| 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 | ||
| 873073 | 2010-04-06 21:22:00 | It boils down to one simple question Chilling_Silence, what is "your" plan for breaking Telecoms monopoly? | Battleneter2 (9361) | ||
| 873074 | 2010-04-07 00:05:00 | It boils down to one simple question Chilling_Silence, what is "your" plan for breaking Telecoms monopoly? I cannot be accused of being a Telecom fan as I have zero services with them (am on TelstraClear for internet, Xnet VFX for phone and Vodafone mobile). However their so-called monopoly is long broken. Not only are there quite a number of choices for internet all over the country (not just talking about cable in Wellington & Christchurch), but the service people are recieving from lines controlled by Telecom are reasonably priced and constantly improving in speed. As even somebody, a proponent of the fibre scheme agrees, Telecom's $1.4 billion cabenetisation scheme is world class, doing a great job at providing lightning fast ADSL2+ connections, and is being done without any help from the government. If Telecom had the monopoly most people assume they still do, such an investment would be pointless - it could be ADSL forever. The Government has already forced Telecom to transform into a company making $967 million a year into one making $400. I am not for a moment saying they did not deserve this or that it was a bad idea. However, I absolutely do not agree that "more must be done" to break Telecom's so-called monopoly. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 873075 | 2010-04-07 00:43:00 | I thought i read that Telecom only made 40 million this year? I could be wrong but | Gobe1 (6290) | ||
| 873076 | 2010-04-07 01:21:00 | I thought i read that Telecom only made 40 million this year? I could be wrong but Nope, wrong I'm afraid. The most recent financial result is 80 million this quarter (3 month period). $400 million last year as I said. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 873077 | 2010-04-07 01:42:00 | However their so-called monopoly is long broken. . You are incorrect, competing ISP's largely cannot afford to install there own equipment on the local loop therefore they are ""forced"" to use Telecom wholesale, there's no second choice! Telecom's $1.4 billion cabenetisation scheme is "world class" ROTFL very very funny, for a start nothing is "world class" about rubbish DSL2. Telecom are just doing the minimum to protect there own position again! Telecom charge ISP's for the use of there so called Wholesale service, what aren't you guys understanding about the word monopoly? |
Battleneter2 (9361) | ||
| 873078 | 2010-04-07 02:28:00 | For as long as the ownership of the submarine cable(s) bringing our data to NZ have the same owners (which includes Telecom), then we are victims of a Telecom monopoly. It's widely acknowledged we pay way too much for data. | Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 873079 | 2010-04-07 03:36:00 | For as long as the ownership of the submarine cable(s) bringing our data to NZ have the same owners (which includes Telecom), then we are victims of a Telecom monopoly. It's widely acknowledged we pay way too much for data. I agree entirely that the owners of the Southern Cross have a monopoly on international data which is a problem, and that we pay far too much for international data. This is the true problem. If the goverment wishes to improve our broadband, I believe this is the problem they should put their money into addressing, perhaps by investing in the new cable that Sam Morgan etc are proposing. The point I am trying to make is that it is stupid to invest in fibre to the home, when we don't have suitable international data to consume over it. Since we're all computer people here, an analogy is building a computer with 128GB of RAM (not a typo) and a 2GB hard drive. What are you going to use it for? Note that this is not supposed to be a strong analogy. However, think about the numbers. The Government suggested a $50/month cost for the consumer to be likely. However, currently a $50/month plan only buys around 10GB of data. I am aware that in bulk the data component is more like $1 per GB, but the point still stands. At fibre speeds (assuming 100Mbit), using that line to its full potential will churn through that usage in just 13 minutes. Of course, you will say that that's burst speed and nobody would actually use it that fast. But what are they saying it's for? Certainly not downloading a 20MB file in 1.5 seconds instead of 15. Examples include international high-definition videoconferencing. Let's take a look at the figures. Let's conservatively assume 16Mbits. That's 32Mbits total, which is 4MB/sec. Such a video conference will consume 14GB of data per HOUR! These figures clearly indicate that without significantly cheaper international data, delivering such high speed internet with current data caps will make us the laughing stock of the world. The current local technologies we use to connect (10Mbit average ADSL2, 10Mbit cable, etc) are well in line with the amount of international data we are able to afford. Finally, as far as I am concerned any argument about the benefits to schools is pointless. If this is a large part of the benefits, it would be much cheaper just to run fibre connections to the schools, or even subsidise their connections. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 873080 | 2010-04-07 04:40:00 | I'm with George on this one ;) Battleneter2, you seem to have forgotten what the word "wholesale" means. Telecom is literally forced to trade "at arms length" with itself (its other divisions), meaning that Telecom Xtra as an ISP has no greater margins, abilities or benefits than any other ISP, because they're getting their backend data from Telecom Chorus (wholesale). While 16m/bit one way is not specifically conservative, especially for a HD video conference, I'd stab that it's realistic of the upstream + downstream bandwidth combined, so you're still going to churn through your data cap.. And we're assuming that bandwidth will have come down significantly by the time it's rolled out. Question: How much has SCC data pricing decreased in the last decade? Yet most consumers are stuck with the same 5GB cap we had right back in the day when a 128 / 256kbps service was launched called "Jetstream", because they force themselves not to use anything that'd go over that, again because of the cost factor. Even after all the wholesale pricing decreases, we're still paying through the nose, particularly more now in the last 6 months as the price of casual data rose with most ISP's from $1 per-GB excess to $2 per-GB excess. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 873081 | 2010-04-07 04:58:00 | I'm with George on this one ;) Battleneter2, you seem to have forgotten what the word "wholesale" means . Telecom is literally forced to trade "at arms length" with itself (its other divisions), meaning that Telecom Xtra as an ISP has no greater margins, abilities or benefits than any other ISP, because they're getting their backend data from Telecom Chorus (wholesale) . Lol, yes I "get" the smoke screen Chilling_Silence, sure the government tried to break the monopoly and it hasn't worked, hence cabintisation . So why is it most ISP's in New Zealand go through Telecom wholesale, is it great service, hot sales chicks or what? Lets pretend I am a modest start up ISP, I want to offer ADSL2 to residential customers what are my options Chilling_Silence?, I want you to tell me! |
Battleneter2 (9361) | ||
| 873082 | 2010-04-07 05:55:00 | More competition is always good yeah? | beeswax34 (63) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | |||||