Channel one Sunday Telecom Story

Forums › Spark New Zealand › Channel one Sunday Telecom Story

Fossie

1240 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Topic # 12468 19-Mar-2007 07:36

Well I recorded and uploaded last nights story on 'Telecoms Super Fast Broadband'
Sorry for my grainy channel one :o

Video: Tv1 Sunday

1 | 2

205 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

Reply # 64384 20-Mar-2007 09:57

interesting watch!

steve98

1108 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 109

Trusted

Reply # 64438 20-Mar-2007 16:31

All throughout that story they promised to blow the lid on the reason for the slow broadband speeds and tell us some secret that Telecom didn't want us to know. Did I fall asleep at a crucial point? What was the big secret? What was new in this report? Seemed like just the same old stuff that we've been hearing for a long time?...

nzbnw

2366 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13

Trusted

Spark

Reply # 64442 20-Mar-2007 17:38

The bit that annoyed me most about this story was at the end, where Sunday said they asked Telecom why did they 'unleash' broadband. To which the response was, the Commerce Commission told us to. Sunday then asked the Commerce Commission and they said that the ruling was for Wholesale customers only, and not Telecom's retail customers. While this is fine, they portrayed this in a negative way, implying in my view that Telecom should not have 'unleashed' broadband, to at the very least remain completive in their broadband offerings. Not a good look when your competitors are offering faster speeds than you on your own network. We all know that Alcatel-Lucent advised what would happen, and I believe so did the commerce commission.

nzbnw

compost

287 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 34

Reply # 64467 20-Mar-2007 21:07

This story was a bit of a mishmash really. However it jogged my memory about the unused Telecom fibre - how much of it is still in the ground and could it be lit up easily?

A time-poor geek is hardly a geek at all

king1iam

5 posts

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 64479 21-Mar-2007 00:45

If anything i find this report will do nothing but fuel further ignorance on an issue the wider population have little to no idea on, i.e. the many realities they, Tcom, have to face in order to provide infrastructure for voice and data services on both fixed and mobile networks and to do so as a business.

Anywho, though the report basically summised under investment to be the cause of broadband current performace, personally I dont believe under investment to be the issue at all. Tcom are a smart company and i believe the needed infrastructure is already in place. Heres a few anecdotal reasons as to why i think this is.

-Black fibre, we knew this already.

-Rev A rollout is well underway.

-It was stated this time last year ADSL2 will commence rollout mid year last year and Id argue the gear is likely to have been installed already in a significat amount of exchanges for two reasons - the timing between the announcement of the rollout and the execution date of the rollout was 4 odd months. With this time frame you dont announce a rollout unless your really going to do it and the free modems given out have been adsl2 compliant for some time now. To add to that, I believe they have been purchasing adsl2 equipment for some time now and have just been limiting speed profiles, why purchase standard dsl dslams?

-Telecoms NGN. There have been a number of trials testing various aspects of its planned IP network including triple play services. It has a website dedicated to its NGN.

-DVD unlimited and how Tcom owns a stake - hard data on what NZers like to watch should it want to provide content which i would say is likely for IPTV.

I did have other reasons when i started typing this but they seem to have slipped my mind. The real question i believe Sunday should have been presenting to viewers is what'scausing telecom to stall or at the very least whose going to invest?

Jughead

141 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

Reply # 64602 22-Mar-2007 02:26

As we know in the near future Telecom will have to open it's exchanges and network to it's compeitiors. Does this mean that any investment they make between now and then will have to be handed over to their competitors?

if so why would any company spend one red cent on thier network untill they knew that wern't just spending money on competitors who instead of getting out and putting thier own fast network in have consistantly relied on winning consessions from government and industry watchdogs?

Any views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my employer Telecom NZ

Nightwyrm

588 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 64620 22-Mar-2007 08:43

I find David Cunliffe's rote response to investment a bit irritating. Sure I can understand (to an extent) his point of view that competitors will invest in the network but is that really going to happen in the real world? Competitors will certainly invest in installing and upgrading equipment in the exchanges but I can't see the major investment required in upgrading the copper line network happening. Instead, we may end up with a hodge-podge of cable types in urban areas (Auckland benefiting the most of course) and little change in rural.

IMHO, the upcoming legislative and market environment leaves us with one clear option. The government either buys in total or invests heavily (therefore gaining a majority shareholding) in the physical network. This way, the whole country benefits by gaining the require infrastructure, all providers would be treated equally, the govt would have no-one to blame for issues but themselves, and they would recoup on the investment through line rentals (even make a profit).

Post-geek, opinionated mediaphile, and natural born cynic. Jack of all genres, master of none.

TinyTim

902 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 49

Trusted

Reply # 64633 22-Mar-2007 10:04

if so why would any company spend one red cent on thier network untill they knew that wern't just spending money on competitors who instead of getting out and putting thier own fast network in have consistantly relied on winning consessions from government and industry watchdogs?

You can be sure that whatever method the MED comes up with for calculating the price of unbundled circuits, Telecom's remuneration will be sufficient for a fair return on investment, comparable to investing its cash elsewhere with a similar risk. Telecom will not be subsidising its competitors.

If you hear otherwise it's likely to be Telecom, unwilling to let go of its monopoly (or Telecom, realising it's actually going to have to spend some of that remuneration on its network, rather than handing it to shareholders).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
61323 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12065

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 64638 22-Mar-2007 10:16

TinyTim: ...or Telecom, realising it's actually going to have to spend some of that remuneration on its network, rather than handing it to shareholders.

What a novel idea! Investments. They probably never heard of that...

Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) |

My technology disclosure | Business Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
61323 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12065

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 64639 22-Mar-2007 10:19

lugh: I find David Cunliffe's rote response to investment a bit irritating. Sure I can understand (to an extent) his point of view that competitors will invest in the network but is that really going to happen in the real world? Competitors will certainly invest in installing and upgrading equipment in the exchanges but I can't see the major investment required in upgrading the copper line network happening. Instead, we may end up with a hodge-podge of cable types in urban areas (Auckland benefiting the most of course) and little change in rural.

See, this is exactly what I wrote when the LLU bill passed last year. I think it's appaling the Minister believing that companies will put any cent on expanding the current network. They will all wait for Telecom to do it, and then will simply try to use it. If Telecom doesn't see going to rural areas as strategic, I don't think any other company will put their money where their mouth is...

Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) |

My technology disclosure | Business Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management

TinyTim

902 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 49

Trusted

Reply # 64643 22-Mar-2007 10:40

freitasm:
lugh: I find David Cunliffe's rote response to investment a bit irritating. Sure I can understand (to an extent) his point of view that competitors will invest in the network but is that really going to happen in the real world? Competitors will certainly invest in installing and upgrading equipment in the exchanges but I can't see the major investment required in upgrading the copper line network happening. Instead, we may end up with a hodge-podge of cable typesin urban areas (Auckland benefiting the most of course) and little change in rural.

See, this is exactly what I wrote when the LLU bill passed last year. I think it's appaling the Minister believing that companies will put any cent on expanding the current network. They will all wait for Telecom to do it, and then will simply try to use it. If Telecom doesn't see going to rural areas as strategic, I don't think any other company will put their money where their mouth is...

It's part of the Amendment Bill that unbundling is part of a "ladder of investment", rather than a long term solution for a competitor. That is, competitors are expected to eventually go out and build their own access network. I don't know how they'll achieve that in reality though.

As for rural areas, they get compensation for that through the TSO (albeit not for new areas).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
61323 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12065

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 64645 22-Mar-2007 10:43

TinyTim:It's part of the Amendment Bill that unbundling is part of a "ladder of investment", rather than a long term solution for a competitor. That is, competitors are expected to eventually go out and build their own access network. I don't know how they'll achieve that in reality though.

Expected is the keyword. Not mandatory, not required. Expected. No checks and balances...

Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) |

My technology disclosure | Business Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management

nzbnw

2366 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13

Trusted

Spark

Reply # 64646 22-Mar-2007 10:51

TinyTim:
It's part of the Amendment Bill that unbundling is part of a "ladder of investment", rather than a long term solution for a competitor. That is, competitors are expected to eventually go out and build their own access network. I don't know how they'll achieve that in reality though.

I guess the question here is why would build their own nation wide network? Very few companies or organisations will be able to afford to roll out nation wide, last mile wireless or fixed network.

nzbnw

TinyTim

902 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 49

Trusted

Reply # 64648 22-Mar-2007 11:08

nzbnw:
TinyTim:
It's part of the Amendment Bill that unbundling is part of a "ladder of investment", rather than a long term solution for a competitor. That is, competitors are expected to eventually go out and build their own access network. I don't know how they'll achieve that in reality though.

I guess the question here is why would build their own nation wide network? Very few companies or organisations will be able to afford to roll out nation wide, last mile wireless or fixed network.

nzbnw

I don't think there's any obligation for any one company to provide nationwide coverage though.

Jama

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 64650 22-Mar-2007 11:13

and while we bicker about who is responsible to pay for world class internet with Labour saying 'it is not us' our enlightened friends across the Tasman Just get on with it

It is a pity that we have such a lame government

Twitter - GaryRo

1 | 2