Telecom's Cabinetisation Plans

Forums › Spark New Zealand › Telecom's Cabinetisation Plans

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

4325 posts

Uber Geek

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 96765 25-Nov-2007 00:36

Hmm I was wondering when you would crawl back out of your cave.

There is no ass kissing of Telecom here, people for the most part are defending them from unwarranted criticism, in fact several of their competitors have come out in support of what they are doing. Xnet and Telstra actually get it which is good see. Whereas everyonce else just wants to cry that Telecom have been mean to them.

It is not Telecoms job to play nice with the competition who apparently were too stupid to take notice of what has been going for the last few years. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to make money, not to serve the greater good as some here seem to think.

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8477 posts

Uber Geek

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 96772 25-Nov-2007 04:53

antigrav: Of course too many here defend Telecoms right to F over the country, the public, their customers

Telecom has a legal obligation, as any publicly listed company does, to act within the best interests of its shareholders.

their customers (Xtra's satisfaction rating),

Customers who are free to leave. But dont. Why not? Perhaps they are getting a better deal overall with all their services, than they would if they split them up? Maybe they prefer the 'devil you know' vs. the one you dont? You cant fire shots at a company for poor service ratings in customer satisfaction surveys on a product that is freely available from other providers. If people dislike Xtras service that much, why dont they just change? (insert reason here, then apply that reason to why a satisfaction survey should cover every aspect of a customers spend, not just intarwebs)

in the name of the all mighty (short term) dollar.

Short term dollar? You surely are kidding? Telecom is in this for the long haul - investing far more dollars in infrastructure than any other player, for a far longer period of time, and having maximised its revenue out of the PSTN, has now turned inwards, come out having decided to roll with 'NGN', and is forging ahead with those plans. NGN is certainly not 'short term revenue'.

I am not a Telecom apologist, but I do believe they have the right, just like every other company in New Zealand, to fulfil their legal obligations around acting on behalf of the owners of the company.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
65328 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 96773 25-Nov-2007 07:27

antigrav: Of course too many here defend Telecoms right to F over the country, the public, their customers (Xtra's satisfaction rating), the competition/wholesale customers, government in the name of the all mighty (short term) dollar.

Nope. Your perception is wrong. Too many here have a similar view of the situation. No one here is saying Company A or Company B have the rights to do what they want.

People here are simply pointing out that some companies are crying foul without really being the case.

I recommend you read the whole discussion since you yourself pointed out you haven't got to the end of the first page.

I also recommend you read Paul Clarkin's comments in my blog post. He's Director Operations, WorldxChange.

GEOMAX

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 96784 25-Nov-2007 09:46

Interestingly though the old problem of not seeing the wood for the trees is obvious. What Telecom is doing is no doubt exactly the same as Telcos worldwide.....decentralizing the copper centre to smaller nodes to give faster DSL speed. Mu question to Vodafone is ....In your business plan what did you expect Telecom to do? Looking through the LLU plans I note that at Browns Bay about 6000 addresses are to be decentralised by cabinetization. This means at average penetration about 2500 customers wont be fed from the Browns Bay exchange. Question 2...if you were going to Browns Bay to install your own equipment will this change youir plans? cheers George

sbiddle

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

# 96786 25-Nov-2007 09:52

What will be very interesting is to see how the NGN rollout goes. Paul Reynolds was regarded by many people at BT as "Mr 21CN" due to his huge level of involvement in their 21CN project (BT's equivilent of Telecom's NGN). BT have acknowledged plenty of issues that they have uncovered and I would expect the knowledge he has gained could be invaluable to Telecom. Maybe the days of a telco CEO getting his hards dirty with an involvement at the techical level could be back!

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

# 96788 25-Nov-2007 10:06

Here is where the disagreement seems to be.

Telecom is acting in the interest of making the most money right now.

It is not acting in the best interest of Telecom in the future, indeed if Telecom had built a faster network years ago and offered reasonible plans they would be far far wealthier than they are now.

But even disregarding that the view that some put fourth is that it matters not what damage a monopolistic company does in trying to make money because you shouldn't complain, it's capitalism B1tch!

But governments have not been of such view and have enacted laws against such, but companies fire back especially in the US with lobbying so they write the laws.

The simple fact is if I started a company the best way to serve my shareholders would be to lobby government to maker it legal to literally steal everyones money and belongings and give it to my shareholders.

I am sorry but 'Do WHATEVER you can to anyone else (including the future you) for max gain right NOW' is not right and I don't care what you say about a 'duty to the shareholders'.

If such a duty is to be taken to absolutes despite the damage including helping end life on planet earth as is the case with some companies I think we agree that the model is gravely flawed. (Oil companies, Drug companies, Whaling companies, Arms manufacturers)

Clearly some of you would have made great NAZI's, 'Hey I'm just following orders'.

cokemaster

Nate wants an iphone
3907 posts

Uber Geek

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 96790 25-Nov-2007 10:13

antigrav:
Clearly some of you would have made great NAZI's, 'Hey I'm just following orders'.

Good bye Mr Antigrav. If you were able to have a discussion without trying insult everyone or comparing them to Nazi's... you'd still be around.

Couplied with this and your previous run ins on the forums. I bid you farewell.

webhosting |New Zealand connections | geekzone IRC chat
Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
65328 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 96792 25-Nov-2007 10:30

antigrav: Clearly some of you would have made great NAZI's, 'Hey I'm just following orders'.

Antigrav was a real troll... Lasted a long time in the forums, but invoking the Godwin's Law is always a sure way to be permanently banned.

Also, implying that some people would being paid to write here with this "just following orders" is clearly a sign of his dementia.

Some people can't really have a discussion without showing how low they can go...

nzbnw

2366 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Spark

# 96795 25-Nov-2007 10:49

bradstewart: Hmm I was wondering when you would crawl back out of your cave.

Likewise. After reading his responce last night (not sure even why I took the time to read it actually), I figured that it did not even warrant a reponce. How ever I am glad you three have taken antigrav to task.

Even kelly2626 wan't as infuriating, althrough they are equally ill imformed and refuse to accept that different people have other views.

nzbnw

pressF1

77 posts

Master Geek

# 96800 25-Nov-2007 11:09

And in one (or maybe two) strokes antigrav puts the arguments for against in the rubbish...but seriously does anyone on here support a monopoly situtation in our Telco space?? Because we have had it for the last 20+ years and the introduction of small niche players does not change the situation....the state of our telecoms infrastructure is dire, Telecom has shown predatory approaches to build out (Wellington with TCL) and spot reduction in pricing to snuff it out and yet the majority of people on this thread "appear" to be happy that "they announced it ages ago" and ignore genuine concerns raised by the likes of Paul Brislen?!?! Since when has it been OK to screw the competition and restore a monopoly because you let everyone know years before hand you might do just that....very strange.

Gents, let me ask a genunie question, do you honestly think we will get better pricing and service across the board if the NGN is deployed and other carriers are unable to access it??

nzbnw

2366 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Spark

# 96803 25-Nov-2007 11:17

pressF1:
Gents, let me ask a genunie question, do you honestly think we will get better pricing and service across the board if the NGN is deployed and other carriers are unable to access it??

I don't think anyone here is against wholesale acess to Telecom's NGN (and it seems neither is Telecom), but being forced to provide acess for others to install their own equipment is just LLU all over again.

nzbnw

cokemaster

Nate wants an iphone
3907 posts

Uber Geek

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 96804 25-Nov-2007 11:22

@pressF1 Most of these 'concerns' have been addressed throughout the thread.

This is not about Telecom screwing over competing providers, this is about competing providers either ignoring or not understanding what Telecom had planned and had gone ahead planning that these big exchanges would still exist. This is not 'screwing' the competition because in this case, many players appear to have been either to inept or simply misread the situation. Should Telecom delay their NGN plans so that these guys can get their house in order? The answer is most likely no.

Its still rather worring that these are the niche group that seems to be attracting the ears of the mainstream media, while not performing the dying art of fact checking.

I hate responding to questions with more questions but:
Do you really think that there would be a significant drop in prices with LLU? In my personal opinion don't think that there will be a major drop, as there is still operating expenses, cost of purchasing equipment, renting exchange space etc. All that LLU achieves is shifting some of the revenue from one company to another, the later which hasn't invested as much as the first. If the complaints from Call plus and Orcon are anything to go off, its just got a whole lot more expensive!

webhosting |New Zealand connections | geekzone IRC chat
Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 96805 25-Nov-2007 11:23

pressF1:
Gents, let me ask a genunie question, do you honestly think we will get better pricing and service across the board if the NGN is deployed and other carriers are unable to access it??

Definitely if Telecom's Wholesale Customers are not given access to the NGN, that would be a HUGE cause for concern as it would tilt the whole playing field drastically in Telecom's favour. But why would they do that?

Under the Operational Separation model, the NGN will be installed and operated by ANS or Telecom Wholesale won't it?

And then Telecom Retail will have to buy the enhanced NGN services from ANS or Telecom Wholesale on the same terms as any other Wholesale Customer?

This is the whole nub of Operational Separation that we are dealing with here. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

nzbnw

2366 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Spark

# 96807 25-Nov-2007 11:32

grant_k:

And then Telecom Retail will have to buy the enhanced NGN services from ANS or Telecom Wholesale on the same terms as any other Wholesale Customer?

This is the whole nub of Operational Separation that we are dealing with here. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Yes that is correct, Telecom Wholesale and ANS have to treat Telecom Retail like any other acess seeker in the name of equlivance. You have the right end of the stick Grant, and it is going to bring about some interesting times.

nzbnw

uncmil

48 posts

Geek

# 96814 25-Nov-2007 12:12

For me at least, it is not an issue of if broadband gets cheaper, because there's a good chance that it won't.
For me, it's more of a broadband will be better value for money - if it's faster at the same price, then it must be comparativley better value.

The operational seperation of Telecom is interesting, and although I generally disagree with govt intervention, operational seperation could lead to some good stuff:

Telecom Retail isn't tied to Telecom Network or Telecom Wholesale anymore, meaning that each division/company is now fighting for a similar cause seperately. I.e. Telecom Network will probably want to invest in its network, so that it has some decent assets it can make money off, Telecom Wholesale wants to negotiate decent contracts with Network and its customers, and Retail wants likewise for its customers. They're no longer fighting to maintain the same comapny with a common goal. This is hopefully going to be a good thing. (If I made that at all clear. Works in my head, but on paper... not so much.)

And just to say that it's not Telecom ass-kissing. I've never liked Telecom all that much, but I like to see credit where credit's due and that sort of thing.

Telecom's a company - they're there to make money for their shareholders. Customers are a distant prospect in the 'this is what we're here for' ranks. That's capitalism and it's just how it is. Although not directly good for customers, it can in some ways be indirectly good for them, so it's not all bad.

Capitalist Telecom puts far more money into their infrastructure than anyone else does - TelstraClear and Vodafone are probably second to that. But companies like CallPlus/Slingshot, Orcon, Vodafone and whoever else is doing the whinging this time round don't - they just depend on the government regulating another company's assets for them to use, as opposed to actually investing in something of their own. Basically, put up or shut up.

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