Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 89143	2008-04-22 04:26:00	Key pledges $1.5b for fast internet	robbyp (2751)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
661204	2008-04-23 00:37:00	Nope, that's just the way I see it. My opinion. It being right or not is another matter :P Opinion is fine - and fortunately you are of the same opinion as many others, including Key. "The network would be open-access, which means any Internet service provider would be able to use it to compete for customers."	somebody (208)
661205	2008-04-23 00:43:00	But didn't he say it would be a public-private partnership? If telecom gets its greedy little hands on it... shuddershudder	ubergeek85 (131)
661206	2008-04-23 00:49:00	But didn't he say it would be a public-private partnership? If telecom gets its greedy little hands on it... shuddershudder Yes, you're right, but it doesn't matter who's running it - if it's regulated to be open-access right from the word go, then it'll be open access.	somebody (208)
661207	2008-04-23 00:54:00	Yes, you're right, but it doesn't matter who's running it - if it's regulated to be open-access right from the word go, then it'll be open access. I see, thanks for that.	ubergeek85 (131)
661208	2008-04-23 02:05:00	Of course the money spent on fast internet means that money is no longer available for things like health, education and law and order. The government, in their wisdom, sold our telecomunication system to Telecom, and ever since have been telling Telecom how to run their business. Telecom,of course, are politely ignoring the government instructions. I wonder if Key has even thought of the logistics. Like who is going to install all the new cable, who is going to run the system. And more importantly where are the skilled staff comming from. And where did Mr. Key get the figure of $1.5 B? Even if this figure is anywhere near accurate, has he heard of inflation? I wonder if Telecom has been consulted. Or is he just going to install all his cables and the say "Here it is, Run it and pay us $x for it." Teleco replies "Too dear. No thank you." Then What? Labour were willing to throw $1b at a new auckland stadium, they do have the cash on hand for such spending. Which is better for NZs future and economy, a white elephant stadium, or next generation internet? Telecom are caught between a rock and a hard place. Any investment they make must make a decent ROI for the shareholders. Also if they did setup their own network, the government can just come in and tell them to share it, due to the power they have. They have shown with the terrible Auckland arport decision that NZ is not a good place for global investors to invest in. Also i thought telecom do already have cable to houses in some areas, but it has yet to be connected, so maybe we are going to end up with duplication.	robbyp (2751)
661209	2008-04-23 03:35:00	Don't feel to sad for Telecom The main reason Telecom is cabnitising is to cut the competition out. No point other ISP's putting there own gear into local exchanges as those that have been cabitnitised are now unreachable. Sure it helps speeds, but its a very dirty trick (yet again).	Battleneter2 (9361)
661210	2008-04-23 03:55:00	Don't feel to sad for Telecom The main reason Telecom is cabnitising is to cut the competition out. No point other ISP's putting there own gear into local exchanges as those that have been cabitnitised are now unreachable. Sure it helps speeds, but its a very dirty trick (yet again). It's a catch 22 - cabinetisation gives Telecom monopoly over the DSL market again, not because of regulation, but because of the significant investment cost in other ISPs deploying ISAM equipment into cabinets. On the other hand, if they don't deploy the cabinets, then many areas won't be able to get the full speeds of ADSL2+ and/or VDSL. In any case, the roadside cabinets will be a good starting point for the FTTH network, as there will already be fibre backhaul capacity there.	somebody (208)
661211	2008-04-23 04:27:00	It's a catch 22 - cabinetisation gives Telecom monopoly over the DSL market again, not because of regulation, but because of the significant investment cost in other ISPs deploying ISAM equipment into cabinets. On the other hand, if they don't deploy the cabinets, then many areas won't be able to get the full speeds of ADSL2+ and/or VDSL. In any case, the roadside cabinets will be a good starting point for the FTTH network, as there will already be fibre backhaul capacity there. I am sugesting the primary reason Telecom is cabinetising is to restrict competition. I seriously doubt they give a rats ass about quality of service, otherwise they would have done it long ago before unbuneling. Its not exactly a new concept even DSL1 would have heavily benefited from cabinetising. It ultimately hurts consumers, its just another form of monopoly control, they can continue stinging the entire market with excessive data charges through wholesale/retail.	Battleneter2 (9361)
661212	2008-04-23 04:52:00	Its not exactly a new concept even DSL1 would have heavily benefited from cabinetising. Yes it isn't a new concept, it was already on Telecom's roadmap for years before unbundling. The ISPs can't say they didn't know it was coming. Maybe the Unbundling concept should have started on the cabinetised situation first.	PaulD (232)
661213	2008-04-23 04:57:00	Yes it isn't a new concept, it was already on Telecom's roadmap for years before unbundling. The ISPs can't say they didn't know it was coming. Maybe the Unbundling concept should have started on the cabinetised situation first. Apparently there is discussion going on about sub-loop unbundling (i.e. unbundling cabinets). Telecom's proposal currently allocates 40% of the total space of each cabinet for competitors to install their own equipment, though there is nothing in regulation as such yet.	somebody (208)
1 2 3 4 5 6