Plan suggestion for Telecom

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

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

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#338125 3-Jun-2010 23:29

Ragnor:
beachmark: There will be no more BT plan after this month.

Flashcards: There has been no indication that they are prolonging BT.

Doozy's annoucement and the newspaper articles were quite awhile ago I was expecting to already be moved off the plan by now.

However I haven't heard of anyone that has recieved the physical letter yet about switching to something else.

Define 'quite a while ago' given that Telecom I'm sure don't want to look like the big bad ogre trying to push people off something and onto something else with no time to allow the customer to shop around, investigate the plans and so forth.

"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

#338127 3-Jun-2010 23:37

No letter here yet. I expect it before the months out though.

crazed

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#338128 3-Jun-2010 23:59

When I last dealt with Worldnet, they were Auckland based.

Physical Address
17 South St, Newton, Auckland City

Sauce: http://www.worldnet.co.nz/contact/

CraZeD,
Your friendly Southern Geeky Fellow :P

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#338129 4-Jun-2010 00:02

crazed: When I last dealt with Worldnet, they were Auckland based.

Are they any good? I've never heard of them before.

crazed

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#338142 4-Jun-2010 07:35

DravidDavid:
crazed: When I last dealt with Worldnet, they were Auckland based.

Are they any good? I've never heard of them before.

They have been around for years, 10yrs plus from memory I was with them back before they offered DSL when everything was either Dialup or ISDN lol, the service at that stage was good, but there customer service was problematic because their staff werent good english speakers, which meant when we did ring them there was several minutes of working through the acsent and language barriers before getting issues answered.

Not sure what they are like now, but have heard afew people complaining their DSL is slow. Is there anyone that is currently with them?

CraZeD,
Your friendly Southern Geeky Fellow :P

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#338177 4-Jun-2010 09:54

Lias: Cymro: That was actually a fubar on my part, It was meant to be a 60gb cap.. not sure why I wrote 100gb

My theory was:
at ~50cents/gb, 60gb = $30
We know they can provision a port and national backhaul for ~$25 and still make a profit
$5 for overheads

Given that the NBR article says bandwidth costs them 29cents/gb it becomes much more profitable for them and even more feasible.

As I said before, it wouldnt be a high profit plan, but it would keep many BT customers with Telecom, They only really want to get rid of the epic huge download leachers, I strongly suspect they would like to keep the families and flats that were moderate BT users onboard.This would let them do so, whilst making some profit.

Still I guess your right in that its a pipedream.. were just goign to get shafted with bad plans and huge overage fees and all jump ship to ISP's that provide shitter service but affordable data.. Which kind of sucks.

I think the problem is the same Speed/Cap/Price triangle, you can't have all 3 in the same plan.

If you are willing to sacrifice speed, you can have higher caps at a normal price because the ISP doesn't need to buy as much peak bandwidth, but you will see congestion.

If you are willing to sacrifice the size of your data cap, again the ISP needs to buy less bandwidth so the price is still normal, but you will hit your cap faster for the same $$$.

If you are willing to sacrifice price and pay more, you can have fast speeds and higher data caps.

I would also take the prices in the NBR article with a grain of salt as well, the 29c was US$ and didn't tell us if that was assuming 100% utilisation (which for the benefit of shock-value in the article I'm willing to bet was the case) over a 24 hour period rather than a large daily peak that an ISP would expect to see.

aionwannabe

147 posts

Master Geek

#338357 4-Jun-2010 19:39

Cymro:
Lias: Cymro: That was actually a fubar on my part, It was meant to be a 60gb cap.. not sure why I wrote 100gb

My theory was:
at ~50cents/gb, 60gb = $30
We know they can provision a port and national backhaul for ~$25 and still make a profit
$5 for overheads

Given that the NBR article says bandwidth costs them 29cents/gb it becomes much more profitable for them and even more feasible.

As I said before, it wouldnt be a high profit plan, but it would keep many BT customers with Telecom, They only really want to get rid of the epic huge download leachers, I strongly suspect they would like to keep the families and flats that were moderate BT users onboard.This would let them do so, whilst making some profit.

Still I guess your right in that its a pipedream.. were just goign to get shafted with bad plans and huge overage fees and all jump ship to ISP's that provide shitter service but affordable data.. Which kind of sucks.

I think the problem is the same Speed/Cap/Price triangle, you can't have all 3 in the same plan.

If you are willing to sacrifice speed, you can have higher caps at a normal price because the ISP doesn't need to buy as much peak bandwidth, but you will see congestion.

If you are willing to sacrifice the size of your data cap, again the ISP needs to buy less bandwidth so the price is still normal, but you will hit your cap faster for the same $$$.

If you are willing to sacrifice price and pay more, you can have fast speeds and higher data caps.

I would also take the prices in the NBR article with a grain of salt as well, the 29c was US$ and didn't tell us if that was assuming 100% utilisation (which for the benefit of shock-value in the article I'm willing to bet was the case) over a 24 hour period rather than a large daily peak that an ISP would expect to see.

hmm yeah back when we had slingshot there was soomuch line noise it wasn't funny though... we had 128 upload, so even with fullspeed download it was dismal and for gaming thats useless,
if perhaps some one offored a plan with "mananged" upload and allowed for physical max download id certaintly consider them...

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#338402 4-Jun-2010 22:37

Flashcards:
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.

Hmm well what if they took a new approach.

Make broadband cheaper and bigger range of plans and get more subscribers.

More subscribers vs Less subscribers but higher fees ?

That way they can keep shareholders happy and probably make more money with more people able to pay for the running of the company.

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#342522 17-Jun-2010 05:03

I was thinking what about a capped unlimited plan?

128 upload/512 download?

Ragnor

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#342619 17-Jun-2010 11:39

512 Kbit/s = 64KB/s

Doubt many people would be interested in something that slow, would make any downloads, youtube watching streaming video annoying. Especially in a family or flat.

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#342621 17-Jun-2010 11:43

1mb download then? Lol!

blah33

7 posts

Wannabe Geek

#344140 22-Jun-2010 13:28

1 millibit is awfully slow!

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#344144 22-Jun-2010 13:32

I was thinking how about off peak? or maybe 3 mb/s down and 128 kb up.

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#344206 22-Jun-2010 16:06

Its nice to see people are still making plans up for telecom, but something with a monthly charge and no over use charges are wanted.

When data is exceeded , speed needs to drop to a level that is appropriate to keep being able to play games at and perhaps be able to load you tube with having some buffer times.
* not as long as 64kbps would be though !

Dont know if Doozy still reading here. Ive been told you are in charge of making the plans ?

But need something family/flat orientated that lets us do our emails & games and doesnt choke us to death with 64kbps, overuse prices, & little 20/40gb caps.

Something like *up to* 2mbps / 800kbps 20gb cap

then

*up to* 1mbps / 512kbps

Can have fair use policies, low priority P2P etc with it as well to prevent it getting abused.

ALTRON

577 posts

Ultimate Geek

#345120 25-Jun-2010 09:41

When is big time supposed to end as Im still on it.
Just started a new month of bigtime usage today.

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