Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 77761	2007-03-21 05:25:00	Why does NZ have datcaps??	WestMclaren2004 (7303)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
534786	2007-03-22 06:00:00	Guys, Nothing is going to happen to improve things until someone forces Telecom to invest in some serious backbone, ie fibre up and down the country and to all towns and cities. That will not happen until Theresa leaves and things get so bad that Helen tells them to do it or else ! And the "or else" is that another company (eg Rod Drury's) idea will set up a separate backbone to Telecom, which will blow them away. So the best thing to do is lobby your local MP. That means giving them a phone call every month or so to ask them what they are doing. Australia has just announced a 5 billion dollar government scheme to get high speed broadband to most Australians as they think they are falling behind the rest of the world ! But I hear the Government is calling for a National telecoms conference in November to discuss all of this, so things should really start happening in a couple of years ! Regards Digby	Digby (677)
534787	2007-03-22 09:28:00	Datacaps are not a bad thing. If you don't have them, regular users suffer the consequences of heavy users overloading exchanges and pushing up overall prices. The better your infrastructure, the less noticeable this is. However, it does not benefit the consumer overall (countries that offer "unlimited" use generally do have a cap mentioned somewhere in their TOS). New Zealand needs more reasonable data caps, but to want unmetered internet access is not a realistic expectation.	maccrazy (6741)
534788	2007-03-22 09:48:00	I don't think caps are bad, but here they are. xNet is probably the best at the moment allowing users $1 per gb. Slingshot do a good job as well with their caps but the quality of service is something to talk about.	trinsic (6945)
534789	2007-03-23 07:55:00	It is a common misconception that heavy users are the cause of network congestion. Heavy users are not the cause of network congestion. Congestion is not a function of volume but of when the downloading is done (just as road congestion is not a function of how many miles you do, but of how many of them are in rush hour) In peak usage periods the congestion caused by a heavy downloader is the same as congestion produced by every other user who is downloading at that time. No more, no less. Outside of peak usage hours, the heavy downloader is simply creating value from a resource that has already been paid for and would accrue no value to anyone if they stopped. Just as each and every car in rush hour is contributing the same amount of congestion, thus in peak usage periods everyone using their connection is contributing to the same amount of congestion. Just because one car (or one user) may have travelled 100's of miles not in rush hour (or downloaded 100MB's in periods of low network usage) this does not mean they create more congestion in rush hour than the car that only does a few miles per day but always in rush hour. If you use the network during peak times you are creating just as much congestion as the heaviest downloader. If you use the network in off peak times then the issue of congestion does not affect you. A generalised download cap does nothing to address the issues of peak use congestion, as those "heavy users" are still free to use their connections at such peak times.	manicminer (4219)
534790	2007-03-23 08:38:00	I think you'll find that the "congestion" is caused more by the outdated hardware on the network not being able to keep up with the requests as opposed to the actual cables not being able to handle the flow of bits at any given time. A bit like trying to play WOW on a slow Pentium II. (not that I have personal experience of doing that)	winmacguy (3367)
534791	2007-03-23 09:27:00	It is a common misconception that heavy users are the cause of network congestion. Heavy users are not the cause of network congestion. Congestion is not a function of volume but of when the downloading is done (just as road congestion is not a function of how many miles you do, but of how many of them are in rush hour) In peak usage periods the congestion caused by a heavy downloader is the same as congestion produced by every other user who is downloading at that time. No more, no less. Outside of peak usage hours, the heavy downloader is simply creating value from a resource that has already been paid for and would accrue no value to anyone if they stopped. Just as each and every car in rush hour is contributing the same amount of congestion, thus in peak usage periods everyone using their connection is contributing to the same amount of congestion. Just because one car (or one user) may have travelled 100's of miles not in rush hour (or downloaded 100MB's in periods of low network usage) this does not mean they create more congestion in rush hour than the car that only does a few miles per day but always in rush hour. If you use the network during peak times you are creating just as much congestion as the heaviest downloader. If you use the network in off peak times then the issue of congestion does not affect you. A generalised download cap does nothing to address the issues of peak use congestion, as those "heavy users" are still free to use their connections at such peak times. Excellent post, Logical, makes its point clearly, Easy to follow.:thumbs::thumbs::D	Metla (12)
534792	2007-03-23 10:46:00	I don't know but I'm sick of going over my 20 gig limit and having to pay 3 bucks per extra gig. And all I get is a measly 4 Mbps downstream and 2 Mbps upstream. How dare they? That 80 gig plan is starting to tempt me at 10 Mbps downstream and 2 Mbps upstream, if only my wife could see the obvious sense in an upgrade.	Twelvevolts (5457)
1 2