Big Time plan removal

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Big Time plan removal

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 30

3 posts

Wannabe Geek

#332744 21-May-2010 06:47

Telecom obviously put this plan out there as they knew they would still profit from some amount of heavy usage... What I don't understand here is why they're not just kicking the multi terabyte users off using some clause in their contract and keeping the profitable plan for the rest?

I agree with whoever said Telecom likely started this plan just to get the users knowing most of them would stay when they cancelled the plan. Perhaps some authority needs to investigate this to ensure this wasn't Telecom's plan from the beginning? I mean they have done an unlimited plan before so obviously they knew what they were getting in for.

SparX711

7 posts

Wannabe Geek
Inactive user

#332747 21-May-2010 07:06

phrozen: Telecom obviously put this plan out there as they knew they would still profit from some amount of heavy usage... What I don't understand here is why they're not just kicking the multi terabyte users off using some clause in their contract and keeping the profitable plan for the rest?

I agree with whoever said Telecom likely started this plan just to get the users knowing most of them would stay when they cancelled the plan. Perhaps some authority needs to investigate this to ensure this wasn't Telecom's plan from the beginning? I mean they have done an unlimited plan before so obviously they knew what they were getting in for.

Yeah sounds like a known anti competitive practice called acceptable loss which goes a step further than predatory pricing. Bring em in, let em settle then yank it away and see what comes of it knowing full well that people will stay. The accepatable loss comes in two stages, first the loss of profit from offering an unsustainable product then the second stage is the loss of a few disgruntled customers when it all goes pear shaped... Could even throw in monopolistic.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#332774 21-May-2010 09:12

I wouldn't put that past Telecom....

I hope Telecom come up with a decent sustainable capped plan with other perks. I don't see why not. They managed BigTime for almost a year, Telecom just bit off more than they could chew.

Maybe in the two months they are giving us...They will work up some new plans.

SauronJones

42 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#332777 21-May-2010 09:20

What about a plan with two caps, one for peak usage and one for off-peak. Say 50GB peak time usage and 100GB off-peak?

And then a choice as to whether your speed is throttled, or whether you are charged overage.

Also, does anyone have any idea what Telecom pays for international bandwidth per Gb/s?

Flashcards

95 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

flashcards.co.nz

#332779 21-May-2010 09:22

SauronJones: What about a plan with two caps, one for peak usage and one for off-peak. Say 50GB peak time usage and 100GB off-peak?

And then a choice as to whether your speed is throttled, or whether you are charged overage.

Also, does anyone have any idea what Telecom pays for international bandwidth per Gb/s?

That would be a PAIN for the customer to manage IMHO.

SauronJones

42 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#332780 21-May-2010 09:26

Flashcards:
SauronJones: What about a plan with two caps, one for peak usage and one for off-peak. Say 50GB peak time usage and 100GB off-peak?

And then a choice as to whether your speed is throttled, or whether you are charged overage.

Also, does anyone have any idea what Telecom pays for international bandwidth per Gb/s?

That would be a PAIN for the customer to manage IMHO.

Possibly, but not really more so than other ISPs (like SlingShot) who offer free off-peak. Only difference would be that with a cap in place it may not have to have the crap throttled out of it in off-peak time as (apparantly) happens with SlingShot.

EDIT: I think Telecom needs to discuss new options with the customers it is kicking off BigTime to see if they can come up with a plan makes an acceptable compromise between what these users want, and what is sustainable.

Geekzone support

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

exportgoldman

1202 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3

Trusted

#332784 21-May-2010 09:36

I have two issues with this

1. Telecom need to grow some balls, police this plan and kick off the stupidly high users, so they can keep the plan alive like they said they would.

2. Things like online backups (e.g. ShadowProtect v4) are now back on the drawing board because NZ doesn't offer split local/international traffic and have no unlimited plans.

I honestly expected more from Telecom, it's not like they didn't know what they were 'unleashing' as they had all the Go Large data and previous experience, and a sister company in Australia offering unlimited plans.

Oh Telecom, my new XT call failures like a champ, and now your taking my broadband away - can I still dial 111 if I need to?

Tyler - Parnell Geek - iPhone 3G - Lenovo X301 - Kaseya - Great Western Steak House, these are some of my favourite things.

doozy

245 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10

Trusted

#332792 21-May-2010 10:13

SparX711:
phrozen: Telecom obviously put this plan out there as they knew they would still profit from some amount of heavy usage... What I don't understand here is why they're not just kicking the multi terabyte users off using some clause in their contract and keeping the profitable plan for the rest?

I agree with whoever said Telecom likely started this plan just to get the users knowing most of them would stay when they cancelled the plan. Perhaps some authority needs to investigate this to ensure this wasn't Telecom's plan from the beginning? I mean they have done an unlimited plan before so obviously they knew what they were getting in for.

Yeah sounds like a known anti competitive practice called acceptable loss which goes a step further than predatory pricing. Bring em in, let em settle then yank it away and see what comes of it knowing full well that people will stay. The accepatable loss comes in two stages, first the loss of profit from offering an unsustainable product then the second stage is the loss of a few disgruntled customers when it all goes pear shaped... Could even throw in monopolistic.

no, its no that at all, if that was the plan we would have advertised it a lot more than we did to gain a significantly larger number of customers. We did very little advertising for Big Time. We also would have kept it in market for much longer if we wanted to do what you are suggesting. The thing to note for that is it's not cheap to create, maintain and then remove a plan like this. It costs a fair whack and so to achieve what your suggesting as mentioned we would've needed it in market much longer.

Also we're not charging ETF's for those who wish to leave because at the end of the day this is not something we really wanted to do, it was the very last option on the list of many, if there was anything predatory about what we are doing ... why would we let people know they can leave without cost?

I realise for some of you no matter what I say you're still going to think there is something sinister about this, there just isn't.

Tarawera Ultra 2015 done, bring on 2016

doozy

245 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10

Trusted

#332794 21-May-2010 10:16

exportgoldman:
I have two issues with this

1. Telecom need to grow some balls, police this plan and kick off the stupidly high users, so they can keep the plan alive like they said they would.

2. Things like online backups (e.g. ShadowProtect v4) are now back on the drawing board because NZ doesn't offer split local/international traffic and have no unlimited plans.

I honestly expected more from Telecom, it's not like they didn't know what they were 'unleashing' as they had all the Go Large data and previous experience, and a sister company in Australia offering unlimited plans.

Oh Telecom, my new XT call failures like a champ, and now your taking my broadband away - can I still dial 111 if I need to?

We didn't want to have a Fair Use Policy for this plan, Go Large had one and it didn't really work out for the best. So with that, we can't just kick people off for having high usage without stating its a possibility at the point of sign up. Which opens the debate of how much is too much.

Tarawera Ultra 2015 done, bring on 2016

drewpoh

7 posts

Wannabe Geek

#332795 21-May-2010 10:17

Man what am I gona move on to now,

I use about 100GB of usage during peak hours, I just called up telecom to find out.

Its not cause I download all day, I work from home as a day trader and I need charts running all day, along with all the youtube, gaming, surfing and other stuff I do to keep me entertained while i work. Guess I'll have to pay $1/GB elsewhere now telecom won't even have a plan to cater for me even if i wanted to pay more (for a home BB plan). Something which is pretty dumb i recon for the biggest telco company in NZ. I've actually been happy with telecom's service for the last like 6 or 7 years (or how ever long ago that go large started, and now big time). Internet actually worked fine, rarely had a problem.

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 230

#332796 21-May-2010 10:17

Would prefer the Govt buy out telecom and fix the s**t up, rather than spend 1.5b on infrastructure alone.

Would save us from the pain.

Would prefer stable environment & low ADSL / ADSL2+ speeds, over having 100mbps and 10-20gb caps..
( obviously the 40-100 gb ISP plans are too costy for the average home environment .. )

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

drewpoh

7 posts

Wannabe Geek

#332798 21-May-2010 10:23

Would prefer stable environment & low ADSL / ADSL2+ speeds, over having 100mbps and 10-20gb caps..
( obviously the 40-100 gb ISP plans are too costy for the average home environment .. )

+1 on this one,

I don't actually need ADSL2+ speeds (its not like its gona make webpages load that much faster due to server end restrictions). I only need about 3Mbits to be comfortable and about 5Mbit and i'm happy. Give us more data rather than faster internet. I hear more people complaining about getting capped than there internet going too slow, or there complaining that its slow cause there capped.

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#332799 21-May-2010 10:24

@NZCrusader

Not sure if serious!

When has a government run anything ever delivered a quality service at a reasonable price?

davidcole

6099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1465

Trusted

#332801 21-May-2010 10:26

doozy:
We didn't want to have a Fair Use Policy for this plan, Go Large had one and it didn't really work out for the best. So with that, we can't just kick people off for having high usage without stating its a possibility at the point of sign up. Which opens the debate of how much is too much.

So why cannot a new plan be created with this fair use policy, and all the shaping in place? With stated conditions up front, if you use x usage, or x percentage of total bandwidth, you will have to move to another plan/be penalised.

Previously known as psycik

Home Assistant: Gigabyte AMD A8 Brix, Home Assistant with Aeotech ZWave Controller, Raspberry PI, Wemos D1 Mini, Zwave, Shelly Humidity and Temperature sensors
Media:Chromecast v2, ATV4 4k, ATV4, HDHomeRun Dual
Server Host Plex Server 3x3TB, 4x4TB using MergerFS, Samsung 850 evo 512 GB SSD, Proxmox Server with 1xW10, 2xUbuntu 22.04 LTS, Backblaze Backups, usenetprime.com fastmail.com Sharesies Trakt.TV Sharesight

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#332802 21-May-2010 10:26

Delete: Viable option

http://www.worldnet.co.nz/personal/dsl/?menu=price

$100 bucka

This is probably the same plan as Big Time, I would expect it to be closed also.

Telecom wholesale went around and drummed up a lot of business last year for reselling mobile and broadband.

Also worldnet has a pretty bad reputation for quality and service.

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 30