Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 74995	2006-12-13 00:28:00	Telecom ordered to open up lines	jermsie (6820)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
506318	2006-12-13 23:49:00	Um have you got a point? Also our economy is not supported my HUGE arms sales and stolen middle east oil. What the frack has that go to do with the cost broadband???	paulw (1826)
506319	2006-12-14 09:13:00	You'd have to wonder wouldn't you. :rolleyes: Comparing NZ broadband to the US is kinda pointless. The US has around 75x our population which means the broadband infrastructure costs per person is significantly lower, without even talking exchange rates for the cost of international capacity. I think there is a point. It would be pointless to compare New Zealand with places where housing is very high density compared to our main centers etc. However, many US states have similar population densities to the main centers of New Zealand. Sure, we have to get all our data via the Southern Cross Cable. However, the US also has to support huge backbones run by companies such as Global Crossing, UUNET, AT&T, Level3, AboveNet, Savvis, Time Warner, Cogent, Sprint etc. If you just consider those backbones, which I imagine would have cost significantly more to put in place as they don't just connect two masses of land under the sea, you have already cut 300 million down to 33 million per backbone. Add Australia's population to New Zealand's and you end up with ~24 million. These are very rough numbers based on assumptions, but in my opinion they show prices in New Zealand shouldn't be all that much more than those in the US for areas of similar population density because other than the fact the Southern Cross Cable pretty much has a monopoly on data coming in and out (not a bad thing, just a fact) I doubt it really costs significantly more to connect New Zealand to the rest of the world. :)	maccrazy (6741)
506320	2006-12-14 19:59:00	.................... but in my opinion they show prices in New Zealand shouldn't be all that much more than those in the US for areas of similar population density because other than the fact the Southern Cross Cable pretty much has a monopoly on data coming in and out (not a bad thing, just a fact) I doubt it really costs significantly more to connect New Zealand to the rest of the world. :)The Southern Cross cable is but one of several feeds to Australia. It connects America to Fiji, then NZ, Oz, Fiji, and finally back. It however does not have the monopoly on data moved to Australia, or even here. Telecom customers who run traceroute will no see data running through the SC where possible, but those of us using Telstra, see most data being routed through OZ and Asia. As this counties demands grow, i suspect Telstra might just turn around and throw a cable to cross the ditch between Wellington and OZ, thus bypassing the SC all together, (apart from redundancy purposes) Anyway, overall that's proportionately more fiber per head now, a lot more.	personthingy (1670)
1 2 3