| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 68518 | 2006-05-02 01:31:00 | Telecom denying the truth | Hitech (9024) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 451280 | 2006-05-03 00:45:00 | Some interesting thoughts as reported by Paul Brislen in Computer World (computerworld.co.nz), re Telecom's and Xtra's relationship and how it affects network reach and efficiency, from the users pint of view in particular. | Murray P (44) | ||
| 451281 | 2006-05-03 01:23:00 | Some interesting thoughts as reported by Paul Brislen in Computer World (computerworld.co.nz), re Telecom's and Xtra's relationship and how it affects network reach and efficiency, from the users pint of view in particular. Regarding the suggestion to split Telecom into two companies and this statement “Once the board and shareholders see that they’re getting [relatively] low returns from NetCo compared with higher returns from ServeCo, they’ll decide to spin it off into a separate company and sell it to someone else.” Where will the investment in network infrastructure come from if it is left to the lless attractive "Netco"? Also in another post, if the average contention rate is 33:1 wouldn't users on 256K plans be better off unless they form the bulk of users? |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 451282 | 2006-05-03 02:06:00 | Paul, I think the idea is that, a network run by a service company is not run as well as one run by a purley network/utility company. Different needs, different basic models that are not necessarilly complementary. I'd take the blather about contention ratios as, well, blather, in a corporate marketing/spin kind of way. It's not something that's new to Telecom or other enitities wishing to push a particular point of view or slant opinion. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 451283 | 2006-05-03 02:28:00 | ""Simple solution to telco problem: break Telecom in two News By Paul Brislen, Auckland | Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 Telecom’s current dual role, as both network-owner and retail services company, is destroying shareholder value and reducing the company’s ability to respond to demand, says John Third, managing director of Guinness Gallagher, a Wellington-based consultancy. Third knows what he’s talking about — he’s currently helping the Mongolian government privatise and break up its own telco incumbent, “I live just outside Wellington and the exchange I’m connected to is one of the older exchanges. The phone stopped working one day and Telecom ran fibre out to the cabinet and then new copper out to the households that were affected.” Because of the upgrade, however, Third could no longer receive JetStream broadband at home. “If that upgrade had been undertaken by a network company, it would have seized the opportunity to put in a mini DSLAM to offer the service. ”" Ah, Third is biased cause he['s already doing it elsewhere. That doesn't mean he's necessarily right. As for some network co installing a DSLAM, who says they would? Maybe if there was a competitor, but if not, why would they? Lots of companies try to afford expensive new upgrades if they can help it. Hell, F&P wouldn't install new hardware when I was there. The bean counters didn't like the cost. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 451284 | 2006-05-03 02:41:00 | Yeah, I thought Third could be touting for business, still, it doesn't necessarilly make him wrong either. Why would a network utility upgrade? Because they understand rolling out improvements and upgrades in stages is better than big bang changes (unless the whole thing is too broken, see next), they also understand the need for ongoing maintenance (their been counters would hopefully have a slightly different perspective on what makes the comapany tick and hence makes money), they would also have more than one (service) customer to answer to in a real sense rather than the lip-service that appears to be the norm for the current situation. Factories/plant is totally different again, and is treated differently. In most countries that have sold off, or opened up utilites, the service side has been split off from the physical delivery side, water, gas, petrolium products, energy. It works, monopolies that hold both don't work as well as they can. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 451285 | 2006-05-03 02:54:00 | In most countries that have sold off, or opened up utilites, the service side has been split off from the physical delivery side, water, gas, petrolium products, energy. It works, monopolies that hold both don't work as well as they can. Er.....yes? Just like the electricity lines companies? You will recall they had to be regulated recently. Isn't it just possible that NZ is too small to have competing teleco lines companies? What's happening at the moment is that all the noise is being made by city dwellers, who already have broadband, when a significant number of New Zealanders (perhaps a million?) can only get dial-up. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 451286 | 2006-05-03 02:54:00 | Replying to pctek's final para. That's my point. The network company will only put in the network that the service companies will commit to paying for. How do the service companies decide where and when the network improvements happen (assuming the cost is too much for any one company)? The small ISPs will probably still be trying to ride the coat tails of the larger ones. |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 451287 | 2006-05-03 02:56:00 | www.nbr.co.nz Telecom spokesperson Sean Martin said that the company was "actually a bit mystified" by the Association's comments: "We’ve migrated over 300,000 customers to the new plans and the feedback we’re getting is that they’re very happy the new service." sean.martin@telecom.co.nz |
pctek (84) | ||
| 451288 | 2006-05-03 03:32:00 | pctek, you'd only have the one main lines network company, perhaps the ownership of which would bare looking at. The customers of the nework utility would be the consumers more so than the ISPs. It has worked very well in countries with similar populations and geology to NZ. The electricity lines situation in NZ is different in many respects in that we have a plethora of companies, loosly based around the areas divied up from the old Boards, and a complex artificail, regulated, commodoty market and supply issues which are taken advantage of to strip our pockets, various quangos and SOE's that make rules. I'm no expert on it (which is probably abuntantly apparent), but IMO, the electricity industry in NZ is a fractured but, perversely doctored regime of vested interests. What I'm trying to say is, it's all in the fine print, how it is done, how well it is done. As an aside, will Telecom's/Xtra's customers get better quality when Telecom rolls out it's own, viable, VOIP product? You betcha cotton socks they will, or at least Telecom will make every effort to deliver it, at least. You heard it here first, maybe. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 451289 | 2006-05-03 03:53:00 | Broardband SUCKS in rural areas! : | koolme21 (10277) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||