Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 108620	2010-04-05 04:05:00	Discussion: Why fibre to the door?	Chilling_Silence (9)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
873113	2010-04-10 06:48:00	There are so many straw man posts in this thread it's difficult for me to know where to start. To Chilling Silence:- It appears to me that you mostly object to the fact that you pay tax and you object to the present Government interfering to the extent that *your* taxpayers dollars are going to roll out fibre to the home at an original estimated cost of $1.5 billion ( to the taxpayer ) then you mention Billions in another post. Where did the Billions come from and how many are we talking about? Have you got a current link? FTTH is not going to solve everybodies issues (sic). Possibly you meant everybodys' issues but *I* have issues with *my* taxpayers dollars going toward females issuing babies for which *I* have to pay as opposed to the Father and Mother of said offspring. I also have issues regarding paying via road and diesel taxes for roads in Auckland especially a new harbour crossing but I'm going to have to pay said tax regardless of whether I use it or not. It now appears that you admit that fibre will "last for decades" so why should the taxpayer not pay? The taxpayer paid already for the copper laid and you want to not have any investment by the Government in any further infrastructure?	Sweep (90)
873114	2010-04-10 22:00:00	Sure, because Fibre rollouts are already happening on their own accord, why should the Govt have to meddle with it? Billions is the sum total for everything. Its "expected" that the private sector will more than match the $1,500,000,000 the Govt is putting in. That's a lot of Zeros on the end there. My point is that as an infrastructure, it may last for many years to come, but it *won't* do SFA unless something about the data caps actually happens. I've actually met with several rather high up people in Telecom and Orcon about just that and the general consensus is that you're basically going to be paying a little bit extra each month for exactly the same service, same broadband caps, same throttling if you're on Big Time equivalent plans, it's just that the medium it's delivered to you will have changed. Hell, a widespread wireless deployment would be a better solution...	Chilling_Silence (9)
873115	2010-04-12 02:43:00	Sure, because Fibre rollouts are already happening on their own accord, why should the Govt have to meddle with it? Answer = Telecom near monopoly 2 billion to fix this ongoing festering problem seems like real BARGAIN for 'true" world class broadband, bring it!. See that's not entirely true. Yes, Fibre would "last for decades", but not without this Pacific Fibre project, or a dramatic cost reduction per-GB which doesn't look like happening any time soon. owwww right that's cool lets lobby the government to pay for a 2nd cable and end Telecoms monopoly on that to, fix the other 50% of the problem at the same time. Good idea I really like your thinking :)	Battleneter2 (9361)
873116	2010-04-12 23:37:00	I fail to see what's wrong with a Monopoly? Especially considering all the retail ISP's are on the same playing field as retail Telecom (Xtra) is? Nor do I see any benefit that dethroning the monopoly will give us either? Seems like another Microsoft vs Linux vs Mac argument to me... Again, you're presuming that this will bring you world-class broadband, yet you're missing the point that you're quite literally going to be getting the same service you get with ADSL2+ but over a Fibre connection, so slightly faster upload speed (symmetrical). There's no indication to note that things will change.	Chilling_Silence (9)
873117	2010-04-12 23:51:00	I am unaware of an example where a monopoly is said to work........ What Does Monopoly Mean? A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.	Cicero (40)
873118	2010-04-13 04:16:00	And there you have it: "Often" This is what we're seeing in respect to the SCC etc. It's not that the SCC is near capacity, far from it, but the per-GB cost is too extravagant for New Zealand to warrant anything greater than ADSL2+ in the foreseeable future, and I'll agree there that we need an alternative means of getting large volumes of data into the country if we are to progress. Also, considering that ADSL2+ when run from a cabinetized system will surpass the immediate needs of the vast majority of the country, and where the needs are not met, fibre can still be run, surely focus should be around bringing the per-GB cost down so that NZ can begin to enjoy more things such as streaming video. Then, we leave FTTH to happen in its own time, as FTTN / ADSL2+ cabinetization has with Telecom, you'll see that other service providers such as Vector or Orcon will build their own network, or wholesale from whoever as applicable, but for the most part of it, it's simply more logical for an ISP to wholesale. End of the day, you're effectively trading one monopoly (Telecom / Chorus) for another (Crown Fibre Holdings), and whereas the Govt doesn't have shareholders to appease, they DO have the entire population of the country who's going to be pissed if they throw money down the drain, yes? So, tell me why we should have the Govt fund this when other companies can do it in their own timing, of their own accord, in a potentially similar timeframe?	Chilling_Silence (9)
873119	2010-04-13 04:29:00	Often, as in Telecom b4 unbundling. It is an error to try to second guess governments or corporates,as in current finacial crisis,they don't know what they are doing,so we most certainly do not.	Cicero (40)
873120	2010-04-13 04:57:00	And there you have it: "Often" This is what we're seeing in respect to the SCC etc. It's not that the SCC is near capacity, far from it, but the per-GB cost is too extravagant for New Zealand to warrant anything greater than ADSL2+ in the foreseeable future, and I'll agree there that we need an alternative means of getting large volumes of data into the country if we are to progress. Also, considering that ADSL2+ when run from a cabinetized system will surpass the immediate needs of the vast majority of the country, and where the needs are not met, fibre can still be run, surely focus should be around bringing the per-GB cost down so that NZ can begin to enjoy more things such as streaming video. Then, we leave FTTH to happen in its own time, as FTTN / ADSL2+ cabinetization has with Telecom, you'll see that other service providers such as Vector or Orcon will build their own network, or wholesale from whoever as applicable, but for the most part of it, it's simply more logical for an ISP to wholesale. End of the day, you're effectively trading one monopoly (Telecom / Chorus) for another (Crown Fibre Holdings), and whereas the Govt doesn't have shareholders to appease, they DO have the entire population of the country who's going to be pissed if they throw money down the drain, yes? So, tell me why we should have the Govt fund this when other companies can do it in their own timing, of their own accord, in a potentially similar timeframe? The government does collect taxes from all who actually pay same. Your main moan is that you seem to object to what the collected tax is spent on. The Goverment spends heaps on welfare every day and why should I pay for the DPB when I never used it? You are suggesting your Internet is fine for you and mine is the same for me for that matter.	Sweep (90)
873121	2010-04-13 05:01:00	Actually mines not, I'm on ADSL2+ from the exchange and I get 4m/bit. That said, it's pretty darn close... However yes, I'm implying that for the vast majority of people, it's sufficient, and for those whom it isn't, can get Fibre already (most of the time). Or, where they cannot get ADSL2+, they're less likely to be able to get Fibre through the Govts plan, so it's redundant regardless.	Chilling_Silence (9)
873122	2010-05-23 22:06:00	I'll just say that fibre might be good for the future - dunno about funding, lol. But to my knowledge the focus is on wiring. What about wireless? Wireless is surely the future. I do agree with one of Chill's points. Most people don't need state of the art speeds. Companies can get that sure. But for most individuals a 2Mbps or a 4Mbps can be more than enough. When I was getting only 1.8Mbps I could stream youtube no probs. I could download most things no probs, if I tried a game demo of 500MB or 1GB I could go away for a break, but I don't do often, not a gamer - which I suspect that most people. I am not a gamer but afaik a 5-6Mbps is fine. Now with ADSL2 even better. Not sure if you need 24 or 100 or a 1000Mbps for gaming thou, maybe for downloading the large files.	Nomad (952)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14