| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 60469 | 2005-08-03 03:05:00 | Why's NZ the only country | Sisterofmercy (8649) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 377718 | 2005-08-04 03:09:00 | The answer's simple. We sold our telephone company to the yanks and they are running it to get the biggest profits for themselves. | JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 377719 | 2005-08-04 03:21:00 | The answer's simple. We sold our telephone company to the yanks and they are running it to get the biggest profits for themselves. I think it was a good idea to sell it. The problem was the seller didn't think of all the ramifications and most certainly should not have overlooked the virtual monopoly given to the buyer. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 377720 | 2005-08-04 04:06:00 | NZ is a very remote country with a low population to share the bandwidth costs compared to many other countries and regions. The cables are both long and therefore expensive. Its not subsidised by Government, due to the "privatisation" policies adopted years ago. If it was Governemnet owned and subsidised, the cost would appear elsewhere in taxes. At least this way the user pays? As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, why no rates that differnetiate between local and international traffic Goddie? Surely this model is not user pays, but local usage subsidising international usage. The cable and data rate arguements, if accurate, suggest there is a cost plus mentality driving pricing, rather than a market driven one. More evidence, IMO, for cutting Telecom loose from it's lines. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 377721 | 2005-08-04 04:37:00 | Everybody's an expert, that's why Telecom runs it. We would probably be far worse off if it was run by a committee of well-meaning users.:D Cheers Billy 8-{) :2cents: |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 377722 | 2005-08-04 06:21:00 | As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, why no rates that differnetiate between local and international traffic Goddie? Surely this model is not user pays, but local usage subsidising international usage. My substantial shareholding in Telecom plus generous share options prevent me from adequately responding to this, sorry Murray. However, in the "old days" of Jetstart when it was differentiated I asked Telecom how the end user would know if the traffic was local (as a lot of .nz sites are now overseas hosted) to which they responded that it was entirely the end users problem. As I barely ever break 1 GB of a 3 GB cap, its not a concern for me either. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 377723 | 2005-08-04 07:28:00 | Can a $100 worth of shares be considered substantial? | Cicero (40) | ||
| 377724 | 2005-08-04 07:39:00 | Can a $100 worth of shares be considered substantial? Cicee, what on earth are are you implying? We have something in common then Goddie, we are both looking out for number one ;) Oh, BTW, I'm sure if there was a matter of legal/sovereign jurisdiction, they'd know exactly where the network chickens should roost. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 377725 | 2005-08-04 07:51:00 | Thought I was asking a question,the implication is in the eye of the beholder. | Cicero (40) | ||
| 377726 | 2005-08-04 09:15:00 | Well Cicee, there's more than one type of question, is there not? I'll answer yours literally though, if I may: Nope :eek: |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 377727 | 2005-08-04 09:44:00 | Well Cicee, there's more than one type of question, is there not? I'll answer yours literally though, if I may: Nope :eek: Right, I won't invest then . Good thing really,didn't want to compromise myself and stultify my ability to comment on certain matters . |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||