Telecom pushes for broadband partnership

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Telecom pushes for broadband partnership

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#403951 12-Nov-2010 16:55

LAC: But what if you are with someone that is also the network operator?

you can't be - that is the reason why Telecom would have to separate if they won the bid.

If Telecom wins the bid for UFB they must separate. so Chorus would build the network and Telecom, a totally separate company, would be one of many retailers who would sell it.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79316 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#403956 12-Nov-2010 17:12

LAC:
freitasm:
LAC: What do you all think about this? Do you think its a good idea that Telecom rape this idea? Lol?! :(

What do you think, and more importantly, why do you think it?

Well I feel Telecom has been unfair when it comes to broadband with there unrealistic broadband caps. The internet is meant to be fun and exciting. If Telecom run the UFB network then they would make another unrealistic bandwdith cap or make you pay unrealistic amounts.

Telecom did not set "unrealistic broadband caps" to other ISPs. If you don't like the plans Telecom is selling you are welcome to join other ISP. But don't blame Telecom if you find other ISPs don't have "realistic broadband caps"... And good luck finding ISPs with decent plans.

I think you are getting confused between the company that sells access and the company the sells services to consumers...

Ragnor

8223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#403957 12-Nov-2010 17:12

Beccara: Telecom and Vodafone along with a couple of other players already share tower space, I doubt this leopard has changed it's spots enough that companies wanting access to these open towers wont be hit with a $500k "integration testing" fee or some such method to cripple access to these towers

Hmm maybe they are sharing some towers, but in a heck of a lot of places there are separate Telecom and Vodafone towers.

robbyp

1199 posts

Uber Geek

#403960 12-Nov-2010 17:22

Ragnor:

Internet access needs to become a commodity/utility like power and water. Cheap, fast and ubiquitous.

I don't think you could call power cheap, after it was deregualted, or water for that matter. We are paying ALOT more than we were for both, than we were 10 years ago. However the same couldn't be said for interenet, based on the cost per GB of bandwidth usage.

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#403962 12-Nov-2010 17:23

freitasm:
LAC:
freitasm:
LAC: What do you all think about this? Do you think its a good idea that Telecom rape this idea? Lol?! :(

What do you think, and more importantly, why do you think it?

Well I feel Telecom has been unfair when it comes to broadband with there unrealistic broadband caps. The internet is meant to be fun and exciting. If Telecom run the UFB network then they would make another unrealistic bandwdith cap or make you pay unrealistic amounts.

Telecom did not set "unrealistic broadband caps" to other ISPs. If you don't like the plans Telecom is selling you are welcome to join other ISP. But don't blame Telecom if you find other ISPs don't have "realistic broadband caps"... And good luck finding ISPs with decent plans.

I think you are getting confused between the company that sells access and the company the sells services to consumers...

Maybe, but I don't understand how you would call a broadband plan that is 40GB "pro" and say its for gamers when I can go online and play Halo Reach for 1 hour and clock up to 11GB just for that, meaning I could only play for 3 hours a month. And also whats the whole point in those flash websites such as TVNZ on Demand and others that would suck you dry within hours for use? And no I'm not confused at all, I'm just worried that if Telecom got a hold of this they would be unfair as to how we would be able to get it.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79316 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#403963 12-Nov-2010 17:27

LAC:
freitasm:
LAC:
freitasm:
LAC: What do you all think about this? Do you think its a good idea that Telecom rape this idea? Lol?! :(

What do you think, and more importantly, why do you think it?

Well I feel Telecom has been unfair when it comes to broadband with there unrealistic broadband caps. The internet is meant to be fun and exciting. If Telecom run the UFB network then they would make another unrealistic bandwdith cap or make you pay unrealistic amounts.

Telecom did not set "unrealistic broadband caps" to other ISPs. If you don't like the plans Telecom is selling you are welcome to join other ISP. But don't blame Telecom if you find other ISPs don't have "realistic broadband caps"... And good luck finding ISPs with decent plans.

I think you are getting confused between the company that sells access and the company the sells services to consumers...

Maybe, but I don't understand how you would call a broadband plan that is 40GB "pro" and say its for gamers when I can go online and play Halo Reach for 1 hour and clock up to 11GB just for that, meaning I could only play for 3 hours a month. And also whats the whole point in those flash websites such as TVNZ on Demand and others that would suck you dry within hours for use? And no I'm not confused at all, I'm just worried that if Telecom got a hold of this they would be unfair as to how we would be able to get it.

You have all the rights to just change ISPs if you are not happy with the current plan Telecom offers. But saying "Do you think its a good idea that Telecom rape this idea?" is a bit too far - there are plenty of other ISPs around offering all sorts of different plans - even "unlimited" plans.

The "Telecom" that wants to partner with the government is not the same "Telecom" selling broadband to you. They are distinct companies that by law have distinct businesses and cannot play favourites.

richms

28218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#403966 12-Nov-2010 17:41

graemeh:

There is no reason for the UFB operator to impose unrealistic bandwidth caps as they are going to be selling simple bulk access, it is the ISP that will have to impose limits to stop their network getting flooded. :)

Yet here we are with unrealistic regulated backhaul capacity causing ISPs that want to offer closer to realistic caps problems with it all turning to crap in peak times.

Only usable ISP thruout the evening that people I know have tried (some of which have been thru almost all of the big name ones) has been telecom, Wonder why that is.

So yes, there is a way that any UFB operator can cause stupidly low caps to be a nessesicity of any ISPs selling over it, as telecom/chorus do at the moment for ALL non unbundled ISPs.

Richard rich.ms

Sharesies

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

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79316 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#403970 12-Nov-2010 17:47

richms:
graemeh:

There is no reason for the UFB operator to impose unrealistic bandwidth caps as they are going to be selling simple bulk access, it is the ISP that will have to impose limits to stop their network getting flooded. :)

Yet here we are with unrealistic regulated backhaul capacity causing ISPs that want to offer closer to realistic caps problems with it all turning to crap in peak times.

Only usable ISP thruout the evening that people I know have tried (some of which have been thru almost all of the big name ones) has been telecom, Wonder why that is.

So yes, there is a way that any UFB operator can cause stupidly low caps to be a nessesicity of any ISPs selling over it, as telecom/chorus do at the moment for ALL non unbundled ISPs.

I have no problems with TelstraClear at all.

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#403971 12-Nov-2010 17:52

Unlimited? Show me a ISP that offers unlimited bandwidth?!

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79316 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#403972 12-Nov-2010 17:54

LAC: Unlimited? Show me a ISP that offers unlimited bandwidth?!

Slingshot, WorldxChange.

And it's not bandwidth, but traffic. Bandwidth is limited by how "wide" is the pipe (measured in Mbps).

Actually all ISPs have "unlimited" traffic. It just happens that in some plans you have to pay for what's used in excess of what's included in the plan... You know, like in "you pay for what you use" type of thing.

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#403973 12-Nov-2010 17:57

Ok then Erm show me an ISP at offers unlimited "traffic" then.

richms

28218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#403979 12-Nov-2010 18:14

Slingshot have the all you can eat plan, but its like going to an buffet and they only give you a toothpick and a saucer to eat with.

And of course you have no problems Mauricio, telstra clear are both the loop operator and ISP for cable, so are in the same position that telecom are on the adsl network at the moment with being able to provide better service than anyone else on the network will be able to.

Richard rich.ms

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79316 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#403985 12-Nov-2010 18:21

LAC: Ok then Erm show me an ISP at offers unlimited "traffic" then.

How much would you be prepared to pay for the service?

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#403986 12-Nov-2010 18:25

$60.

pauln

55 posts

Master Geek

#403999 12-Nov-2010 18:58

Posting from my mobile and haven't figured out how to quote but LAC mentioned 11GBs per hour, wow you must have a great connection. If we do the maths, 11GBs = 88Gbs. Divide by 3600 gives 24.4 Mbps, even if you were on a symmetrical connection that would be a constant data rate up over 12Mbps up and down for the entire hour. As I said wow or have I got my maths wrong? For the sake of calculations I have gone with a GB is 1000 MBs etc

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5