Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 58323	2005-05-28 06:29:00	Why not possible for DSL without telecom homeline?	jesseycy (1046)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
359207	2005-05-29 10:48:00	jesseycy please quote your sources of information for that belief? I am not aware of any charges included to Telecom for the local loop, in the ADSL portion. All those charges are in the Telecom phone rental. The only extra charges would be for DSLAM exchange equipment, which has zero to do with phone services. The difficulty in "unbundling" the voice services from the pure "line rental" for the copper cable and junction cabinets is the KSO (Kiwi Share Option) which forces Telecom by law to provide certain services even when they are uneconomic, and allows them to recover the costs from all customers. (Averaging of costs). There indeed may be a case for a lower line charge where voice services are not used, but it's unlikely to be of any significant reduction unless you also get rid of the KSO. Then a percentage of all customers would not get, or would not be able to afford a phone connection in rural NZ. But, I would be interested to learn your information source which suggests that local loop charges are included in the ADSL charges. godfather, surely you don't think that the proportion of charges given to Telecom out of the UBS fees goes JUST for the DSLAM exchange equipment.... Here's your proof, btw... www.comcom.govt.nz Go down to Page 7 of the file... Now, you'll see there in the column, that for a $49.95 unlimited 256k plan, $25.50 goes towards Telecom for access payments.... So, $25.50 goes towards Telecom.... Surely, part of that will go towards maintaining their infrastructure, PLUS profits??? Fair enough though..... But what I don't get, is why I'm forced to pay for "Homeline" in addition to that... I guess $25.50 is not enough eh???	jesseycy (1046)
359208	2005-05-29 11:18:00	So, if i am on Ihug Blink - Can i ditch telecom & join TelstraClear or not?	MartynC (5610)
359209	2005-05-29 21:55:00	godfather, surely you don't think that the proportion of charges given to Telecom out of the UBS fees goes JUST for the DSLAM exchange equipment.... Here's your proof, btw... www.comcom.govt.nz Go down to Page 7 of the file... Now, you'll see there in the column, that for a $49.95 unlimited 256k plan, $25.50 goes towards Telecom for access payments.... So, $25.50 goes towards Telecom.... Surely, part of that will go towards maintaining their infrastructure, PLUS profits??? Fair enough though..... But what I don't get, is why I'm forced to pay for "Homeline" in addition to that... I guess $25.50 is not enough eh??? Nothing in that link suggests that any of the ADSL payment to telecom goes to the Local Loop rental. Access will be exchange based DSLAM and all upstream equipment. It's Internet access in nature, and significant expenditure and maintenance accrues. Even the CC would baulk at blatant double dipping, where the LL was charged for twice. Your problem is, that you are paying for: Voice Services LL Rental Internet Access If you do not want a phone, you should really only pay for the last 2. I would suggest that the day is coming when that is possible, but at present the percentage that want that option is very very small. It will probably take regulatory action to force the "unbundling" of voice and LL rental, and the KSO will be a stumbling block.	godfather (25)
359210	2005-05-30 04:41:00	Nothing in that link suggests that any of the ADSL payment to telecom goes to the Local Loop rental. Access will be exchange based DSLAM and all upstream equipment. It's Internet access in nature, and significant expenditure and maintenance accrues. Even the CC would baulk at blatant double dipping, where the LL was charged for twice. Your problem is, that you are paying for: Voice Services LL Rental Internet Access If you do not want a phone, you should really only pay for the last 2. I would suggest that the day is coming when that is possible, but at present the percentage that want that option is very very small. It will probably take regulatory action to force the "unbundling" of voice and LL rental, and the KSO will be a stumbling block. Well, I would guess that you know that I'm arguing that UBS = LL Rental + Internet Access and Homeline = LL Rental + Voice Services Hence my frustrations at being charged twice... Well, I still hold that the $25.50 Access fees don't just go towards DSLAM and upstream equipment, surely it's not that expensive! Part of that I believe will defintely goes towards Telecom's network in general, plus profits.. But well, no point arguing further eh? Since telecom isn't likely to tell us exactly where their $25.50 goes to... Unless you have some info backing up your claim that $25.50 just recovers the costs the internet equipment???	jesseycy (1046)
359211	2005-05-30 04:58:00	I wasn't aware we were arguing actually. You are assuming the Commerce Commission are allowing double dipping of LL charges. I am just suggesting they are not allowing it. A significant amount of regulatory discovery does take place over these and similar issues, and while we may not always agree with the outcomes it does not mean that the allowable charges are as false as you suggest.	godfather (25)
359212	2005-05-30 05:11:00	"surely it's not that expensive".... It's very expensive equipment. It's expected to work. All the time. ;) The line rental includes "flat rate" telephone service. It might be a bit cheaper if it didn't, but NZ went that way, rather than the per-call charging used in many countries. But maintaining the wires and optical fiber to your house still costs quite a lot. NZPO had expensive problems when modem use became widespread. Telephone exchange switching capacity has always been based on typical phone use and if more than 10% of subscribers were connected at any time, the exchange would be overloaded. People who liked being "always on" forced a lot of very expensive exchange upgrading . Proper charging of the true costs of doing that would have reduced the popularity of the Internet.	Graham L (2)
359213	2005-05-30 05:53:00	Because Telecom said so.	Jeremy (1197)
359214	2005-05-30 06:20:00	I wasn't aware we were arguing actually. You are assuming the Commerce Commission are allowing double dipping of LL charges. I am just suggesting they are not allowing it. A significant amount of regulatory discovery does take place over these and similar issues, and while we may not always agree with the outcomes it does not mean that the allowable charges are as false as you suggest. Haha, OK, not arguing.. Discussing... Well, as long as I know that the $25.50 only goes towards maintaing Telecom's additional infrastructure for "Internet" (ie the connections and equipment for UBS), and none of that goes towards maintaining the traditional analog phone network (as suggested by godfather and Graham L), I'm pretty happy paying charges for the line rental (since it's required for an ADSL connection) How much are the additional equipment anyway??? Cause I thought that $25.50 will be way more than enough to pay for the additional equipment required for Internet, and so part of that will go towards maintating the traditional phone network as well...	jesseycy (1046)
1 2 3