New Telecom Skinny Prepay Brand

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › New Telecom Skinny Prepay Brand

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 16

1937 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#556119 9-Dec-2011 21:48

codyc1515:
sbiddle: The scary thing is the Commerce Commission investigating it. Remember their job isn't to be fair or impartial.

Just remember these are the people who set your broadband pricing in NZ due to regulated wholesale pricing that has fundamental flaws in the methodology, and who made credit card surcharges legal, while every other competition regulator in the world is trying to get rid of them.

Would you say that if the outcome is that it is anti-competitive that they are working in NZs best interests?

Slight topic diversion - I currently have a query in with the Commerce Commission about their stance on CC surcharges which are benefitting me as the consumer.

On a $1 Air New Zealand fare I pay a $3.50 credit card surcharge.

My question to the commission is what their thoughts are on a 350% credit card surcharge?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79288 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#556120 9-Dec-2011 21:52

This is a huge off topic question. If you want to get into that please create a new topic.

ahmad

1937 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#556121 9-Dec-2011 21:53

freitasm: This is a huge off topic question. If you want to get into that please create a new topic.

I wasn't intending to take it off though. It was only as it related to the Commerce Commission and their "benefits" to competition.

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#556137 9-Dec-2011 22:29

codyc1515:
sbiddle: The scary thing is the Commerce Commission investigating it. Remember their job isn't to be fair or impartial.

Just remember these are the people who set your broadband pricing in NZ due to regulated wholesale pricing that has fundamental flaws in the methodology, and who made credit card surcharges legal, while every other competition regulator in the world is trying to get rid of them.

Would you say that if the outcome is that it is anti-competitive that they are working in NZs best interests?

i still say that a sim locked handset that works across all networks is less anticompetitive than a line up of handsets that dont work on all networks.

if the phones were frequency locked, would we even be having this arguement?

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#556149 9-Dec-2011 22:47

Regs:
codyc1515:
sbiddle: The scary thing is the Commerce Commission investigating it. Remember their job isn't to be fair or impartial.

Just remember these are the people who set your broadband pricing in NZ due to regulated wholesale pricing that has fundamental flaws in the methodology, and who made credit card surcharges legal, while every other competition regulator in the world is trying to get rid of them.

Would you say that if the outcome is that it is anti-competitive that they are working in NZs best interests?

i still say that a sim locked handset that works across all networks is less anticompetitive than a line up of handsets that dont work on all networks.

if the phones were frequency locked, would we even be having this arguement?

Indeed, apparently when Telecom and Vodafone had totally different networks (CDMA and GSM) the comcom didn't mind the fact that handsets from one network had no possibility of working on another, regardless of whether an unlock fee was paid or not.

ArcticSilver

729 posts

Ultimate Geek

#556184 10-Dec-2011 00:03

I agree with Paul here.

There is a BIG different between locking a phone and a contract.

The major issues for me are:

- Once your contract ends, do you still have to pay? If you do, then this is anti competitive, it is charging you for leaving with your phone, even if you have effectively paid your phone off.

- It will complicate the second hand market, having to filter through locked and unlocked phones.

- What to stop them from going a step further and taking away the unlocking feature/bumping the price? Were about to open a whole new can of worms.

If it is no different from a contract, then why not just have a contract?

ahmad

1937 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#556186 10-Dec-2011 00:17

ArcticSilver: I agree with Paul here.

There is a BIG different between locking a phone and a contract.

The major issues for me are:

- Once your contract ends, do you still have to pay? If you do, then this is anti competitive, it is charging you for leaving with your phone, even if you have effectively paid your phone off.

What Skinny *may* do is pure speculation.

IF they (for example) offer $150 off a phone, a perpetual contract (you must always buy out an unlock regardless of how long you've been connected) and the unlock fee is $30 how could that be anti-competitive?

ArcticSilver:

- It will complicate the second hand market, having to filter through locked and unlocked phones.

Maybe annoying but not sure this should have anything to do with whether it should be allowed from a competition point of view.

ArcticSilver:
- What to stop them from going a step further and taking away the unlocking feature/bumping the price? Were about to open a whole new can of worms.

IMO thess terms should be clear and fixed at the start of the term/purchase. If so I see no issues.

ArcticSilver:
If it is no different from a contract, then why not just have a contract?

Because some people don't want a contract, and some can't get one due to credit problems. Why is giving consumers choice anti-competitive? It would only be anti-competitive if the terms were punitive. We dont even know what the terms/subsidies Skinny intends to offer on the phones. That is all pure speculation.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#556217 10-Dec-2011 08:48

codyc1515:
sbiddle: The scary thing is the Commerce Commission investigating it. Remember their job isn't to be fair or impartial.

Just remember these are the people who set your broadband pricing in NZ due to regulated wholesale pricing that has fundamental flaws in the methodology, and who made credit card surcharges legal, while every other competition regulator in the world is trying to get rid of them.

Would you say that if the outcome is that it is anti-competitive that they are working in NZs best interests?

If the Commerce Commission said that SIM locking is anti-competitive I would see it as an example of not working in the best interests of NZ consumers. How will consumers benefit if the entry level cost of a handset it higher than it could be because discounting isn't allowed?

One could argue at present (using the very same logic) that "anti competitive" behaviour exists in the market from both 2degrees and Vodafone who sell handsets that don't work on XT. I mean OMG how fair is that? I buy a $49 phone from 2degrees and I can't move it to XT the next day!

ajw

1932 posts

Uber Geek

#556218 10-Dec-2011 08:53

What is the use subsidizing prepay handsets when most low budget users just use them for incoming calls and the occasional outgoing text.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#556219 10-Dec-2011 08:55

ArcticSilver: I agree with Paul here.

There is a BIG different between locking a phone and a contract.

The major issues for me are:

- Once your contract ends, do you still have to pay? If you do, then this is anti competitive, it is charging you for leaving with your phone, even if you have effectively paid your phone off.

I believe this has already been answered - the fee will only apply if you want to unlock the phone within the 9 month period.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#556221 10-Dec-2011 08:58

ajw: What is the use subsidizing prepay handsets when most low budget users just use them for incoming calls and the occasional outgoing text.

Because Telecom have a huge number of exceptionally low ARPU customers on CDMA that all need to move networks within the next 7 months. These people only have loyalty to a price point, and Telecom need a way to offer them phones at a cheap pricepoint to compete with 2degrees and Vodafone who can easily sell $49 GSM phones. The cost of 3G handware is still higher, hence offering a subsidy to keep them as a customer when CDMA is shut down.

ajw

1932 posts

Uber Geek

#556224 10-Dec-2011 09:07

sbiddle:
ajw: What is the use subsidizing prepay handsets when most low budget users just use them for incoming calls and the occasional outgoing text.

Because Telecom have a huge number of exceptionally low ARPU customers on CDMA that all need to move networks within the next 7 months. These people only have loyalty to a price point, and Telecom need a way to offer them phones at a cheap pricepoint to compete with 2degrees and Vodafone who can easily sell $49 GSM phones. The cost of 3G handware is still higher, hence offering a subsidy to keep them as a customer when CDMA is shut down.

You still haven't answered my question. It is not economically viable to service these low use customers. 2 degrees didn't SIM lock or subsidize handsets to attract customers from vfone or telecom.
It was telecoms choice to build a dedicated 850/2100 3G network with higher handset costs.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79288 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#556227 10-Dec-2011 09:13

Telecom built the network with the spectrum available.

ajw

1932 posts

Uber Geek

#556235 10-Dec-2011 09:28

freitasm: Telecom built the network with the spectrum available.

With respect, part one of the Telecom exercise was 850 MHZ GSM and 2100MHZ for UMTS this was ditched about six months into the contract (and a waste of millions of dollars) for a dedicated 850/2100 3G network.
There are only three countries in the world that have this type of network.
TelecomNZ, Telstra Australia, and AT&T in the USA. Hence the higher cost of handsets and lack of handset choice. Please correct me if wrong.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79288 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#556236 10-Dec-2011 09:34

If they had gone 850 MHz GSM there would be problems in the future when they needed 3G coverage. 2100 MHz spectrum wasn't available everywhere, and it performs terribly in cities, with low range in rural areas. 850 MHz 3G is the best future proof move they could've done.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 16