Big Time plan removal

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

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 30

180 posts

Master Geek

#332998 21-May-2010 15:31

Flashcards:
ronindanbo:
Flashcards: The current Telecom monopoly was gifted to them by the taxpayer and now this same taxpayer is being hurt by the very same company. I mean, with anything other than a total monopoly (I don't care what it's called by the government or media, it IS a monopoly)

I love how this word is used so much for Telecom as people clearly dont understand what a monopoly is, if a certain firm is the only one that can produce a certain good, it has a monopoly in the market for that good.

There is absolutly nothing stoping TCL, or any other player from building infrastructure to compete with Telecom but the truth is they wont because they dont have to so how does Telecom have a monopoly? Answer is they dont.

This is disingenuous IMHO. The reason no one else invests in redundant (to Telecom) infrastructure is because Telecom was gifted a head start in the first place! It is now no longer economical to do so! Plus, if they did, Telecom would drop their prices in those areas until they were forced out of business. We have already seen this happen before with Telecom and landline/long distance rates and their potential competitors. Telecom is a VORACIOUS and ruthless competitor and the original monopoly it was given by the taxpayer has helped it maintain that monopoly ever since...

Your comment is like someone saying, Microsoft is not a monopoly because anyone can produce a competing Operating System if they want to! We all know that is not the truth just like it is not the truth when someone says Telecom does not have a monopoly in NZ.

Absolutly and totally wrong, the reason no one invests in infrastructure is that they dont have to, if Telecom got into a pricing war it would be totally destroyed, you think TCL Aus would let its subsidiary lose in a war? no and we are talking about a company that is six times the size of Telecom, and dont get me started on Voda that is a monster internationally, it is pure fantasy to think that Telecom could win against these players they would chew it up and spit it out if they wanted to.

Flashcards

95 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

flashcards.co.nz

#333005 21-May-2010 15:48

ronindanbo:
Flashcards:
ronindanbo:
Flashcards: The current Telecom monopoly was gifted to them by the taxpayer and now this same taxpayer is being hurt by the very same company. I mean, with anything other than a total monopoly (I don't care what it's called by the government or media, it IS a monopoly)

I love how this word is used so much for Telecom as people clearly dont understand what a monopoly is, if a certain firm is the only one that can produce a certain good, it has a monopoly in the market for that good.

There is absolutly nothing stoping TCL, or any other player from building infrastructure to compete with Telecom but the truth is they wont because they dont have to so how does Telecom have a monopoly? Answer is they dont.

This is disingenuous IMHO. The reason no one else invests in redundant (to Telecom) infrastructure is because Telecom was gifted a head start in the first place! It is now no longer economical to do so! Plus, if they did, Telecom would drop their prices in those areas until they were forced out of business. We have already seen this happen before with Telecom and landline/long distance rates and their potential competitors. Telecom is a VORACIOUS and ruthless competitor and the original monopoly it was given by the taxpayer has helped it maintain that monopoly ever since...

Your comment is like someone saying, Microsoft is not a monopoly because anyone can produce a competing Operating System if they want to! We all know that is not the truth just like it is not the truth when someone says Telecom does not have a monopoly in NZ.

Absolutly and totally wrong, the reason no one invests in infrastructure is that they dont have to, if Telecom got into a pricing war it would be totally destroyed, you think TCL Aus would let its subsidiary lose in a war? no and we are talking about a company that is six times the size of Telecom, and dont get me started on Voda that is a monster internationally, it is pure fantasy to think that Telecom could win against these players they would chew it up and spit it out if they wanted to.

Wrong, it is simply that their money gets a better return elsewhere. There is no business case for them to invest in infrastrcuture here precisely because Telecoms' infrastructure is already in place. You are simply proving my point! If Telecom did not have a monopoly then it would be economically viable for its competitors to invest in the infrastructure here. Imagine a NZ where there was NO telco infrastructure at all. Who would end up with marketshare in this country once all was said and done? I can almost guarantee you that Telecom would not have 85% of the customer pie, that's for sure...

SauronJones

42 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#333019 21-May-2010 16:09

Flashcards:
ronindanbo:
Flashcards:
ronindanbo:
Flashcards: The current Telecom monopoly was gifted to them by the taxpayer and now this same taxpayer is being hurt by the very same company. I mean, with anything other than a total monopoly (I don't care what it's called by the government or media, it IS a monopoly)

I love how this word is used so much for Telecom as people clearly dont understand what a monopoly is, if a certain firm is the only one that can produce a certain good, it has a monopoly in the market for that good.

There is absolutly nothing stoping TCL, or any other player from building infrastructure to compete with Telecom but the truth is they wont because they dont have to so how does Telecom have a monopoly? Answer is they dont.

This is disingenuous IMHO. The reason no one else invests in redundant (to Telecom) infrastructure is because Telecom was gifted a head start in the first place! It is now no longer economical to do so! Plus, if they did, Telecom would drop their prices in those areas until they were forced out of business. We have already seen this happen before with Telecom and landline/long distance rates and their potential competitors. Telecom is a VORACIOUS and ruthless competitor and the original monopoly it was given by the taxpayer has helped it maintain that monopoly ever since...

Your comment is like someone saying, Microsoft is not a monopoly because anyone can produce a competing Operating System if they want to! We all know that is not the truth just like it is not the truth when someone says Telecom does not have a monopoly in NZ.

Absolutly and totally wrong, the reason no one invests in infrastructure is that they dont have to, if Telecom got into a pricing war it would be totally destroyed, you think TCL Aus would let its subsidiary lose in a war? no and we are talking about a company that is six times the size of Telecom, and dont get me started on Voda that is a monster internationally, it is pure fantasy to think that Telecom could win against these players they would chew it up and spit it out if they wanted to.

Wrong, it is simply that their money gets a better return elsewhere. There is no business case for them to invest in infrastrcuture here precisely because Telecoms' infrastructure is already in place. You are simply proving my point! If Telecom did not have a monopoly then it would be economically viable for its competitors to invest in the infrastructure here. Imagine a NZ where there was NO telco infrastructure at all. Who would end up with marketshare in this country once all was said and done? I can almost guarantee you that Telecom would not have 85% of the customer pie, that's for sure...

Monopoly or not, aren't we agreed that the biggest problem is the high cost of international bandwidth? This bandwidth costs Telecom money, and obviously these costs are passed onto the consumer.

The priority should be investments to improve international bandwidth and bring it's price down, so that those savings can be passed onto us - the consumer.

Arguments over who controls the national infrastructure seem pointless to me.

I Am Jack's Medulla Oblongata

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 70

Trusted

#333048 21-May-2010 16:51

Well i think it's a little dissappointing as was considering signing up for our other net connection into the house to prevent unseemly bills from what the young ones in the house get. Oh well there goes that idea.
:-(

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#333082 21-May-2010 17:40

SauronJones:

Monopoly or not, aren't we agreed that the biggest problem is the high cost of international bandwidth? This bandwidth costs Telecom money, and obviously these costs are passed onto the consumer.

The priority should be investments to improve international bandwidth and bring it's price down, so that those savings can be passed onto us - the consumer.

Arguments over who controls the national infrastructure seem pointless to me.

ADSL port cost and national bandwidth/backhaul costs are as significant as international bandwidth prices in the equation.

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 70

Trusted

#333089 21-May-2010 17:55

Well my opinion is a second pipeline the country would help make for true competition and be good for all (assuming it's not owned by whomever owns the southern cross one right now)

Of course we can always count on fibre to the home being available sometime fown the track which increases speeds (and most likely costs) sorry but National dropped the ball there who cares great speeds are great but who would have thought that National would be pushing something that will only be useful to the rich few who can afford it. (Please note that is 100% sarcasm if you didn't pick up on that hehe).

The loss of all you can eat plans sucks for those who like the idea of regulated and assured costs with their net accesses. As at the end of the day the bill payer is not always the only person using the connection that style of plan gives a great way of avoiding exhorbatant over data cap charges (or throttling). What we need is for competition to truly happen lowering either the prices or increasing the usage so people have the chance to use the internet as they feel happy with and at a level of cost that suits them also.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Flashcards

95 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

flashcards.co.nz

#333093 21-May-2010 18:00

jtbthatsme: Well my opinion is a second pipeline the country would help make for true competition and be good for all (assuming it's not owned by whomever owns the southern cross one right now)

Of course we can always count on fibre to the home being available sometime fown the track which increases speeds (and most likely costs) sorry but National dropped the ball there who cares great speeds are great but who would have thought that National would be pushing something that will only be useful to the rich few who can afford it. (Please note that is 100% sarcasm if you didn't pick up on that hehe).

The loss of all you can eat plans sucks for those who like the idea of regulated and assured costs with their net accesses. As at the end of the day the bill payer is not always the only person using the connection that style of plan gives a great way of avoiding exhorbatant over data cap charges (or throttling). What we need is for competition to truly happen lowering either the prices or increasing the usage so people have the chance to use the internet as they feel happy with and at a level of cost that suits them also.

The SCC is owned by Telecom New Zealand (50%), SingTel Optus (40%) and Verizon Business (10%):
http://www.southerncrosscables.com/public/AboutUs/default.cfm?PageID=9

Do you think these players will allow a 2nd pipe into NZ WITHOUT owning at least a significant portion of it? That emphasises my point about Telecom's monopoly status. It allows them to leverage that monopoly to control current AND future telecommunications infrastructure in this country. In that sense we will ALWAYS be at their mercy - and they KNOW IT.

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#333096 21-May-2010 18:04

Some things people complaining about international bandwidth pricing have overlooked:

SXC pricing has consistently fallen year on year, do I need to post the graph of capacity vs price per GB again?

ISP's in NZ are too small to buy direct from SXC (apart from Telecom and Telstra), most ISP's buy from resellers like Pacnet/Asianetcom, Vocus or Verizon/AlterNet/MCI. Telecom and Telstra effectively buy from themselves (Global Gateway, Reach).

SXC pricing for NZ is the same as for AU.

In AU SXC competes with the AJC and PIPE cables

SXC = Southern Cross Cable
AJC = Australian Japan Cable
PIPE = Pipe International Cable

Naturally more operators or increased competition will lead to lower prices.

Pacific Fibre are finding funding to build another cable to the US right now.

The French government are funding a cable through the French pacific that may land at NZ or AU.

... I believe there is little need for the government to fund another submarine cable to the US currently.

cafeg

697 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 33

Trusted

#333099 21-May-2010 18:14

Just found this on a trademe forum ...
Don't know how accurate it is..
Anyone seen this yet ?

UPDATE: Telecom has released the following statement:

"Customers using the Big Time plan will be communicated with in the coming months and given advanced notice before we need to move them to another option. We will look at their average data usage and recommend the best option for them.

"Those with high data use may suit the Pro plan so from July we are adjusting the price of overage on our Pro plan (monthly plan price of $79.95) which has the largest monthly data allowance (40GB) ? previously it was $20 per Gigabyte (GB) and it will be $2 per GB (or part thereof).

"We appreciate that there will be a small number of extreme users who will not be happy with this outcome

Flashcards

95 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

flashcards.co.nz

#333101 21-May-2010 18:17

cafeg: Just found this on a trademe forum ...
Don't know how accurate it is..
Anyone seen this yet ?

UPDATE: Telecom has released the following statement:

"Customers using the Big Time plan will be communicated with in the coming months and given advanced notice before we need to move them to another option. We will look at their average data usage and recommend the best option for them.

"Those with high data use may suit the Pro plan so from July we are adjusting the price of overage on our Pro plan (monthly plan price of $79.95) which has the largest monthly data allowance (40GB) ? previously it was $20 per Gigabyte (GB) and it will be $2 per GB (or part thereof).

"We appreciate that there will be a small number of extreme users who will not be happy with this outcome

Have you been living under a rock?

That is what this entire thread is all about.

cafeg

697 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 33

Trusted

#333103 21-May-2010 18:22

yeah i know,
but its the first time I have seen this statement about the $2 a gigabyte for overages on the pro plan.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

cafeg

697 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 33

Trusted

#333104 21-May-2010 18:39

Ok, hows this for a pickle.
I just rang telecom to find out how much my monthly usage has been on Bigtime so I know which plan to change to when changes happen.
And guess what, all they can see is the same as I can see on my usage page:
0.00 used since last december

He tried to sell me a 20 gig plan which we would probly use up in a week.
The last time I could see our usage last year we were using 80 to 100 gig a month.
We have 3 overseas uni students in the house which are heavy users as most students are.

The CSR I spoke to knew nothing about the $2 per gig on the PRO plan from july either...

Kilack

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Trusted

#333107 21-May-2010 19:04

cafeg: Ok, hows this for a pickle.
I just rang telecom to find out how much my monthly usage has been on Bigtime so I know which plan to change to when changes happen.
And guess what, all they can see is the same as I can see on my usage page:
0.00 used since last december

He tried to sell me a 20 gig plan which we would probly use up in a week.
The last time I could see our usage last year we were using 80 to 100 gig a month.
We have 3 overseas uni students in the house which are heavy users as most students are.

The CSR I spoke to knew nothing about the $2 per gig on the PRO plan from july either...

Again, have you been living under a rock? the CSR's at telecom are the _last_ people to know anything.
They are usually informed by angry customers :)

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#333109 21-May-2010 19:10

Because CSRs are not in the loop. They are on the other side of the world and are good ol' granny's slaves when she can't recieve her email for some reason.

They could be replaced with a robot (they have been to some extent) and nobody would notice.

If I can't get on pro for less than 79 dollars per month...I'm moving back to Actrix. At least they kept their end of the deal for more than a year.

exportgoldman

1202 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3

Trusted

#333115 21-May-2010 19:33

ronindanbo: I love it when people think they know what happened, Telecom didnt falsely advertise the service for Go Large the developer of the traffic shaping machinery did not manage to deliver what was required by Telecom at the time. The only thing Telecom were guilty of was panicking and releasing the product anyway despite thier testers (ne included) telling them the product wasent right. It was a marketing decision which was driven by threats from the commerce commision.

Incidentally people like you are probably to blame for the loss of this current service. Workplaces should definitly not be using a product of this type, I remember in the Go Large time alot of the huge downloaders were businesses trying to do thing on the cheap at the expence of the average consumer.

I have to disagree, and so does the commerce commission, and Telecom which from memory pleeded guilty to false advertising, but I'm getting side tracked.

I have to say that a business using at most approx 20GB of international traffic, and the rest data from local Telecom caches for Windows Updates/Youtube was far less likely to make Telecom withdraw Big Time than home users like myself using 200GB of international traffic...

Why do you think businesses shouldn't use a service like Big Time, when Telecom had no problems with businesses using the plan?

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

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 30