle its coax cable and associated copper pair network in the
    > > next 10 years or so if fibre to home is installed in TC's cable areas.

    >
    > > The issue for TC is to optimise its revenue from the cable network
    > > from now until its demise (which is when residual revenue is less than
    > > operating costs, pole rental etc). To do this, it needs to try and
    > > head off UFB rollout in its cable area. To succeed with this, it will
    > > need to convince the government that it can (say) meet 95% of its
    > > prospective customers' broadband needs, sharpen up its priving and
    > > offer 'bare' cable modem service.

    >
    > > As can be seen from comments here, TC's traditional crappy call centre
    > > service and previous high pricing is not exactly going to work in its
    > > favour.

    >
    > Its not any more convincing a case than that for DSL being a replacement
    > for UFB.
    > The high speed enhancement to the cable modem service is a high priced
    > restricted availability premium product where the same speed would be
    > the entry level of UFB connections.


    As I said, TC would need to significantly sharpen up its pricing if it
    were to persuade Stephen Joyce to allow TC cable to serve as an
    interim solution. Even with fibre to every home that wants it, the
    significant 'last mile' costs have to be met by someone. The options
    are a relatively high 'fixed' monthly charge to give a return on the
    'last mile' investment, or spread the 'last mile' cost between a lower
    fixed charge and variable data charges.

    Another related charging problem may be where neighbours share a fibre
    connection and run cat 5 cables through their back yards.
     
    peterwn, Sep 22, 2010
    #11
  12. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 22/09/2010 12:12 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    > On Sep 22, 11:05 am, victor<> wrote:
    >> On 22/09/2010 9:39 a.m., peterwn wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sep 21, 10:16 pm, Enkidu<> wrote:
    >>>> On 20/09/10 09:29, peterwn wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> TelstraClear has kicked off a publicity campaign to persuade the
    >>>>> Government to stop or slow down broadband rollout in areas where it
    >>>>> has its cable system. At first glance it does seem sensible to
    >>>>> concentrate the rollout to areas where people have access to no
    >>>>> better than ADSL (copper pair) broadband. Possibly, the coax cable
    >>>>> system is doomed in due course.

    >>
    >>>> It seems that TelstraClear a) is scared of competition, b) has no plans
    >>>> to expand its coverage its present coverage.

    >>
    >>> Any company needs to be able to meet the competition. In the case of
    >>> TC's cable system, the system would now seem to be in its twilight
    >>> years. In its heyday it offered multi channel TV delivery and
    >>> broadband superior to what Telecom could deliver. Sky satellite TV and
    >>> Telecom cabinetisation now compete head to head with cable such that
    >>> it is not worth TC extending the cable network, although it would
    >>> probably undertake limited capacity gain projects. TC will probably
    >>> dismantle its coax cable and associated copper pair network in the
    >>> next 10 years or so if fibre to home is installed in TC's cable areas.

    >>
    >>> The issue for TC is to optimise its revenue from the cable network
    >>> from now until its demise (which is when residual revenue is less than
    >>> operating costs, pole rental etc). To do this, it needs to try and
    >>> head off UFB rollout in its cable area. To succeed with this, it will
    >>> need to convince the government that it can (say) meet 95% of its
    >>> prospective customers' broadband needs, sharpen up its priving and
    >>> offer 'bare' cable modem service.

    >>
    >>> As can be seen from comments here, TC's traditional crappy call centre
    >>> service and previous high pricing is not exactly going to work in its
    >>> favour.

    >>
    >> Its not any more convincing a case than that for DSL being a replacement
    >> for UFB.
    >> The high speed enhancement to the cable modem service is a high priced
    >> restricted availability premium product where the same speed would be
    >> the entry level of UFB connections.

    >
    > As I said, TC would need to significantly sharpen up its pricing if it
    > were to persuade Stephen Joyce to allow TC cable to serve as an
    > interim solution. Even with fibre to every home that wants it, the
    > significant 'last mile' costs have to be met by someone. The options
    > are a relatively high 'fixed' monthly charge to give a return on the
    > 'last mile' investment, or spread the 'last mile' cost between a lower
    > fixed charge and variable data charges.
    >
    > Another related charging problem may be where neighbours share a fibre
    > connection and run cat 5 cables through their back yards.


    There is no need for an interim solution, and neither cable nor adsl is
    an interim solution, its do or do not. Its not a matter for debate, the
    government has made its commitment and the electorate expects them to
    honor it. TC are too late, their advertising is to draw subscribers,
    they won't alter or re-litigate the case for UFB

    The specification is already written and agreed in the draft standard
    published on the TCF site for the last mile using passive optical
    network (PON) splitters for the FTTP service, the providers have been
    shortlisted and the technology has been decided. The last mile costs
    will drop below coax and copper pairs just by economies of scale.

    Ironically TC could sell access for the UFB fiber to be blown/pulled
    through their ducting, (so could Telecom).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network
     
    victor, Sep 22, 2010
    #12
  13. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Sep 22, 1:13 am, victor <> wrote:

    >
    > There is no need for an interim solution, and neither cable nor adsl is
    > an interim solution, its do or do not. Its not a matter for debate, the
    > government has made its commitment and the electorate expects them to
    > honor it. TC are too late, their advertising is to draw subscribers,
    > they won't alter or re-litigate the case for UFB
    >
    > The specification is already written and agreed in the draft standard
    > published on the TCF site for the last mile using passive optical
    > network (PON) splitters for the FTTP service, the providers have been
    > shortlisted and the technology has been decided. The last mile costs
    > will drop below coax and copper pairs just by economies of scale.
    >


    I am not saying UFB should never happen in TC cable areas, all I am
    saying is that if TC plays ball on pricing, then TC cable areas should
    receive lower priority than areas with inferior broadband access
    compared with TC cable.

    If I was in an area with poor or nil broadband, I would be justifiably
    annoyed if the Government did not attempt to speed up progress in such
    areas by putting TC cable areas at the end of the UFB if a reasonable
    arrangement with TC could be negotiated - which it could the UFB
    'stick' is mighty big..

    This still sits quite comfortably with the statements in your above
    two paragraphs.
     
    peterwn, Sep 22, 2010
    #13
  14. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 22/09/2010 2:35 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    > On Sep 22, 1:13 am, victor<> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> There is no need for an interim solution, and neither cable nor adsl is
    >> an interim solution, its do or do not. Its not a matter for debate, the
    >> government has made its commitment and the electorate expects them to
    >> honor it. TC are too late, their advertising is to draw subscribers,
    >> they won't alter or re-litigate the case for UFB
    >>
    >> The specification is already written and agreed in the draft standard
    >> published on the TCF site for the last mile using passive optical
    >> network (PON) splitters for the FTTP service, the providers have been
    >> shortlisted and the technology has been decided. The last mile costs
    >> will drop below coax and copper pairs just by economies of scale.
    >>

    >
    > I am not saying UFB should never happen in TC cable areas, all I am
    > saying is that if TC plays ball on pricing, then TC cable areas should
    > receive lower priority than areas with inferior broadband access
    > compared with TC cable.
    >
    > If I was in an area with poor or nil broadband, I would be justifiably
    > annoyed if the Government did not attempt to speed up progress in such
    > areas by putting TC cable areas at the end of the UFB if a reasonable
    > arrangement with TC could be negotiated - which it could the UFB
    > 'stick' is mighty big..
    >
    > This still sits quite comfortably with the statements in your above
    > two paragraphs.


    TCs network has no relevance at all to any priorities for the UFB
    project, its primary purpose is cable television.
    The reason that TC have built in the locations they have is because of
    demand.
    That is not a good reason to delay UFB in those areas, TC should be
    encouraged to migrate and decommission their unsightly aerial coax
    bundles and suspended amplifiers.
    No one in government or the telecommunications has suggested such a
    thing apart from Alan Freeth the TC CEO.
    I don't know why you are persisting with this idea that there is
    anything to be gained in assigning priority to the rollout of UFB. There
    isn't a resource problem.
    The areas with schools libraries businesses etc with poor broadband
    coverage are already covered by the Rural Broadband Initiative, a
    previous government program.
    To assign any priorities puts the designated UFB partners in the TC
    coverage areas at an commercial disadvantage for no reason, arbitrarily
    assigning a period of revenue to TC
     
    victor, Sep 22, 2010
    #14
  15. On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:16:35 +1200, victor <> wrote:

    >On 22/09/2010 2:35 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    >> On Sep 22, 1:13 am, victor<> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> There is no need for an interim solution, and neither cable nor adsl is
    >>> an interim solution, its do or do not. Its not a matter for debate, the
    >>> government has made its commitment and the electorate expects them to
    >>> honor it. TC are too late, their advertising is to draw subscribers,
    >>> they won't alter or re-litigate the case for UFB
    >>>
    >>> The specification is already written and agreed in the draft standard
    >>> published on the TCF site for the last mile using passive optical
    >>> network (PON) splitters for the FTTP service, the providers have been
    >>> shortlisted and the technology has been decided. The last mile costs
    >>> will drop below coax and copper pairs just by economies of scale.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I am not saying UFB should never happen in TC cable areas, all I am
    >> saying is that if TC plays ball on pricing, then TC cable areas should
    >> receive lower priority than areas with inferior broadband access
    >> compared with TC cable.
    >>
    >> If I was in an area with poor or nil broadband, I would be justifiably
    >> annoyed if the Government did not attempt to speed up progress in such
    >> areas by putting TC cable areas at the end of the UFB if a reasonable
    >> arrangement with TC could be negotiated - which it could the UFB
    >> 'stick' is mighty big..
    >>
    >> This still sits quite comfortably with the statements in your above
    >> two paragraphs.

    >
    >TCs network has no relevance at all to any priorities for the UFB
    >project, its primary purpose is cable television.
    >The reason that TC have built in the locations they have is because of
    >demand.
    >That is not a good reason to delay UFB in those areas, TC should be
    >encouraged to migrate and decommission their unsightly aerial coax
    >bundles and suspended amplifiers.



    I have no unsightly aerial coax bundles and suspended amplifiers, all I
    have is a large gray box, it should have been a small one, but they
    stuffed up and placed the small one on my property

    One thing that is Great with Cable you get none of the Micro outages the
    ADSL user get most of the time.

    Plus I use the Telstra Clear Phone line that gives me free calls to
    Wellington, With Telescum I have to pay for those calls.


    TC is also upgrading its network for HD TV, so how will they be able to
    provide TV to its users.

    Sorry it seems to me you are on the end of a Crappy ADSL network, why
    not move into a house that has cable.


    >No one in government or the telecommunications has suggested such a
    >thing apart from Alan Freeth the TC CEO.
    >I don't know why you are persisting with this idea that there is
    >anything to be gained in assigning priority to the rollout of UFB. There
    >isn't a resource problem.
    >The areas with schools libraries businesses etc with poor broadband
    >coverage are already covered by the Rural Broadband Initiative, a
    >previous government program.
    >To assign any priorities puts the designated UFB partners in the TC
    >coverage areas at an commercial disadvantage for no reason, arbitrarily
    >assigning a period of revenue to TC
    >
     
    William Brown, Sep 22, 2010
    #15
  16. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Sep 22, 7:46 pm, William Brown <> wrote:
    >
    > One thing that is Great with Cable you get none of the Micro outages the
    > ADSL user get most of the time.
    >
    > Plus I use the Telstra Clear Phone line that gives me free calls to
    > Wellington, With Telescum I have to pay for those calls.
    >
    > TC is also upgrading its network for HD TV, so how will they be able to
    > provide TV to its users.
    >
    > Sorry it seems to me you are on the end of a Crappy ADSL network, why
    > not move into a house that has cable.
    >

    "Victor" admitted earlier that he was a TC cable internet customer. It
    seems he has such a serious attitude problem with TC that the sooner
    fibre is installed in his street the better. Just like Dr
    Strangelove, I have learned to stop worrying and love TC.

    If he had really crappy ADSL, he too would be annoyed if his street
    got lower priority than TC cable areas.
     
    peterwn, Sep 22, 2010
    #16
  17. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 22/09/2010 10:12 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    > On Sep 22, 7:46 pm, William Brown<> wrote:
    >>
    >> One thing that is Great with Cable you get none of the Micro outages the
    >> ADSL user get most of the time.
    >>
    >> Plus I use the Telstra Clear Phone line that gives me free calls to
    >> Wellington, With Telescum I have to pay for those calls.
    >>
    >> TC is also upgrading its network for HD TV, so how will they be able to
    >> provide TV to its users.
    >>
    >> Sorry it seems to me you are on the end of a Crappy ADSL network, why
    >> not move into a house that has cable.
    >>

    > "Victor" admitted earlier that he was a TC cable internet customer. It
    > seems he has such a serious attitude problem with TC that the sooner
    > fibre is installed in his street the better. Just like Dr
    > Strangelove, I have learned to stop worrying and love TC.
    >
    > If he had really crappy ADSL, he too would be annoyed if his street
    > got lower priority than TC cable areas.
    >
    >

    It is a shame that under Theresa Gattung, Telecom failed to invest in
    broadband quality, their fiber to the cabinet network could have
    happened much sooner and kept them in the driving seat. They squandered
    their opportunity.
    There isn't any priority ranking in the UFB plan, just a testing phase
    and general roll-out. As it should be.
     
    victor, Sep 22, 2010
    #17
  18. peterwn

    victor Guest

    On 22/09/2010 7:46 p.m., William Brown wrote:
    > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:16:35 +1200, victor<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 22/09/2010 2:35 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    >>> On Sep 22, 1:13 am, victor<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There is no need for an interim solution, and neither cable nor adsl is
    >>>> an interim solution, its do or do not. Its not a matter for debate, the
    >>>> government has made its commitment and the electorate expects them to
    >>>> honor it. TC are too late, their advertising is to draw subscribers,
    >>>> they won't alter or re-litigate the case for UFB
    >>>>
    >>>> The specification is already written and agreed in the draft standard
    >>>> published on the TCF site for the last mile using passive optical
    >>>> network (PON) splitters for the FTTP service, the providers have been
    >>>> shortlisted and the technology has been decided. The last mile costs
    >>>> will drop below coax and copper pairs just by economies of scale.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I am not saying UFB should never happen in TC cable areas, all I am
    >>> saying is that if TC plays ball on pricing, then TC cable areas should
    >>> receive lower priority than areas with inferior broadband access
    >>> compared with TC cable.
    >>>
    >>> If I was in an area with poor or nil broadband, I would be justifiably
    >>> annoyed if the Government did not attempt to speed up progress in such
    >>> areas by putting TC cable areas at the end of the UFB if a reasonable
    >>> arrangement with TC could be negotiated - which it could the UFB
    >>> 'stick' is mighty big..
    >>>
    >>> This still sits quite comfortably with the statements in your above
    >>> two paragraphs.

    >>
    >> TCs network has no relevance at all to any priorities for the UFB
    >> project, its primary purpose is cable television.
    >> The reason that TC have built in the locations they have is because of
    >> demand.
    >> That is not a good reason to delay UFB in those areas, TC should be
    >> encouraged to migrate and decommission their unsightly aerial coax
    >> bundles and suspended amplifiers.

    >
    >
    > I have no unsightly aerial coax bundles and suspended amplifiers, all I
    > have is a large gray box, it should have been a small one, but they
    > stuffed up and placed the small one on my property
    >


    Most of Wellington does. Non users and users alike pay the penalty for
    TelstraClear deceiving the WCC as to the visual impact of their wires.
    The sight of the resulting mess killed their resource consents for
    Auckland stone dead.
     
    victor, Sep 22, 2010
    #18
  19. peterwn

    AD. Guest

    On Sep 22, 7:46 pm, William Brown <> wrote:

    > I have no unsightly aerial coax bundles and suspended amplifiers, all I
    > have is a large gray box, it should have been a small one, but they
    > stuffed up and placed the small one on my property


    That's because you live on the Kapiti Coast. It is a different story
    in Wellington.

    >
    > One thing that is Great with Cable you get none of the Micro outages the
    > ADSL user get most of the time.


    And there have been plenty of TC cable outages too - admittedly though
    TC has macro outages rather than micro outages. And since shifting to
    DSL I haven't noticed many of these micro outages anyway - and I would
    seeing as though I often use long running SSH tunnels. I actually get
    more reliable connections than I did with TC cable.

    But what does DSL that have to do with it? This thread isn't about
    cable vs DSL, its about cable vs fibre to the home.

    >
    > Plus I use the Telstra Clear Phone line that gives me free calls to
    > Wellington, With Telescum I have to pay for those calls.


    I'm not sure most Wellington users would place quite the same
    importance on their free phone calls to the Kapiti Coast. And what
    does that have to do with cable vs fibre?

    >
    > TC is also upgrading its network for HD TV, so how will they be able to
    > provide TV to its users.
    >
    > Sorry it seems to me you are on the end of a Crappy ADSL network, why
    > not move into a house that has cable.


    Ummm he said he is a long time Triple Play customer. And I used to be
    until we shifted and couldn't get cable any more. But frankly - I
    don't miss TC at all and have been pleasantly surprised by DSL these
    days (I wasn't expecting much). TelstraClear have some of the worst
    customer service around (except for Vodafone), and a really crappy
    transparent proxy that interfered with lots of stuff. Their higher
    upload speeds would be nice (eg when working from home), but they
    seldom ever reached what was advertised and seem to be getting more
    and more asymmetric anyway.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 22, 2010
    #19
  20. peterwn

    John Little Guest

    Victor said:
    > Non users and users alike pay the penalty for
    > TelstraClear deceiving the WCC as to the visual impact of their wires.
    > The sight of the resulting mess killed their resource consents for
    > Auckland stone dead.


    I doubt they were deceived that much; Wellington's streetscapes are
    often grim and ugly, because trees don't grow much till they're blown
    over, or are cut down to stop them being blown over, and the climate
    encourages a more indoor way of life than the rest of the country.
    (Digging slitty as I type...)

    Regards, John
     
    John Little, Sep 23, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Carl Elphick

    Telstraclear cable in auckland?

    Carl Elphick, Aug 25, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,323
    Carl Elphick
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. Steve B

    Thank you again TelstraClear

    Steve B, Feb 20, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,334
    Steve B
    Feb 24, 2004
  3. SchoolTech

    Telstraclear Business Broadband Terms

    SchoolTech, Nov 18, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    633
    thingy
    Nov 18, 2005
  4. Petrushka

    Broadband on TelstraClear phone line

    Petrushka, Jan 27, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,402
    Don Hills
    Feb 2, 2006
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,293
    Lloyd
    Apr 15, 2006
  6. Finch

    TelstraClear Broadband Issues?

    Finch, Aug 22, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,412
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Aug 25, 2006
  7. Bill
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,131
    Nobody
    May 28, 2008
  8. ~misfit~

    TelstraClear Broadband?

    ~misfit~, Oct 7, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,239
    ~misfit~
    Oct 8, 2010
Loading...