Big Time plan removal

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

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ... | 30

697 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 33

Trusted

#333118 21-May-2010 19:34

Well, if telecom made a plan of $1.02 a gig for usage the same as Xnet has or even $1 a gig for overages then I would be interested.

I just looked at actrix and they are $104.95 a month for 50 gig if you have tolls with them $114.95 without tolls.

I might be back to xnet @ $1.02 a gig if it doesn't all work out..

exportgoldman

1202 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3

Trusted

#333119 21-May-2010 19:37

freitasm:
nzpossum: Why not give people unlimited off peak data

Why don't we make free self-service petrol from 1am through 6am?

Yes please :-)

And if the petrol station paid a fixed price per pump, instead of per litre then yes it would be much more viable. Apples and Oranges my friend. Now wheres my free petrol :)

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

Kilack

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Trusted

#333122 21-May-2010 19:48

exportgoldman:
freitasm:
nzpossum: Why not give people unlimited off peak data

Why don't we make free self-service petrol from 1am through 6am?

Yes please :-)

And if the petrol station paid a fixed price per pump, instead of per litre then yes it would be much more viable. Apples and Oranges my friend. Now wheres my free petrol :)

Yes very different. It does go to show though that many people still have in their mind that ISP's are paying for the amount of data rather than the size of the pipe which are very different things and can be managed completely differently.

crazed

484 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 26

Trusted

#333127 21-May-2010 20:06

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

Was mentioned here by Doozy on page 3 # 332143 posted on 20-MAY-2010 10:06

doozy:
Yes, in July overage for the Pro plan will be changed to $2 per GB down from $20

To be specific :D

CraZeD,
Your friendly Southern Geeky Fellow :P

doozy

245 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10

Trusted

#333130 21-May-2010 20:18

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...

Sorry about that, it was definitely communicated out to them all, I haven't kind mastered the art of forcing people to retain information.

Tarawera Ultra 2015 done, bring on 2016

cafeg

697 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 33

Trusted

#333132 21-May-2010 20:31

Cool, Thanks for confirming that Doozy !

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

SauronJones

42 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#333139 21-May-2010 21:12

Flashcards:
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.

I didn't realise Telecom had that large a share in the SXC.

SauronJones

42 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#333142 21-May-2010 21:25

Ragnor: 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.

If SXC pricing for NZ is the same as AU how come they can have plans like the one mentioned earlier in this thread (80GB peak and 220GB off-peak) for a relatively affordable price and we can't.

Am I incorrect in my previous belief that the international bandwidth is a big problem? Or is it that if these higher capped plans were allowed it is, in fact, the local infrastructure that could not handle the additional load?

I'm just keen to understand how it works, and don't want to be making arguments based on false assumptions.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41137

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#333144 21-May-2010 21:28

Kilack:
exportgoldman:
freitasm:
nzpossum: Why not give people unlimited off peak data

Why don't we make free self-service petrol from 1am through 6am?

Yes please :-)

And if the petrol station paid a fixed price per pump, instead of per litre then yes it would be much more viable. Apples and Oranges my friend. Now wheres my free petrol :)

Yes very different. It does go to show though that many people still have in their mind that ISP's are paying for the amount of data rather than the size of the pipe which are very different things and can be managed completely differently.

I know they are different. If you folks missed the sarcasm in my post, the "this is a rethorical question" should've given that away.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

SparX711

7 posts

Wannabe Geek
Inactive user

#333145 21-May-2010 21:28

doozy:
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.

Quoted for prosterity...

Ruffle a feather did i ?

My response is to Phrozen's suggestion of a possible conspiracy. i don't give a fig how you or telecom justifies this course of action and my original stance is still that Telecom have FAILED to effectively manage the bigtime plan as it was intended.

SparX711

7 posts

Wannabe Geek
Inactive user

#333146 21-May-2010 21:29

freitasm:
nzpossum: Why not give people unlimited off peak data

Why don't we make free self-service petrol from 1am through 6am?

No need to answer. It's a rethorical question.

Hostile response to a potentially genuine idea and this is a stance you often present. I know i have only just joined so i can post my humble opinions but i have been reading for quite some time. i find your attitude towards other posters lacking perspective and consideration.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

SauronJones

42 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#333147 21-May-2010 21:30

Ragnor:
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.

I'm not technically versed in the costs associated with the different types of infrastructure. Would fibre to the door lower these costs?

Kilack

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Trusted

#333148 21-May-2010 21:31

freitasm:
Kilack:
exportgoldman:
freitasm:
nzpossum: Why not give people unlimited off peak data

Why don't we make free self-service petrol from 1am through 6am?

Yes please :-)

And if the petrol station paid a fixed price per pump, instead of per litre then yes it would be much more viable. Apples and Oranges my friend. Now wheres my free petrol :)

Yes very different. It does go to show though that many people still have in their mind that ISP's are paying for the amount of data rather than the size of the pipe which are very different things and can be managed completely differently.

I know they are different. If you folks missed the sarcasm in my post, the "this is a rethorical question" should've given that away.

heh sorry mate that wasn't meant to aim at you but I was just meaning generally.. A lot of people don't actually realise the way that large ISP's buy the data.

Kilack

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9

Trusted

#333150 21-May-2010 21:36

SauronJones:
Ragnor: 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.

If SXC pricing for NZ is the same as AU how come they can have plans like the one mentioned earlier in this thread (80GB peak and 220GB off-peak) for a relatively affordable price and we can't.

Am I incorrect in my previous belief that the international bandwidth is a big problem? Or is it that if these higher capped plans were allowed it is, in fact, the local infrastructure that could not handle the additional load?

I'm just keen to understand how it works, and don't want to be making arguments based on false assumptions.

NZ pricing on the southern cross cable is supposed to be pegged to the Australian prices under an agreement.

Can't answer your other question abut why we end up paying more though.

NZ'ers generally pay more for everything though, its just accepted generally. Don't fight it.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#333152 21-May-2010 21:38

Flashcards: 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.

And you'd be wrong. Kordia is already in the process of constructing a second cable to Australia (at which point one could simply peer with one of the larger competitive pipes from there)

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ... | 30