Faster, cheaper broadband!

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Faster, cheaper broadband!

Evening

12 posts

Geek

ID Verified

#7508 20-Apr-2006 09:21

Not sure if this has been nutted out before but.......

Is it legal for Telecom to advertise "cheaper broadband" on television when they have doubled the wholesale price of bandwidth in New Zealand. Im having trouble seeing the progress New Zealand is making in the Information Technology sector when we are given a paltry increase in speed and slammed for doing anything but checking your email.

I was on a flatrate 256k plan previously which has now doubled in price. I used to download approximately 40Gb a month on this plan, nothing to excessive in light of the traffic I know some of my other friends chew through or should I say did chew through. Now looking through the plans available it occurs to me that yes, Telecom has supplied us with a mediocre at best speed increase for essential no price increase which is all well an good until you actualy download anything. Now where we were paying $10 for 10Gb of traffic through the copper we are now paying $10 for 5Gb. Could someone clear up for me how Telecom got this crap past not only the Commerce Commission but the Government committee charged with overseeing the broadband uptake in New Zealand. Are they all just idiots or is the idea of media rich content taken to be just some passing fad and all the internet is useful for is email and checking the weather.

Edit: Where I was paying $59.95 a month for 40Gb or so at 256k, im now paying $159.95 for a 60Gb cap which with the speed increase will be even easier to go through.

timbosan

2160 posts

Uber Geek

#33462 20-Apr-2006 10:30

There was an article in the Herald a few weeks ago about this exact issue. It was quite detailed in comparing the old and new plans, and came to the conclusion that for people on the cheaper old plans, the new plans where not cheaper (such as the old 256k unlimited plan you mention).

Might see if I can find the article online.

timbosan

2160 posts

Uber Geek

#33465 20-Apr-2006 10:37

I found the article, but you need a subscription to view it :-(

http://login.nzherald.co.nz/?redir=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=0006A7E3-661B-141E-9EB583027AF1010F

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#33504 20-Apr-2006 18:23

If you want IMHO the worst article ever written about broadband in NZ check out the latest issue of Tone magazine - it must have the most factually incomplete and inaccurate story ever written about the topic!

(Lucky it's not at IDG publication Juha!)

JellyWeb

67 posts

Master Geek

#33551 21-Apr-2006 09:07

Hi,
I am with Ihug and recently upgraded my 2Mbps plan to 3.5Mbps. On the 2M plan i was getting that pretty consistantly when running speed tests and downloading large files using FlashGet. after upgrading i now get 2.2Mbps average, 2.5Mbps max (this *might* be higher at 4am but i'm not awake then to check!)
After a few calls to ihug and a trying a few things we soon discovered that Telecom don't have enough pipes in the area to deal with the demand and that there was nothing that could be done in the short term. i would certainly drop back to the 2M plan and pay 10 bucks less a month if it wasn't for the extra 10Gigs of bandwith i get on the faster plan. So much for "Faster, cheaper broadband" Bring on local loop unbundling I say!

Evening

12 posts

Geek

ID Verified

#33552 21-Apr-2006 09:17

I hope the Government unbundles or rails Telecoms share price into the ground and buys it back gogo public services, privatization FTL

JellyWeb

67 posts

Master Geek

#33554 21-Apr-2006 09:21

The HUGE problem is that the government has a lot of money investested in Telecom shares, so it not in their interest to drive the share price into the ground :(

bradstewart

4335 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#33556 21-Apr-2006 09:53

For the last two posters.....

I think you should visit www.telescum.co.nz maybe set it as your home page.

For the record LLU is a terrible thing which will bring an end to any innovation to telcomms area and allow companies like ihug and slingshot to leech off Telecom and make money without investment.

With Telecom going NGN its far too late for LLU anyway.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79314 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#33558 21-Apr-2006 09:59

Absolutely true. I don't believe in LLU either. As I posted before, companies will simply plug their hardware and use the old copper. So what? What new advanced service could they provide?

No investment in infrastructure from the companies leeching the local loop, and certaily Telecom would not invest lots just to see other companies using it.

Nope, LLU is not right for this country. Companies wanting to come here should want to invest, not leech. This includes ISPs.

JellyWeb

67 posts

Master Geek

#33559 21-Apr-2006 10:03

Any examples of how LLU has been 'a terrible thing' in other countries which have gone down that path?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79314 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#33560 21-Apr-2006 10:06

Each country is different, there is no way to get experiences from one and put in here.

There are many other discussions about LLU here before, with arguments from both sides (pros and cons)...

timbosan

2160 posts

Uber Geek

#33564 21-Apr-2006 11:00

An argument FOR LLU is the comparison with BT, and how they went through similar things years ago. Now BT have a department especially for helping other companies connect to the BT network using their own equipment, but their performance is based on how many connections are made, NOT on the profit or gains for BT. It in interesting, and yes, I know the UK has many more people and the ecomonics of scale are totally different, it is just an interesting example.

I agree with the last few posts on this thread that inovation is the way to go. Companies like Woosh had the right idea (even if the execution was poor) and when Ihug had their wireless phone serivice coming of the Sky Tower all seem right (what ever happend to that?). And now with Vodafone looking to create a local phone service, what is the point is LLU unbundling?

If we look into the future, everything could be done without wires, we currently (or will soon have) have the technologies to create highspeed wireless networks that cover suburbs, it is just that the infrastructure is not there.

bradstewart

4335 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#33566 21-Apr-2006 11:11

JellyWeb: Any examples of how LLU has been 'a terrible thing' in other countries which have gone down that path?

What fits one country certainly doesnt fit another.

People complain about the monopoly Telecom have and all they care about is profit. Well that kind of is the point of being a company, they arent a charity. If they opened up their network they would lose a lot of money and then they wouldnt be able to afford their new NGN. With that rolled out i thimk we will truly see faster, cheaper broadband and other services.

If you push for regulation and it affects TNZ's profits who is going to invest in NZ telcomms then? Ihug? Slingshot? Telstra? I very much doubt it, they can hardly afford to keep running themselves. Even if LLU was implemented and they started making money, there is still no way they could afford to build new networks and you have crippled the only company that can.

Therefore LLU = bad for New Zealand.

Juan Incognito

8 posts

Wannabe Geek

#33992 26-Apr-2006 15:59

"LLU = Bad"

The point has been made that LLU would discourage the only company willing to engage in significant network investment. This argument has been repeatedly raised over the last few years, and it does have a valid basis I will agree. No other company has proven willing or able to build a nationwide network.

However I'd like to make the following points: The NGN investment by Telecom is not a future investment, it is well underway. The NGN is not just a blue sky investment by Telecom, it is also an essential network upgrade, and part of their infrastructural renewal programme (which all networks need to have, if they plan to stay in that business). The NGN will significantly increase Telecom's ability to provide new services and products while drastically lowering their operational costs. So would LLU tomorrow stop NGN investment? No, Telecom has gone too far through the process to stop, they need to make this investment to keep operating effectively, and this investment will allow them to reduce their costs. Its a no brainer on their part, and they need to do it, or let their current business model die a slow painful death. It is an issue that all big fixed wire telco companies face globally.

The government could easily develop a LLU regime, and with an effective regulator it could work quite well. This would quickly provide NZ with a nationally available competitive high speed internet market. LLU would allow a number of 2nd tier ISPs to develop into economically sustainable competitors to Telecom, capable of engaging in their own network investment in the future. We don't seem to have this in NZ at present. Is NZ exceptional, would LLU not work here? I don't know, but hell, it has to be better than what we have had over the last five or so years, because that hasn't worked, and besides, plenty of countries have successfully implemented LLU. We need a more competitive market and this is the easiest solution. We can't afford to wait around endlessly in hope of new technologies, let some other market be the testing ground.

But LLU would not be the only solution, because the network investment issue would still exist. This is where the government would need to step in and increase funding to things like MUSH, which would speed up the creation of regionally based fibre networks. It should also provide encouragement to network providers, maybe by way of tax breaks, to make greater investment in alternate networks. Korea and Taiwan are two countries where such encouragement has occured, and they have great broadband. Why shouldn't we try it?