cokemaster:
Why should Telecom be lumped with the task of servicing rural customers? It smacks of cherry picking (that is going after the most profitable areas) to me...
cyril7: average urban line length in NZ is over 2km, with many lines exceeding the 5-6km reach of ADSL. For a network improvement that can be implemented to 80% or more of subscribers (the rest are in the rural loop) then the average line length needs to be brought down to around 800m, hence the cabinetisation program.
First of all, cyril7, I doubt your statement (partly). Yes, quite a few users (talking about those in the metro areas first), now being hooked up through tradition exchanges, aren't living right next to them. But I think it'll be quite fair to say that at least 85% of households in the urban areas do have access to broadband, at line speeds capable of more than 2Mbps/256kbps, am I right???
Basically, my point.....
Cabinetisation = Improvement for the network. In Urban Areas, you can get even faster speeds. In Rural Areas, you CAN get a fast speed. Compare this with...
Unbundling, allowing ISPs to install equipment in the old exchanges = In Urban Areas, you can get more competition, more choice, better prices......
SO... For Telecom, it's good! Users would appreciate how they are improving their network, and by doing this and extending their market coverage, they are "winners", and good on them for planning this as a next step forward....
Still, for other ISPs, it isn't exactly an "all lose" situation too! Although they might not have access to the cabinets directly, they still can use the unbundled exchanges, bring in their products, "cherry-pick" a large population living in urban areas, many whom will certainly be delighted that broadband prices are coming down, that they can enjoy better prices from more competition.....
On a last note.... I think it is fair to say, that "improving broadband for NZ" means not just "a better network", but also "better prices and cost for consumers".