| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 66140 | 2006-02-12 20:16:00 | guys, great news from our friend telecom.. | jackyht2002 (6606) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 429580 | 2006-02-15 03:03:00 | Data caps are only a mechanism to screw more money out of the consumer. It serves no real purpose other than to segment the market. It is another play on what they did with dial up ... set a time limit and if you wanted more you paid more ... now look at what they offer on dialup .... basically a free for all. Im with Metla on this! |
Cptn Hotshot (3904) | ||
| 429581 | 2006-02-15 03:19:00 | Data caps are a mechanism to stop greedy individuals putting up the cost for everyone. If you have to pay more to use more, that's a step towards what they call "user pays". User pays seems to be one of the desirable things touted by enthusiasts for the market economy. You can have more megabits or gigabits. Just be prepared to pay for them. If you want to control this, get the appropriate hardware and buy the bandwidth direct. You can sell what you don't use to your friends. (But they will complain bitterly about the charges unless you subsidise them heavily. Or do as all ISPs do, supply enough people who don't use their full "entitlement" but pay the same, so they subsidise the big users). |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 429582 | 2006-02-15 03:36:00 | I dont disagree with you, Graham L, but how much is too much? Currently I am on an Ihug 4GB a month 256/128KB plan for $39 . 95 . I normally use just over 3GB per month . If I move to their 2mb/128 then for the same price I get a 2+2GB (peak/off peak) limit imposed, which I would blow since I dont use the off peak times, resulting in throttled back to 64K . It is a balance between what is good v what is bad . In my case, to change plans ito get the current higher speed is bad . The point is that the lower end data caps set are too low and the price is too high . What Telecom offers is a disgrace to both the consumer and the ISPs they wholesale to . |
Cptn Hotshot (3904) | ||
| 429583 | 2006-02-15 03:44:00 | What Telecom offers is a disgrace to both the consumer and the ISPs they wholesale to.That's the kind of bollocks I've been reading for two days now. Put it like this - you don't like Coke? You don't buy it. If there's no other drink on the market, get tap water. But if you want Coke's new Cherry flavour, at a little less cost than Coke, then buy it for the price it's offered at. Too expensive, or not enough in the bottle? Go back to tap water. It's all your choice wiener. |
Greg (193) | ||
| 429584 | 2006-02-15 03:58:00 | Why on earth would you suport unrealistic prices, poor value for money and poor product which only serves to make the rich richer? | Metla (12) | ||
| 429585 | 2006-02-15 04:07:00 | My uninformed argument on the subject of caps and bandwidth use goes like this. Theres a stonking great pair of fibreoptic multicore multiband cables linking this country and Ozy to America called the Southern Cross. There are other links from Oz to Europe as well that help feed us, Once it was barely used, and it cost an awful lot of coin to put in, so the few users there were were paying far too much for the bandwidth. Now there is a humungus amount of people connected to the net. There is a humungus amount of people pulling data through these 2 cables that are not yet loaded near capacity. The link that feed us directly from the states has a capacity of 120Gb/sec. For some time not all the fibres within the cable were even lit up as there was no point. I'm not sure of the current situation, but i suspect we are now finally starting to utalise the cable properly. I'd been real keen on solid facts from anyone who actually knows what they are talking about. A similar observation could be made of the NZ backbone cables that Telstra and Telecom have, it was once all very underutalised, but population and demands have increased, so the backbone fibre now has a lot more contributors to its running cost. Most countrys backbone cables have dark (unused) fibre, remember google has been buying it up. so again, there is a system in place with massive capacity that is only now starting to get utalised Economy of scale suggests that with more users the costs of keeping these cables live are proportionally reduced, and i would expect that to be reflected in the cost to the consumer. Somehow, this is where its all falling down. :( |
personthingy (1670) | ||
| 429586 | 2006-02-15 04:14:00 | Why on earth would you suport unrealistic prices, poor value for money and poor product which only serves to make the rich richer?Fair question, and easily answered... I support Telecom for the same reason I support Microsoft. I like their products/services; they do their job, and enable me to do my job. At a price I can afford. And they give me a reason for living. Ok, I lied about the last point... I have other reasons for living. :D |
Greg (193) | ||
| 429587 | 2006-02-15 04:49:00 | I support Telecom for the same reason I support Microsoft. I like their products/services; they do their job, and enable me to do my job. At a price I can afford. And they give me a reason for living.Telecom and MS (though the courts may disagree) are very different. Microsoft doesn't have exclusive control over CD distribution. If you don't like Windows you can go and buy a Mac or install Linux. If you don't like Jetstream you have no realistic alternative, and no-one else can compete with them as they have exclusive control of the national telephone system. To put the situation in a different way. Would you be satisfied if you had to pay NZ$150,000 for a car that is worth NZ$30,000 in the US? It is the same car, but one shipping company has exclusive rights over the waterways so no other ships can access the ocean to compete with them. Is this fair? No, if other companies can afford to invest in the industry they shouldn't be restricted because one company was lucky enough to unfairly gain control over the ocean many years ago. In case you aren't following, the ocean is the telephone system. ;) The question you have to ask yourself Greg is: Are we getting the same value for money as other countries? The answer is no, and I personally don't understand why some people think that we are. True, we have to fund a huge cable that links us to Australia and the US, but in the US they also have to fund their backbones which as just as big, and probably more complex as they have to have a much greater capacity and aren't just a straight cable running from A to B. The reality is that broadband shouldn't cost more than 10% more than elsewhere. If Telecom was really worried about international traffic they would increase the cap for national traffic and lower local data charges to encourage people to host their websites in New Zealand or download from local mirrors. :) |
maccrazy (6741) | ||
| 429588 | 2006-02-15 05:34:00 | Fair question, and easily answered... I support Telecom for the same reason I support Microsoft. I like their products/services; they do their job, and enable me to do my job. At a price I can afford. :D I am pleased you are happy. Stay with what you have got and pay what you do then. The rest of us are after a better deal out of what is readily available (at a realistic price) but Telecom choses to control and not release to the market. So I guess when the power of the people manages to loosen the strings of Telecom, you no doubt won't come on board and will stay with the inferior offering that you currently have. Being dominant in the market isnt necessarily good either, mate! Each to their own. |
Cptn Hotshot (3904) | ||
| 429589 | 2006-02-15 07:08:00 | If Greg is right that means the average family and thus the avg houshold will just not adopt broadband internet. The avg household isn't going to spend $60 or $80 for a monthly access to internet. | Nomad (952) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | |||||