Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 112555	2010-09-11 04:50:00	Telecom misses out on Fibre to the Home	Digby (677)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1136503	2010-09-14 22:33:00	It was Miley Cyrus, not Britney ... ;) Lord help us! We're screwed!	ubergeek85 (131)
1136504	2010-09-14 23:29:00	Whats the alternative to FTTD, leave Telecom with there monopoly another 10 years?. " Demerging Chorus from Telecom would " represent a significant change " to the industry, but wouldn't resolve challenges around competition in the network space, according to an MED discussion document on the regulatory implications of structural separation released today. It also said regulatory consistency across fibre and copper is important, and government policy should be used to promote competition through opening access, while avoiding over-regulating immature industries. " Structural separation would not affect the underlying problem of limited competition at the network level, which confers market power on the network owner, " the document said. " www.stuff.co.nz I can't see why these pointy heads producing all these discussion papers can't come up with a virtual network solution that doesn't require duplication of physical assets. In my suburb there are some streets with 3 separate sets of ducting plus the ugly TelstraClear coax bundle strung from pole to pole.	PaulD (232)
1136505	2010-09-14 23:51:00	Well said PaulD. It's clear Steven Joyce has NFI what he's doing by the constant changes / delays, and things like this: Communications Minister Steven Joyce said the government is seeking submissions on the implications of a structural split to Telecom. Thing is in order to win a bid, on cost, you're going to have to have quantities of scale. You've gotta be huge. If you're huge, you're gonna become the monopoly. Essentially, replacing the Telecom monopoly with that of another.... It's a rock / hard place scenario: With a monopoly, they're able to utilize quantities of scale and get better pricing on the buy-price of things such as international data. It means if they're buying, say 10g/bit of international data for 250,000 customers, it's better than 1g/bit for 25,000 customers, because if you get a few who utilize more than the norm on the larger monopoly, it's going to make less of a difference compared to the smaller provider. However, without competition in the market, the larger provider is essentially free to charge whatever they like to the customer, resellers and wholesalers ... If you have many smaller monopolies, they lose out on the quantity of scale, so raw pricing for them is likely more expensive, which will be passed on to the consumer. This is why having Chorus2, Govt owned monopoly, is the best of both worlds. (See how I slipped reference to Miley Cyrus in there? Clever huh!)	Chilling_Silence (9)
1136506	2010-09-15 00:09:00	With a monopoly, they're able to utilize quantities of scale and get better pricing on the buy-price of things such as international data. It means if they're buying, say 10g/bit of international data for 250,000 customers, it's better than 1g/bit for 25,000 customers, because if you get a few who utilize more than the norm on the larger monopoly, it's going to make less of a difference compared to the smaller provider. That's more an ISP problem than for a network provider. There's probably ISPs out there with well under 25,000 customers. I don't see any problem with small ISPs having to amalgamate if they can't make the numbers work.	PaulD (232)
1136507	2010-09-15 00:27:00	That's more an ISP problem than for a network provider. There's probably ISPs out there with well under 25,000 customers. I don't see any problem with small ISPs having to amalgamate if they can't make the numbers work. True, we may end up with one or two wholesalers to resell to smaller ISPs. You get what I was meaning though, even though I didn't explain it terribly well :p	Chilling_Silence (9)
1136508	2010-09-15 01:09:00	With a monopoly, they're able to utilize quantities of scale and get better pricing on the buy-price of things such as international data. So your saying leaving Telecom controlling NZ infrastructure will mean they can negotiate better international data prices from themselves through the Southern Cable company?	Battleneter2 (9361)
1136509	2010-09-15 01:14:00	So your saying leaving Telecom controlling NZ infrastructure will mean they can negotiate better international data prices from themselves through the Southern Cable company? More-so than 3-5 smaller companies would. The fact they have a stake in the SCC shouldn't affect it, as they're not allowed to give preferential treatment to themselves, however if they set a pricing structure that says "when you reach X volume, you get Y discount", then it's more likely a monopoly would reach that X volume than several smaller contenders, yes? Of course this is all pure 100% speculation, I have absolutely no facts to back it up... so if you do, I'm all ears :)	Chilling_Silence (9)
1136510	2010-09-15 01:23:00	Let's not forget there is another International Fibre Optic cable waiting in the wings too so we may not have to rely solely on the SCC. Also, as I have mentioned before, it is not a done deal that Telecom is going to be left out altogether is it?	Snorkbox (15764)
1136511	2010-09-15 01:33:00	No apparently it's not still a done deal, as you can see by the link that PaulD quoted, they really have no idea what they wanna do, so they're taking suggestions / submissions / advice from anybody. Yeah I think that having that second international cable should stimulate a healthy market for price negotiation on international bandwidth :D	Chilling_Silence (9)
1136512	2010-09-15 02:25:00	Yeah I think that having that second international cable should stimulate a healthy market for price negotiation on international bandwidth :D With certain limits. The 2nd cable has no redundancy so any big company needing surety would still need enough capacity on Southern Cross to tide them over.	PaulD (232)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7