Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 63581	2005-11-15 05:09:00	Telecom's Bad Attitude (Excellent Herald Article)	manicminer (4219)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
404603	2005-11-19 07:37:00	try $79.95 mate for the 2mbit 10gb plan on xtra. im on ihug now, 2mbit, 20gb cap, for $49.95. considering xtra is wholesaling this to ihug, and both parties are making a profit, tell me how telecom can justify their pricing??	Tux (606)
404604	2005-11-19 07:57:00	try $79.95 mate for the 2mbit 10gb plan on xtra. im on ihug now, 2mbit, 20gb cap, for $49.95. considering xtra is wholesaling this to ihug, and both parties are making a profit, tell me how telecom can justify their pricing?? Economics my dear friend. Prices are 'sticky', that is it takes time and money to change their prices. Xtra can't just suddenly changes their prices overnight, they have to reprint price guides, re-do the website (abeit that is easy). This costs time and money and they have to be certain the price is going to stay similar. We havn't even started on related promotion. I would expect they will catch up (or do something similar) soon enough. Good things take time my friend.	DangerousDave (697)
404605	2005-11-19 07:59:00	its been a year or so since bitstream, is that enought time? how long do you think it would take to put prices up? its a bit like the petrol stations, as soon as petrol prices go up they follow suit, yet when they go down, they state that they still have to sell for the price they bought it at. not very logical is it. i think the deal is, if they wanted to lower their prices, it would be easy, yet they dont, so why lower them?? they have had a strangle hold on communications for years, and as long as the government support them by refusing to regulate pricing and unbundle the lines, then they will stay high. there is no competition because there is no effective way of providing competition. notice telecom has bought wired country's wimax spectrum licence? what does that say	Tux (606)
404606	2005-11-19 08:23:00	its been a year or so since bitstream, is that enought time? how long do you think it would take to put prices up? its a bit like the petrol stations, as soon as petrol prices go up they follow suit, yet when they go down, they state that they still have to sell for the price they bought it at . not very logical is it . i think the deal is, if they wanted to lower their prices, it would be easy, yet they dont, so why lower them?? Typically petrol stations will lower their prices ASAP as people will go to a competitor . Petrol, not unlike internet access, is the same (generally) no matter where you get it from, people will move from the expensive one to the cheaper one, therefore in theory at least, and from what I have seen they adjust their prices concurrently . This is irrelevant to what is happening here however . I don't see where you're coming from in terms of the bitstream 'time frame' . The only difference I can see (prove me wrong), is say the $50 256k plan . The difference between Xtra and Orcon is the different cap . This may not be Telecom so much as Xtra's business strategy . They are both going for different markets perhaps (Xtra for regular user where 3gb is enough vs . Orcons heavy user collection) . Xtra may not have felt that people really needed more than 3gb a month (and I will bias this by saying I agree) . Those who felt they were a 'heavy' user moved towards an ISP which better catered for them . This is pure economics, not happy with one provider? Just move to another . they have had a strangle hold on communications for years, and as long as the government support them by refusing to regulate pricing and unbundle the lines, then they will stay high . there is no competition because there is no effective way of providing competition . Typically a natural monopoly will have a strangle hold on its market . This is just logic . No competition exists due to the New Zealand market, it would be uneconomic for another company to run a parallel set of cables next to Telecoms . The user base in New Zealand is simply not large enough to prove financially viable . In terms of unbundling and regulation, this is turning to a very dangerous proposition . I will not go into the details quite here because it is rather long-winded . Government control in any situation is dangerous, taking control of the market tends to have consequences further down the line rather than just cheaper ADSL . notice telecom has bought wired country's wimax spectrum licence? what does that say This just seems like a reasonable business strategy, one that any business would do . TelstraClear could have done the samething and even then I doubt it would provide the competition you are so desperately seeking . Enough of this, I'm still trying to deal with a hangover . This is way too heavy for me . - David	DangerousDave (697)
404607	2005-11-19 08:26:00	ahhh the pure joys of economics, we studied monopolies this year in economics, what a blast, it was actually quite interesting and you could see how a firm like this operates....	Prescott (11)
404608	2005-11-19 08:33:00	Telecom can't really be treated as a direct monopoly as competitors like TelstraClear and Vodafone are quite large competitive in their respective markets. It really needs to be treated as a natural monopoly, the difference being the fact due to the relationship between diseconomies of scale within New Zealands infrastructure and population density etc. Woosh and other providers who are not relying on Telecoms infrastructure are learning just how difficult New Zealand is...	DangerousDave (697)
404609	2005-11-19 08:36:00	the problem still remains tha as long as telecom remains to be the sole operator of the copper network that competition cannot flourish. vodafone and woosh are the only real competitors due to the fact that they have exploited other facits of technology, woosh still has limited coverage. Telstra clear has none of its own nationwide network except wellington and christchurch.	Tux (606)
404610	2005-11-20 11:31:00	Well I live 9km from Palmerston North (I've been told the limit for jetsream is 8km from the exchange) so the only chance I have for broadband is paying $1,100 to install and $150 per month for wireless (thats a 2GB cap with 15c per meg after that) . No wonder people (including me) are hoping for a change and someone kick Telecom up the ass!!! get enough neighbours interested and you may find that InSPire will install a trango link to supply your area . . . they do a lot of wireless in and around palmy, so it cant hurt to at least approach them Telstra clear has none of its own nationwide network except wellington and christchurch . Telstra wanted so desperately to crack into the Auckland market, but Aucklanders made a resounding "boohoo you cant sling cables up on our poles! you'll ruin our beautiful 'streetscapes'!!!" Faced with paying ~10x (guessing) more to trench large sections of Auckland, Telstra decided to pursue LLU, and they had a lot riding on it . The rest is history, and Aucklanders have no-one to blame for their lack of competition but themselves . In saying that though, there's still your wireless providers - woosh, gasp, wiredcountry and a couple of others such as borg . The downside to wireless is that woosh is the posterchild for nz's wireless market, and it's not giving wireless a good rep :mad: Citylink is making inroads in the CBD though, so things are looking up . There's a lot of fibre around the country that is not Telecoms, and with FTTC maybe Telecom will sell off some of its decommissioned core network . Who knows, it'll be interesting to see . notice telecom has bought wired country's wimax spectrum licence? what does that say Just as I said that either them or Telstra would - they either want to squat on it or they want to use it to get a headstart on other wireless providers . No matter, wimax covers a huge portion of spectrum, and with UWB technologies on the way, Telecom doesnt have enough money to corner the entire spectrum to itself . And even if it does, it cannot touch the ISM bands .	whetu (237)
1 2 3