Plan suggestion for Telecom

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Plan suggestion for Telecom

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 19

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#336155 29-May-2010 22:39

rayonline: If they do make it 256k or 512k when you go over your limit. Then I guess the other plans would need to happen too ......

Not necessarily. It could be a perk for the higher priced plans.

matisyahu

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#337910 3-Jun-2010 16:13

My suggestion isn't as sexy as what others have proposed; what I'd like to see is the plans bumped up by 20gb each, and the see blocks of traffic sold in the same way that Snap Internet sells it:

If they did that then I'd be a happy lad if they did that, nothing particular special, just some minor adjustments here and there would make me happy.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'"

SauronJones

42 posts

Geek

#337914 3-Jun-2010 16:19

kawaii: My suggestion isn't as sexy as what others have proposed; what I'd like to see is the plans bumped up by 20gb each, and the see blocks of traffic sold in the same way that Snap Internet sells it:

If they did that then I'd be a happy lad if they did that, nothing particular special, just some minor adjustments here and there would make me happy.

It would be nice if there was actually a per GB price difference between 1GB, 2.5GB, 5GB, and 10GB blocks though.

Flashcards

95 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

flashcards.co.nz

#337915 3-Jun-2010 16:19

Sadly Telecom do not seem in a hurry to release info on the plans they are considering...

matisyahu

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#337916 3-Jun-2010 16:24

SauronJones:

It would be nice if there was actually a per GB price difference between 1GB, 2.5GB, 5GB, and 10GB blocks though.

I don't think there would be a price difference between the difference is so small it isn't worth passing along the savings. I'm sure given Telecom's position they can offer a better break down cost than what Snap has - who are considerably smaller. What I'd also like to see is for all the ISP's to get together and setup a couple of data centres in New Zealand that host international content such as downloads from Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Steam and so forth. Pool all their resources together, set it up and automatically resolve customers directly to the data centre rather than sourcing it from overseas.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'"

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#337925 3-Jun-2010 16:47

kawaii: What I'd also like to see is for all the ISP's to get together and setup a couple of data centres in New Zealand that host international content such as downloads from Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Steam and so forth. Pool all their resources together, set it up and automatically resolve customers directly to the data centre rather than sourcing it from overseas.

It would be too much effort. Someone already posted about ISPs sharing resources to bring prices down. Something I hope Telecom takes in to account when drafting this new plan. That is if they are making a new one, or at least changing their old ones. I doubt anyone will be willing to set up a whole data center for storing stuff they get paid for us to download at the more expensive price.

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#337930 3-Jun-2010 16:50

Most ISP's already have Akamai caches that serve most of the stuff mentioned in there.

A Steam server is a good idea though.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

matisyahu

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#337931 3-Jun-2010 16:51

DravidDavid:
kawaii: What I'd also like to see is for all the ISP's to get together and setup a couple of data centres in New Zealand that host international content such as downloads from Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Steam and so forth. Pool all their resources together, set it up and automatically resolve customers directly to the data centre rather than sourcing it from overseas.

It would be too much effort. Someone already posted about ISPs sharing resources to bring prices down. Something I hope Telecom takes in to account when drafting this new plan. That is if they are making a new one, or at least changing their old ones. I doubt anyone will be willing to set up a whole data center for storing stuff they get paid for us to download at the more expensive price.

That 'someone' would be all the ISP's getting together and sharing the cost.

Dear god, I wonder why I sometimes even bother when people don't even read the posts and comprehend them properly.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'"

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#337936 3-Jun-2010 16:55

I want to see Telecom selling bandwidth with a minimal markup. Every thing I've ever heard or read suggests the cost to Telecom of bandwidth from SCC is around 53-54 cents/gb. I see no reason why they should not be selling that to me at cost+20%.

That doesnt even being to take into account the fact that SCC (controlled by Telecom lets not forget) traffic is by all accounts horribly overpriced and they could afford to drop it substantially. But thats a diffrent story.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Telecom to look at offering a BT replacement along these lines:

$60pm, FS/FS, 100gb cap, and overage at 65-100cents per GB. Unless what I've read re the costs involved in this are way off base, this would still provide a profit for telecom, and be acceptable to the majority of former BT users. Admittedly it probably wouldnt be a high margin profit, but it would still be a profit.

For legal purposes, I gift the idea of this plan to Telecom without any expectation of monetary compensation.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

Flashcards

95 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

flashcards.co.nz

#337938 3-Jun-2010 17:00

Lias: I want to see Telecom selling bandwidth with a minimal markup. Every thing I've ever heard or read suggests the cost to Telecom of bandwidth from SCC is around 53-54 cents/gb. I see no reason why they should not be selling that to me at cost+20%.

That doesnt even being to take into account the fact that SCC (controlled by Telecom lets not forget) traffic is by all accounts horribly overpriced and they could afford to drop it substantially. But thats a diffrent story.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Telecom to look at offering a BT replacement along these lines:

$60pm, FS/FS, 100gb cap, and overage at 65-100cents per GB. Unless what I've read re the costs involved in this are way off base, this would still provide a profit for telecom, and be acceptable to the majority of former BT users. Admittedly it probably wouldnt be a high margin profit, but it would still be a profit.

For legal purposes, I gift the idea of this plan to Telecom without any expectation of monetary compensation.

That is a DREAM plan, one I'd go for but one which I feel that sadly, Telecom will not...

Look everyone knows Telecom is horrifically profitable but they MUST (by law) maximise shareholder value. So, maximum customer value does not always equate to maximum shareholder value. That is the crux of the issue. Oh and the aforemetioned monopoly issues around Telecom.

cafeg

697 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#337944 3-Jun-2010 17:20

I'd be happy with something plain and simple as $1.00 per gigabyte, only pay for what you use at a speed of FS/128 or FS/256

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#337962 3-Jun-2010 18:08

Lias:
$60pm, FS/FS, 100gb cap, and overage at 65-100cents per GB. Unless what I've read re the costs involved in this are way off base, this would still provide a profit for telecom, and be acceptable to the majority of former BT users. Admittedly it probably wouldnt be a high margin profit, but it would still be a profit.

$~20 - UBA Port costs (regulated price set by Government)
$~10 - Support and overheads (and thats a wet finger in the air number)
$~55 (at your estimate of bandwidth cost, ignores all other transport and backhaul costs nationally)

Plan cost to the ISP - Something like $85
Price you suggested - $60 (-$8ish for GST) so $52 for the ISP.

$33 a month loss for the ISP

cafeg

697 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#337963 3-Jun-2010 18:14

So a $100 plan for 100 gig a month would give them a nice profit as also a lot of the people on it might not even use 50% of the 100gig ?

I'd pay $100 for 100 gig a month even if it was shaped the same as BT is now..

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#337979 3-Jun-2010 18:38

cafeg: So a $100 plan for 100 gig a month would give them a nice profit as also a lot of the people on it might not even use 50% of the 100gig ?

Thats where the bandwidth game must get interesting, as you need to buy enough GB/s capacity to make sure that users never hit a bottleneck, but at the same time not increase your costs too much.

Also bear in mind the pulled-out-of-thin-air nature of the support costs, $10 might be light when you consider all the associated collateral that an ISP has to run (national backhaul and interconnect, DNS, LNS and associated switching, helpdesk support, Network Ops, marketing and sales, amortized "free" install costs and CPE costs etc. etc. ).

To put it in a bit more context, the $100 you are happy to pay is only $87 to the ISP (with GST at 15%) so they could be making $2 profit per customer and employing hundreds of people to do so.

Also we are reaching in saying that Telecom pays 50-60c per GB in bandwidth, $1/GB is probably a much more conservative figure.

browned

636 posts

Ultimate Geek

#338041 3-Jun-2010 20:44

As at Oct 2009 - NBR says "The new Southern Cross price for 5Gbit/s of restored capacity represents around US$0.28 per gigabyte downloaded from the US"

This is onsold to middle men (pacnet, Telecom, etc) to onsell to ISP's. My guess would be that ISP's are paying less then $1nz a GB. See http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/chris-keall/decoding-southern-cross-cable-s-price-cuts

We shouldn't want to pay more for less data, Slingshot can offer 50GB data for $50 and if you don't use it all you keep it for next month, not to mention the free data in the wee dark hours, Telecom were offering unlimited for $59 a month, The reason given for stopping bigtime was the a small group of people bypassing shaping and downloading close to 1TB of data a month.

From that I think we can assume unlimited data is possible if shaping is robust and not able to be bypassed. Unfortunately Telecom couldn't get the shaping to work right. You can also assume we are being ripped of when it comes to data costs anyone asking more than a $1 a GB is laughing all the way to the bank.

A fair thing for Telecom to do would be to introduce a fair use policy, how this is made up or what limits are in place is for telecom to decide. They want people to download off peak so make that known in the policy.

Whatever happens I will be moving from Telecom as 40GB is not enough and $2 a GB is a joke. 60GB and $1 a GB would be promising, but still missing the mark as competitors offer better.

Home Server: AMD Threadripper 1950X, 64GB, 56TB HDD, Define R6 Case, 10GbE, ESXi 6.7, UNRAID, NextPVR, Emby Server, Plex Server.
Lounge Media Center: NVIDIA Shield TV 16GB: Kodi18 with Titan MOD, Emby.
Kids Media Center: NVIDIA Shield TV 16GB: Kodi18 with Titan MOD, Emby.
Main PC: Ryzen 7 2700, 16GB RAM, RX 570, 2 x 24"

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 19