Telecom Next Generation Network

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Telecom Next Generation Network

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

36 posts

Geek

#26197 12-Jan-2006 00:07

In regards to the polulation yes it does have an impact on the company. Any company will tell you this.

As to the NGN trial specs im not going to release that information as its confidential and things are going to change as its a TRIAL. All im saying is that its an awesome serice and nz should be happy we are finally getting world class technology. Im personally look forward to it.

paradoxsm

3000 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#26198 12-Jan-2006 00:11

What happened to "homeline economy", that plan where you pay $25.75 a month and pay 20c for local calls, up to two hours.. I liked it, user pays and I just don't make local calls but had Jetstream and a landline for people to phone me on. I never had a bill over $30 including local calls. It seemed much more sensible,
Mum is in a rural area so I gave her that plan as you can't get it anymore, Her local call area is two little hick towns.

that was telecoms answer to the "why do we pay $39.95" but it was axed last year.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#26213 12-Jan-2006 08:00

paradoxsm: What happened to "homeline economy", that plan where you pay $25.75 a month and pay 20c for local calls, up to two hours.. I liked it, user pays and I just don't make local calls but had Jetstream and a landline for people to phone me on. I never had a bill over $30 including local calls. It seemed much more sensible,
Mum is in a rural area so I gave her that plan as you can't get it anymore, Her local call area is two little hick towns.

that was telecoms answer to the "why do we pay $39.95" but it was axed last year.

Quite simply Telecom had large numbers of customers with DSL moving over to this plan since they no longer needed to pay for dialup so they put an end to it. At the end of the day Telecom were effectively charging around $15 per month for unlimited local calls if you compare both plans. The large numbers of people moving was enough evidence to them that people no longer consider free local calling an essential service but Telecom still stock to their line that it's what people want. Just because the kiwi share sais local calling must remain free didn't mean people didn't want to pay for them.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79316 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#26219 12-Jan-2006 09:06

New and Move: If people are moaning about the $39.95 rental fee on landlines now, in a couple of days you are going to be spitting tacks when telecom will give their press release with regards to the new rental charges.

There's now a new thread to discuss the Telecom rental price increase. Please use that for this OT.

mpmorrison

42 posts

Geek

#26222 12-Jan-2006 09:14

Nz_Dude: In regards to the polulation yes it does have an impact on the company. Any company will tell you this.

As to the NGN trial specs im not going to release that information as its confidential and things are going to change as its a TRIAL. All im saying is that its an awesome serice and nz should be happy we are finally getting world class technology. Im personally look forward to it.

"finally getting world class technology" - **finally** being the operative word in NZ's case. We are going to be one of the last developed countries in the world to move to ADSL2 or one of its variants. Which also negates the phrase "world class technology" - unless you take "world class" to mean "something the rest of the world is already taking for granted".

Yes - the increase in performance will be welcome (when we actually get it), but it is taking awhile.

And the whole "population size doesn't help" argument is true for the typical NZ company. But also remember that Telecom is operating in NZ, and $916 million profit indicates a rather large economoy of scale in most countries, let alone NZ. For example, scaling up for US population of 280 million compared with our 4 million gives.... $64 billion - which every US company would be damn happy to get.
And compared to the $1.4 billion they're spending over 7 years, well it only really takes them a year and a half to make that money, out of profits (seeing as they should already have attributed a large portion of that $1.4billion to expenses already).

And we thought Communism was good at screwing the plebs...

Jama

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#26224 12-Jan-2006 09:24

Capitalism is better at screwing plebs.

Don't forget not all TComs revenue is from 'screwing plebs'. They are also one of the largest IT integrators (Gen-i).

If you read the annual report you would see that out of a revenue of $5.6b, $1b came from IT services.

mpmorrison

42 posts

Geek

#26225 12-Jan-2006 09:27

It doesn't really matter what sector they're making the money from - they're making it in NZ, so they can't really use the "NZ is to small" excuse if they're making that much money - if it was that small, they wouldn't be making that much money.

Sharesies

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

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#26228 12-Jan-2006 10:05

mpmorrison: But also remember that Telecom is operating in NZ, and $916 million profit indicates a rather large economoy of scale in most countries, let alone NZ. For example, scaling up for US population of 280 million compared with our 4 million gives.... $64 billion - which every US company would be damn happy to get.

I dont really buy into that way of thinking. Look at NZs geography and low population density compared any of the top 50 US cities, and then try and match the figures up. Its completely different.

By the time you split Telcoms profit across its different focus areas, the profits arent that staggering. (Gen-i, Mobile, Data, Fixed Line voice etc etc).

Its only through profit that companys can re-invest and make things better. People want to slash costs, up their speeds, up their caps, oh and by the way, can i also have an NGN included in all the extra service and lower price....

When Telecom builds the NGN, should they have to provide access to competitors? I dont think so, the govt never sold off an NGN, why should they regulate access to it?

UMTS is promising high speeds, perhaps an NGN would be viable over that technology within a decade? Then Whoosh and Vodafone could do it too....?

I'll stop ranting and wait to be shot down now... :-)

And compared to the $1.4 billion they're spending over 7 years, well it only really takes them a year and a half to make that money, out of profits (seeing as they should already have attributed a large portion of that $1.4billion to expenses already).

Do you really think Telecom can that proportion of its profits back into networks?

And we thought Communism was good at screwing the plebs...

Its nothing to do with Capitalism or Communism, its the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. :-)

mpmorrison

42 posts

Geek

#26232 12-Jan-2006 10:36

Firstly, i know it hasn't got anything to do with Communism, I was just saying that the end result is that the plebs are losing out.
And in comparison to the US, I was saying that Telecom can make that kind of money, even with NZ's geography and low population density.

Anyway - good points about allowing access. The trouble is, where do you draw the line? The NGN actually uses the same copper to the home, and as far as I know the same fibre backhaul, as the current PSTN which ADSL is run over.
The thing that is changing is the equipment in the exchanges etc., along with internal equipment to provide the services. So, Telecom aren't actually putting in a new network, but new network equipment. Who knows what the government think of Telecom sharing this equipment.
Actually, I think that Telecom has already put in a lot of the new network stuff, but are running it capped at the old rates until they able to switch the whole network over, as they need to have end-to-end compatibility to implement the NGN stuff.

And lastly, about the different sectors that make up Telecom - with the new network, I think they'll be able to provide their different products and services over the one network - which will probably save them in the long run, so they may be able to invest profits from several sectors.
The point I was trying to make with the $1.4 billion against a years profit means that over 7 years, it qould be the equivalent to 1.5 years worth going to expenditure, and 5.5 years worth of actual profit. If they can use the NGN for several lines of business, it'll be an impressive ROI.

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#26264 12-Jan-2006 13:49

mpmorrison: The trouble is, where do you draw the line?

Doesnt matter where you draw it, there will always be someone with a compelling arguement as to why its wrong...

The NGN actually uses the same copper to the home, and as far as I know the same fibre backhaul, as the current PSTN which ADSL is run over.
The thing that is changing is the equipment in the exchanges etc., along with internal equipment to provide the services. So, Telecom aren't actually putting in a new network, but new network equipment. Who knows what the government think of Telecom sharing this equipment.

Correct (as far as i know).

Heres a theory - Telecom fights tooth and nail against unbundling, then the day the NGN goes live, they say 'ok, have access to the copper, see if we care' and deliver amazing service over the NGN equipment, whilst other players would have to buy DSLAMs and still not be able to compete on price or speed with the NGN ??

The point I was trying to make with the $1.4 billion against a years profit

Oops, sorry :-)

Grantis

174 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#26278 12-Jan-2006 17:15

Disenchanted:
When Telecom builds the NGN, should they have to provide access to competitors? I dont think so, the govt never sold off an NGN, why should they regulate access to it?

The NZ Government have already regulated that if any new mobile company enters the market, they only have to provide an initial 10% coverage, then they can scab off any other established network. A prime example of this is Econet, who have stated they will build a GSM/UMTS Network in New Zealand (which only Vodafone have) & then they can scab off Vodafones substantial investment for far less cost & reap the rewards of superior coverage, than they would otherwise have. Meanwhile, Telecom get away with it "Scott Free".

IMHO, the NZ Government are being completely two faced about the whole Telecommunications Industry, ie it's ok to "unbundle" in the Mobile networks, but not in the fixed line networks. The whole issue smacks off underhand tactics by Telecom (& a Government with no balls) if you ask me, especially when you consider the letter that Therea Gattung wrote to Paul Swain last year. For those of you who aren't aware of the Telecom letter & Annette Presley's (CEO of Slingshot) response to it, which she sent to David Cunliffe, it can be viewed here;
Annette Presley's Letter to David Cunliffe

jpwise

590 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#26283 12-Jan-2006 17:55

Disenchanted: Please hyperlink your URLs, its not hard!!! Before you type a URL, just click this button and fill in the gaps or if that option is not available on your browser, then check out this article on how to hyperlink.

Doesn't work in firefox. :( the buttons that is.

On the upside, if you run firefox and you're having problems with people not linking get Linkification - https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=190

It turns pretty much anything that 'looks' like a link into a link. Email address's, http links, etc.etc.

Jp.

Working for Service Plus - www.serviceplus.co.nz

Authorised Service Agent for Apple, BenQ, Sony, and Toshiba - warranty & non-warranty repairs.

SNicolle

539 posts

Ultimate Geek

#26293 12-Jan-2006 19:50

i use the autocopy plugin in firefox, so i highlight ctrl-t ctrl-v and i have the link in a new tab and i'm happy

cokemaster

Exited
4930 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#26297 12-Jan-2006 19:57

Grantis: ....
The NZ Government have already regulated that if any new mobile company enters the market, they only have to provide an initial 10% coverage, then they can scab off any other established network. A prime example of this is Econet, who have stated they will build a GSM/UMTS Network in New Zealand (which only Vodafone have) & then they can scab off Vodafones substantial investment for far less cost & reap the rewards of superior coverage, than they would otherwise have. Meanwhile, Telecom get away with it "Scott Free".

I think you'll find that if Econet had invested in a CDMA network rather than a GSM/UMTS network... the situation would be reversed.

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

Grantis

174 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#26301 12-Jan-2006 20:14

cokemaster:
I think you'll find that if Econet had invested in a CDMA network rather than a GSM/UMTS network... the situation would be reversed.

Obviously, but it wasn't. So Telecom get continued protection for their fixed line local loop & their mobile network, how ironic!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7