Telecom's Cabinetisation Plans

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Telecom's Cabinetisation Plans

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41091

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#99151 9-Dec-2007 23:18

aether22: It is more in reply to things others have said in the thread (and forum) that specifically the topic.

Please keep on topic though.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

CrispinMullins

128 posts

Master Geek

#99152 9-Dec-2007 23:20

KiwiOverseas66: but if they were viable businesses then they wouldn't need tax payer funding in the first place don't you think?

You are missing the point. We as New Zealanders need infrastructure. What you seem to be advocating is that New Zealanders should miss out on the opportunities afforded by this infrastructure because there is no sound business model that might provide that infrastructure AND generate a healthy profit.

I can understand people's reticence to trust government with these sorts of affairs, because governments invariably make mistakes. That isn't to say, however, that private enterprise does not, and if governments are the only parties willing to invest large sums for the benefit of the nation without the sole incentive of profit, then praise be to government intervention. I want fibre to the home and a crapload of new international bandwidth -- yesterday!

(As an aside, none of the dirt you have on any of those organisations detracts from the general assertation that where money is being made, it is going into the public pot; where no money is being made, at least a service is being provided. I have difficulty viewing any of that as negative.)

So if Cunliffe is referring to southern cross - he's talking about a project that was kicked off by a consortium of private companies in 1996, before the govt's main techology advisory and policy ministry was a twinkle in anyones eye - let alone had a strategy - let alone had any capital to do anything about it. Isn't it just as well Telecom, Optus, and WorldComm did something - otherwise we would still be stuck with pacrim east and west! Also goes to show how expensive submarine cables are in that it took 3 multinationals to fund it - and they still had to use debt financing.

The government is very late to the party. But surely everybody realises that when only (insert arbitrary figure here -- I think 40% was the figure I heard) of international capacity is currently being used on the Southern Cross cable in order to artificially keep prices high, something is wrong. Southern Cross' CEO's comments indicate to me that Cunliffe is barking up exactly the right tree.

Crispin Mullins
Auckland, New Zealand

cokemaster

Exited
4937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1089

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#99154 9-Dec-2007 23:29

CrispinMullins:
You are missing the point. We as New Zealanders need infrastructure.

Do you think that throwing a DSLAM into an exchange (when there are already DSLAM's there) counts as new infrastructure? If anything its just something to exploit the existing gear (copper, backbones etc)

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

CrispinMullins

128 posts

Master Geek

#99155 9-Dec-2007 23:38

Do you think that throwing a DSLAM into an exchange (when there are already DSLAM's there) counts as new infrastructure? If anything its just something to exploit the existing gear (copper, backbones etc)

No. I am talking about mass investment of fibre to the node and/or home, fibre backhaul, and international connectivity. And I am not talking about Telecom's little-by-little approach. What Telecom is doing right now is a step forward, certainly. But remember that it started trialling fibre to the home several years ago and has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to broaden its existing investment program.

I am talking about getting fibre laid. Now.

Crispin Mullins
Auckland, New Zealand

aether22

53 posts

Master Geek

#99158 9-Dec-2007 23:54

cokemaster:
CrispinMullins:
You are missing the point. We as New Zealanders need infrastructure.

Do you think that throwing a DSLAM into an exchange (when there are already DSLAM's there) counts as new infrastructure? If anything its just something to exploit the existing gear (copper, backbones etc)

It's not always about infrastructure. (NZ had the infrastructure for far superior ADSL but was and still is being crippled by Telecom)
New Zealand already has a decent copper network it doesn't need another one, it simply needs someone willing to offer a decent service.

Copper infrastructure isn't needed, international infrastructure is not needed now but will if broadband was unleashed.
What is needed is the relativly inexpensive infrastructure from the copper to other parts of the country and to the SCC.

Once the DSLAM's are in there these small players can generate enough income to build up the national infrastructure.

So the answer is a resounding 'Yes'. (not to mention that the DSLAM's everyone would install are ADSl2+ or better which would itself be superior infrastructure)
Also with some competition Telecom would be spurred into improving the current infrastructure. (as is now happening!)

Also as much as I am for Telecom's Cabinetization I would point out that everyone could get pretty much the same speeds if VDSL2 was used. (Though if you were lucky you would get many more and a few would get far fewer)
Also with a decent ADSL2 network still 'Coming' all these years later it must be asked again (as was said YEARS AGO!!!) won't ADSL2+ be outdated before it's even installed?

The answer was (correctly) then and is now a resounding Yes.

Since despite my optomism Telecom probably won't offer a truly decent service and this really is a case of waiting for LLU II - The Subloop.

Basically the only way to get really excellect broadband anytime soon I fear is to get a Time Machine and somehow stop LLU from taking so damn long in the first place. (Or Travel ?? year into the future. Or to another country)

Telecom has used confusion as it's chief marketing tool. And that's fine you could argue that's all of us keep calling prices up and get those revenues, high margin businesses keeping going for a lot longer than would have been the case. But at some level whether they consciously acknowledge it or not customers know that's what the game has been. They know we are not being straight up. Theresa Gattung

KiwiOverseas66

173 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#99159 10-Dec-2007 01:12

CrispinMullins:

You are missing the point. We as New Zealanders need infrastructure. What you seem to be advocating is that New Zealanders should miss out on the opportunities afforded by this infrastructure because there is no sound business model that might provide that infrastructure AND generate a healthy profit.

ah...sorry Chris.....I don't think anyone has said anywhere in the thread "no, NZers should not have infrastrucutre because their government can't afford to pay for it, or run it" - so not sure where you got that idea from. The discussion, I believe, is more about what's the best way to provide the infrastructure. Clearly you have a definite preference for public funding as a means of providing utilitarian access - fine. I guess my ideas are more along the lines that a $1.4 billion dollar network will cost 1.4 regardless of who pays for it. The question is who's got the money?

I don't subscribe to any pursit view on this (i.e, that business are right and the govt is wrong, or that govt is right and business are evil and profit is a sin). As I said in my previous post Its good to see the government making some positive noise on putting some money into this. Personally I liked to see the government look at PPP (public private partnerships) since I think the combination of public and private funding will mean more bang for your buck....so to speak.

I can understand people's reticence to trust government with these sorts of affairs, because governments invariably make mistakes. That isn't to say, however, that private enterprise does not, and if governments are the only parties willing to invest large sums for the benefit of the nation without the sole incentive of profit, then praise be to government intervention. I want fibre to the home and a crapload of new international bandwidth -- yesterday! (As an aside, none of the dirt you have on any of those organisations detracts from the general assertation that where money is being made, it is going into the public pot; where no money is being made, at least a service is being provided. I have difficulty viewing any of that as negative.)

Do you pay taxes? Personally I'd rather have the service and a govt org/ agency that knows enough about what its doing so that it atleast covers its costs. I pretty sure no one would advocate giving govt agencies a free license to go out and spend money and hang the consequences?

And your right - no one believes the private sector is free of mistakes. Goodness, there's more than enough business people on this forum who can verify that.

The government is very late to the party. But surely everybody realises that when only (insert arbitrary figure here -- I think 40% was the figure I heard) of international capacity is currently being used on the Southern Cross cable in order to artificially keep prices high, something is wrong. Southern Cross' CEO's comments indicate to me that Cunliffe is barking up exactly the right tree.

Sorry Chris - that's completely false. To state that prices are artificially high would indicate that someone has a clear idea about what the prices should be as opposed to what they are. Does anyone know of such a figure? I'm sure MED could probably produce a average unit cost based on OECD stats across countries with populations of 10 million or less - but that's an abstract, not a business cost.

I think the capacity figure you're referring to relates more to the way the business is operated (current capacity versus theorectical capcity). In short it makes no sense to go out and buy the biggest, nastiest dense wave multiplexors if the customers aren't there - provided such multiplexors exist in the first place (sort of like buying a V8 to go to the dairy - still a nice idea as long as you don't have to pay the bill - and no Tony, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't buy a V8 for short trips:-). This would have been the case back in 2000 when it first went live. Pretty standard business proceedure really - if you can afford to go all the way to the limit then do so - otherwise operate according to what is needed now plus a bit of growth capacity, and upgrade as customers come on line. I think you'll find lots of businesses in lots of different sectors operate this way.

What Telecom is doing right now is a step forward, certainly. But remember that it started trialling fibre to the home several years ago and has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to broaden its existing investment program.

Same thing again. Its abit like building a national network of 8 lane super highway when everone rides a donkey. Back in 2000 there was no wide spread VoIP services, no trademe or youTube, no one had even heard of IPTV, and web servers were pitifully slow by todays standards. The incentive to building infrastructure is that they there will be something to use, and someone to use it - neither of which was overwhelming back in 2000 (let alone 1996 when Southern Cross was first conceived).

You may also recall that WorldCom were part owners of Southern Cross in the early days. WorldCom went bust and filed for chapter 11 insolvency in the US in 2001/2 (was, I think, the fourth largest failure in US corporate history).

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2002/0722wcom1.html

Chapter 11 allows them to continue trading as a means of repaying creditors - which is what they did - by selling below cost capacity around the world including Sourther Cross. This is why the consortium had to refinance its debts in 2002/03 as initially Sourthern Cross was not making any money (I know this as I was purchasing international capacity at that time).

Given the growth of internet traffic around the world - submarine cables are probably a safe investment now - but that wasn't the case in the late ninties. Indeed, with the looming dotcom bust it required a fair amount of intestinal fortitude to invest. I just thought it was ironic how Cunliffe took a swipe at Telecom about int capacity - given that he, his party, his agencies, advisors, and consultants weren't even around when the decision was made to build southern cross. Where would NZ internet traffic be now if they decided it was too risky? Instead of whining about the price of international capacity - everyone would be asking where it is and how soon are we gonna get some!;-) I'm not saying they should thank Telecom - that will never happen. There is, however, a new CEO, new management, new structure, new legislation, new environment. Maybe its about time to bury the rehtoric and find a new approach.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

richms

29107 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#99160 10-Dec-2007 01:19

aether22:

It's not always about infrastructure. (NZ had the infrastructure for far superior ADSL but was and still is being crippled by Telecom)
New Zealand already has a decent copper network it doesn't need another one, it simply needs someone willing to offer a decent service.

no, NZ has crappy copper with excessivly long loops, which is what telecom are solving with cabinitization. The copper is the problem for entire suburbs, me included here in beach haven.

Copper infrastructure isn't needed, international infrastructure is not needed now but will if broadband was unleashed.
What is needed is the relativly inexpensive infrastructure from the copper to other parts of the country and to the SCC.

Once the DSLAM's are in there these small players can generate enough income to build up the national infrastructure.

By offering yesterdays speeds on a network that isnt even designed for it or coping on the current low usage that its getting, yeah great..

So the answer is a resounding 'Yes'. (not to mention that the DSLAM's everyone would install are ADSl2+ or better which would itself be superior infrastructure)
Also with some competition Telecom would be spurred into improving the current infrastructure. (as is now happening!)

Also as much as I am for Telecom's Cabinetization I would point out that everyone could get pretty much the same speeds if VDSL2 was used. (Though if you were lucky you would get many more and a few would get far fewer)
Also with a decent ADSL2 network still 'Coming' all these years later it must be asked again (as was said YEARS AGO!!!) won't ADSL2+ be outdated before it's even installed?

So how does vdsl go on the end of 4 k's of cable? 5? 6? How would it help the people in Pt Chev who are lucky to get 400kbit downstreams to go with the 600 up?

The answer was (correctly) then and is now a resounding Yes.

Since despite my optomism Telecom probably won't offer a truly decent service and this really is a case of waiting for LLU II - The Subloop.

Basically the only way to get really excellect broadband anytime soon I fear is to get a Time Machine and somehow stop LLU from taking so damn long in the first place. (Or Travel ?? year into the future. Or to another country)

LLU will do nothing to improve broadband speeds, caps and choice of plans yes, but the speeds will be low no matter who has the dslam on the other end of the long copper loops.

The duplication of dslam installations is just stupid, to install gear before seeing the wholesale terms from the split up telecom is also stupid IMO. Yes, its being a long time coming, but with seperation, is it really needed? Noone knows yet, so why spend all that cash on pretty red or purple racks to put in the exchanges other then to get a few photo opp's and being able to look like you are doing something.

Richard rich.ms

CrispinMullins

128 posts

Master Geek

#99162 10-Dec-2007 01:51

KiwiOverseas66: ah...sorry Chris.....I don't think anyone has said anywhere in the thread "no, NZers should not have infrastrucutre because their government can't afford to pay for it, or run it" - so not sure where you got that idea from. The discussion, I believe, is more about what's the best way to provide the infrastructure. Clearly you have a definite preference for public funding as a means of providing utilitarian access - fine. I guess my ideas are more along the lines that a $1.4 billion dollar network will cost 1.4 regardless of who pays for it. The question is who's got the money?

No. The question is -- to take your figure -- whether we as consumers want to pay $1.4 billion plus 50% profit margin for whoever finances the project to wait 10 years for the new network because the way that other businesses are run decrees that New Zealanders don't need to do any better than ride donkeys to the dairy until 2018, or do we as consumers want to pay $1.4 billion via our taxes to have the same network up and running by 2010 because someone with vision believes that we need to get ahead instead of consistently playing catch-up?

The whole reason that the internet has developed the way that it has is that companies overinvested in backhaul in the late 1990s, and Worldcom was one of the companies that suffered as a result. But the fact was that suddenly, the bandwidth was available and kept getting cheaper. I hate to think where we would be today without that massive investment in the late 1990s. Unfortunately, because we are a small isolated nation, we missed out on most of that investment.

Personally I liked to see the government look at PPP (public private partnerships) since I think the combination of public and private funding will mean more bang for your buck....so to speak.

I agree. PPPs are potentially a great way to go, because they ensure that the government can negotiate terms that are in line with the public interest.

Its abit like building a national network of 8 lane super highway when everone rides a donkey. Back in 2000 there was no wide spread VoIP services, no trademe or youTube, no one had even heard of IPTV, and web servers were pitifully slow by todays standards. The incentive to building infrastructure is that they there will be something to use, and someone to use it - neither of which was overwhelming back in 2000 (let alone 1996 when Southern Cross was first conceived).

Here in Germany, they're currently discussing whether to impose speed limits on those sections of the Autobahn that are currently without. If they do, you can bet that Porsche will sell fewer high-powered cars. This is a crude analogy, because there is realistically only one application for Autobahns without speed limits -- personal travel. It would be absolutely revolutionary to remove the ceilings that each and every one of us has to deal with when we use the internet today.

In New Zealand it seems that many infrastructure projects are reactionary. Just look at our highways. Look at the Auckland harbour bridge. What we need to do is anticipate growth. Telecom has not done that well enough.

Crispin Mullins
Auckland, New Zealand

KiwiOverseas66

173 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#99165 10-Dec-2007 02:28

CrispinMullins:

No. The question is -- to take your figure -- whether we as consumers want to pay $1.4 billion plus 50% profit margin for whoever finances the project to wait 10 years for.......

whoa - hit the sweet spot! Ok then:

1) no one has decreed anything.
2) 50% margin! and that's from where?
3) 10 years for a new network - what makes you think it would be faster if funded by the govt?

Sorry Chris - but I just don't subscribe to the whole "business is evil, only the govt works in the public interest" idea. I see benefits and faults on both sides, but respect for your strongly held belief - and nice to be able to debate it in a civilised manner.

The whole reason that the internet has developed the way that it has is that companies overinvested in backhaul in the late 1990s, and Worldcom was one of the companies that suffered as a result. But the fact was that suddenly, the bandwidth was available and kept getting cheaper. I hate to think where we would be today without that massive investment in the late 1990s. Unfortunately, because we are a small isolated nation, we missed out on most of that investment.

um......WorldCom committed fraud - and got prosecuted as such. Bad business planning is one thing - but criminal behaviour is something else. As for the infrastructure investment - you'll find on the Telecom website at the very least (not to mention a few other forums) the NGN investment that has been going on since the late 1990s - not to mention southern cross itself. But yes - overcoming the distance and scale of investment will be a continual problem for NZ.

I agree. PPPs are potentially a great way to go, because they ensure that the government can negotiate terms that are in line with the public interest.

ahhh...business is still evil huh? Companies are incapable of providing services that might be in the public interest?

Here in Germany, they're currently discussing whether to impose speed limits on those sections of the Autobahn that are currently without. If they do, you can bet that Porsche will sell fewer high-powered cars. This is a crude analogy, because there is realistically only one application for Autobahns without speed limits -- personal travel. It would be absolutely revolutionary to remove the ceilings that each and every one of us has to deal with when we use the internet today. In New Zealand it seems that many infrastructure projects are reactionary. Just look at our highways. Look at the Auckland harbour bridge. What we need to do is anticipate growth. Telecom has not done that well enough.

and neither has the government - who own and manage the highways and bridge that you mention above. Predicting growth is easy said then done I would imagine (and goodness knows there are plenty of failed dotcoms who can testify to that). Yeah - alot of infrastructure projects are reactionary, and Telecom could probably have planned better - all buiness probably can - but using your examples above about the highway (not to mention infrastructure like the national grid, public transport, etc) so can the government. That's why I suggested that maybe the govt needs to re-evaluate its relationship with Telecom (and other telco's in the industry as well). If this is so important to the public then it really needs all the players involved combining their resources, and doing what they do best.

also - slightly off topic - speed limits on the autobanh! Darn! (don't know if damn is one of the naughty geekzone words - will soon find out). What's the reaction like in Germany to that!

CrispinMullins

128 posts

Master Geek

#99166 10-Dec-2007 02:55

KiwiOverseas66:
1) no one has decreed anything.
2) 50% margin! and that's from where?
3) 10 years for a new network - what makes you think it would be faster if funded by the govt?

Look, I think you know that these are figures summarily pulled out of thin air, but am I really that wrong? I don't per se think that business is evil either. I just see one incumbant that I consider to be providing very little benefit to consumers in an area that I believe significant benefit to be necessary for us as an economy to succeed.

ahhh...business is still evil huh? Companies are incapable of providing services that might be in the public interest?

The one trading as TCNZ is! And can you see anybody else stepping up to the plate with anywhere near the amount of cash required to enter the market and provide real competition? Whether or not I see government investment as the best way forward is beside the point, because in reality, government investment is the ONLY way forward. They are the only party in position to come to the table and make a real difference, because they are the only party who seek not to benefit financially, but through the long-term growth of the country.

slightly off topic - speed limits on the autobanh! Darn! What's the reaction like in Germany to that!

Split, at this stage. Traffic analysts generally say that the lack of speed limit causes jams and more accidents, and god knows I am sick of BMW 9 Series sneaking up on me at 220km/h in the fast lane when I am overtaking a truck at 150km/h. But Germans love their cars...

Crispin Mullins
Auckland, New Zealand

KiwiOverseas66

173 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#99178 10-Dec-2007 07:25

CrispinMullins:
am I really that wrong? I don't per se think that business is evil either. I just see one incumbant that I consider to be providing very little benefit to consumers in an area that I believe significant benefit to be necessary for us as an economy to succeed.

Glad to hear that you think business is not evil - I just get a very strong impression that you believe there is no place for the private sector in funding/ operating infrastructure because you believe they are incapable of providing a public benefit (and that only the govt can provide this benefit). As an objective - you are right. Businesses are not there to provide benefits - they are there to make money - but that doesn't mean that can't provide benefits as a consequence - in the same way government agencies are there to provide a service, and hopefully manage to break even as a consequence.

ahhh...business is still evil huh? Companies are incapable of providing services that might be in the public interest?

The one trading as TCNZ is! And can you see anybody else stepping up to the plate with anywhere near the amount of cash required to enter the market and provide real competition? Whether or not I see government investment as the best way forward is beside the point, because in reality, government investment is the ONLY way forward. They are the only party in position to come to the table and make a real difference, because they are the only party who seek not to benefit financially, but through the long-term growth of the country.

Hmmmm...on the one hand you say above that you don't think business is evil - but Telecom is and only the government can provide a sort of utilitarian solution because they aren't motivated by commercial self interest? And why does it need to be an either/ or situation? The govt and private sector can invest together - maybe even cooperate and coordinate? A couple of things :

1) I guess my experience in the IT/ network industry in NZ plus 7 years in govt prior to that just gives me a different perspective as I simply don't see Telecom as being straight black, or the govt as being that lilly white. I've met some good people in Telecom - and also seen some pretty herrendous screw ups - but they have always acted like a business so no surprises there. Re the govt - the same thing. They may not be commerically motivated but they are definitely politically motivated - and I don't see that as a guarantee of better behaviour compared to a company.

and 2) I'm still unconvinced that even with political motivation aside - that the government simply has enough money. Lets face facts - even with a 10billion surplus they can't and wont spend all of it on networks (I doubt they could even put aside 1 billion on infrastructure) - they would still need to raise cash in the international money markets. Network infrastructure would have to compete with a whole bunch of other priorities (like health, law and order, etc) which should take priority as in some cases we are talking about peoples lives being at risk. Even then - when it comes to infrastructure - as you mentioned before roading is purely reactionary at present - then there's the whole issue of the national grid - so there are other infrastructure requirements that wouldbe a higher priority. This is partly why I think the govt needs to work with the private sector (the whole private sector - not just the small and medium sized companies it likes). No one is capable of doing it on their own.

In addition - the whole "broadband for the economy" is something of a chicken and egg arguement don't you think? Japan, Korea, UK, US, Germany - were all thriving economies long before broadband came along - and in some cases there is a belief that its a vibrant economy that promotes broadband (and not the other way around). Yes - I agree with you that broadband is a necessary tool for business - but on its own does not generate foreign exchange or bring in export revenue.

Don't forget as well that govt policy is focussed mainly on consumer broadband not business. When the govt quotes OECD stats re broadband connections, it only counts connections to the internet. Private network connections that by pass the internet (bank atms, eftpos, internal links to branches, etc) are not counted. These are links that typically carry commercial transactions. Also 3G mobile connections (remote access, telemetry, etc) are not counted, and neither are wifi connections. So counting the number of DSL broadband connections is by no means an accurate measure of connectivity, nor the amount of business carried out across all connections.

slightly off topic - speed limits on the autobanh! Darn! What's the reaction like in Germany to that!

Split, at this stage. Traffic analysts generally say that the lack of speed limit causes jams and more accidents, and god knows I am sick of BMW 9 Series sneaking up on me at 220km/h in the fast lane when I am overtaking a truck at 150km/h. But Germans love their cars...

wow....what a whole different mindset. Kiwis and Ozzies I guess probably have a love affair with the car as well - but it takes on a whole new meaning in Germany! BTW - have you done a blog or anything like that about mobile/ broadband services in europe? Might be kind of interesting to see how the other half lives, so to speak.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

jesseycy

294 posts

Ultimate Geek

#99203 10-Dec-2007 10:50

2 questions I have that is much more aligned with the current topic.......

#1: Wouldn't it be best, if any ISP could put in their own ADSL2+ or VDSL equipment into the "metro exchanges" (Auckland City, Christchurch, Wellington), and provide great choices in plans, speed, data caps, quality of service, etc to these areas? As for the rural areas, Telecom with its cabinetisation plans would also mean shortening the "last mile" for rural consumers......

Esentially then, a user in Auckland would be delighted next year, when Orcon for example launches a 50Gb, 3.5Mbps/512kbps plan for $50, which is possible because to connect this user, they do it through an unbundled Ellerslie exchange with their own equipment in there.....

Similarly, a farmer in Matamata would also be happy, when he received the news that finally, he could now get broadband, the cabinet servicing his homestead is now broadband enabled, and there's a cool new fibre optic link to that cabinet meaning he could also now get decent internet speeds.

#2: If this is a good plan.... Why does quite a few forum writers seem to think that we can "only support Telecom and its cabinetisation plans", or "darn telecom for screwing the whole country up again"???

cyril7

9075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#99248 10-Dec-2007 14:20

jesseycy, we arent even touching on the rural loop here, just the urban. You have obviously overlooked the simple fact that the average urban line length in NZ is over 2km, with many lines exceeding the 5-6km reach of ADSL. For a network improvement that can be implemented to 80% or more of subscribers (the rest are in the rural loop) then the average line length needs to be brought down to around 800m, hence the cabinetisation program.

All the competitor DSLAMS in the world wont help if your still pushing too much loop length.

Cyril

cokemaster

Exited
4937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1089

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#99251 10-Dec-2007 15:21

All the competitor DSLAMS in the world wont help if your still pushing too much loop length.

Exactly!

Wouldn't it be best, if any ISP could put in their own ADSL2+ or VDSL equipment into the "metro exchanges" (Auckland City, Christchurch, Wellington), and provide great choices in plans, speed, data caps, quality of service, etc to these areas?

Why should Telecom be lumped with the task of servicing rural customers? It smacks of cherry picking (that is going after the most profitable areas) to me...

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

Fraktul

836 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#99306 10-Dec-2007 18:55

cokemaster:
Why should Telecom be lumped with the task of servicing rural customers? It smacks of cherry picking (that is going after the most profitable areas) to me...

But the other carriers in NZ contribute towards this cost - a total of $78 odd million last year I believe of which 30% was contributed by the other carriers? As to why, well ignoring the fact that its currently legislated that way there is no good reason IMO.

If you want to live in the sticks - well user pays sorry. Rural residents already pay the added cost of transport etc on petrol and other goods.

If the Government really want to fix this they should offer some incentive for somebody to setup a WiMax network to service these customers which should ultimately have an end result of a substainable business model for broadband access in many rural locations.

Im sure $78 million would go pretty far to setting up coverage for a big majority of customers which are currently unprofitable for Telecom to service via copper. Heh - by the time Telecom scrap all that extra copper they would probably get $78 million back anyhow.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12