Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
Infrastructure Geek
4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Trusted
Microsoft NZ
Subscriber

  Reply # 193305 1-Feb-2009 21:56
Send private message

pjamieson:
I'm about 200m from Auckland Central exchange so am keen to know.


is that the line of sight distance between your front door and the exchange, or in wire distance between your wall jack and their dslam?

i've seen instances where people are a couple of km from an exchange but have more double that distance in wires.  Also two neighbours - one connected to the new shiny cabinet in between their houses, the other at the end of a very long, unstable wire to the nearest exchange..

you've probably got a decent line, but you just never know... :)




Technical Evangelist
Microsoft NZ
about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs


671 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 10


  Reply # 193314 1-Feb-2009 23:10
Send private message

munchkin:
I didn't say "the entire copper loop", did I? I said the coverage footprint of this network with different technologies, ie, HFC.

I know full-well that the TelstraClear HFC network provides different services; The Telecom/Chorus network is also capable of providing many different services, too.



My point was that the only reason HFC was ever rolled out is that it offered cable TV, which the tradtional copper network couldn't. It wasn't to compete with the internet capability of that network. Rolling out an HFC network just for broadband when there's already a copper network would not be very economical, and would make just as much sense as building another equivalent copper loop network, which you seem to agree is not a good idea. Thus, it is not an option for everyone who would want to compete against the established copper network. Never mind that if you wanted a third network, and you already had copper and HFC, you're left with what, wireless and satellite? And as I pointed out earlier, they are not equal services (cannot compete 1:1). You can't deny that the copper loop is a natural monopoly, and that there are very few alternatives (especially cost effective and equivalent ones).

Sure, duplication can be fine in some circumstances, but it remains that duplication is both wasteful and unnecessary most of the time, especially for full-country coverage. (This also applies to cell networks, but of course duplication is still rife there. I would guess that's because it would cost much more to build an entire fixed line network to every house than to build cell towers that cover just about every house).

Infrastructure Geek
4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Trusted
Microsoft NZ
Subscriber

  Reply # 193568 2-Feb-2009 23:56
Send private message

Sure, duplication can be fine in some circumstances, but it remains that duplication is both wasteful and unnecessary most of the time, especially for full-country coverage. (This also applies to cell networks, but of course duplication is still rife there. I would guess that's because it would cost much more to build an entire fixed line network to every house than to build cell towers that cover just about every house).


We have duplication with the cell networks and we end up with a duopoly, instead of a monopoly.  The reality?  Vodafone and Telecom are both business with shareholders trying to maximise their earnings and therefore the consumer gets stuck with the higher prices.  I imagine that it would be hard to deploy a third network without co-siting equipment... imagine the bank manager - "you want x billiion dollars to build a network which will take 20 years to get operational (afterfinding sites, navigating RMA and other considerations) and when you're ready to deliver your revenue is going to be 1/5th what it would be if you launched today?"

Right now there is talk of FTTH.  Surely thats an opportunity for any company, new or old, to stick up their hand and have a chance at breaking up the copper monopoly.  Why not have different companies responsible for FTTH in different towns and cities.  The reality is that nobody will likely bother - they will wait for telecom/chorus to do it and then, maybe, complain about the pricing.  (NB: I'm talking about residential fibre here - Citylink, Vector, Telstraclear and others have already laid a lot of Metro fibre)

Setting aside existing copper loops and FTTH for now, how many new developments have gone up in the last 10-15 years, and how many big apartment buildings?  And of those, how many have had copper/fiber/cable installed by anyone other than chorus/telecom?  Surely those were good opportunities, especially for the larger for companies like TelstraClear and Vodafone?  Perhaps a little less talk and a lot more action is required.

I still reckon that there should be a law passed that says that whenever a road gets dug up everyone must come and lay their cables/pipes/lines all at once and that a road may only be dug up once every X years.  Surely the biggest cost of laying new copper/fiber is in consents and in the dig rather than in the cost of the cables themselves.  The potential savings in consent/dig costs coupled with the reduction in traffic disruption could be quite beneficial.




Technical Evangelist
Microsoft NZ
about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs


671 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 10


  Reply # 193574 3-Feb-2009 00:28
Send private message

Regs: We have duplication with the cell networks and we end up with a duopoly, instead of a monopoly.  The reality?  Vodafone and Telecom are both business with shareholders trying to maximise their earnings and therefore the consumer gets stuck with the higher prices.  I imagine that it would be hard to deploy a third network without co-siting equipment... imagine the bank manager - "you want x billiion dollars to build a network which will take 20 years to get operational (afterfinding sites, navigating RMA and other considerations) and when you're ready to deliver your revenue is going to be 1/5th what it would be if you launched today?"


Well, yeah, of course. I was just saying the same thing applies to other networks like the copper loop, only moreso (due to the higher cost).


Right now there is talk of FTTH.  Surely thats an opportunity for any company, new or old, to stick up their hand and have a chance at breaking up the copper monopoly.  Why not have different companies responsible for FTTH in different towns and cities.  The reality is that nobody will likely bother - they will wait for telecom/chorus to do it and then, maybe, complain about the pricing.  (NB: I'm talking about residential fibre here - Citylink, Vector, Telstraclear and others have already laid a lot of Metro fibre)


We don't have "different companies responsible for FTTH in different towns and cities" because the cost is too high, and Telecom would no doubt become a "loss leader" in those regions to force the competition out, thus retaining their monopoly (it's what monopolies do). That's part of the reason the government is getting involved.


Setting aside existing copper loops and FTTH for now, how many new developments have gone up in the last 10-15 years, and how many big apartment buildings?  And of those, how many have had copper/fiber/cable installed by anyone other than chorus/telecom?  Surely those were good opportunities, especially for the larger for companies like TelstraClear and Vodafone?  Perhaps a little less talk and a lot more action is required.


You can't just hook up a big apartment or development with copper/fiber/cable without an existing infrastructure, or without utilising an existing one, e.g. Telecom's exchanges. Only since unbundling of the local loop has it been possible for ISPs to put their equipment in Telecom's exchanges. That is why it hasn't happened in the last 10-15 years.


I still reckon that there should be a law passed that says that whenever a road gets dug up everyone must come and lay their cables/pipes/lines all at once and that a road may only be dug up once every X years.  Surely the biggest cost of laying new copper/fiber is in consents and in the dig rather than in the cost of the cables themselves.  The potential savings in consent/dig costs coupled with the reduction in traffic disruption could be quite beneficial.


You can't force a company to come and lay some cables whenever you want... Not to mention that you can't just lay them in an ad-hoc manner randomly as streets are dug up, eventually having enough that they actually link together... Really, most of the issue would be solved if councils let companies use their sewerage pipes, etc, which is what Wellington council is going to allow.

Infrastructure Geek
4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Trusted
Microsoft NZ
Subscriber

  Reply # 193587 3-Feb-2009 02:44
Send private message

Screeb:
Right now there is talk of FTTH.  Surely thats an opportunity for any company, new or old, to stick up their hand and have a chance at breaking up the copper monopoly.  Why not have different companies responsible for FTTH in different towns and cities.  The reality is that nobody will likely bother - they will wait for telecom/chorus to do it and then, maybe, complain about the pricing.  (NB: I'm talking about residential fibre here - Citylink, Vector, Telstraclear and others have already laid a lot of Metro fibre)


We don't have "different companies responsible for FTTH in different towns and cities" because the cost is too high, and Telecom would no doubt become a "loss leader" in those regions to force the competition out, thus retaining their monopoly (it's what monopolies do). That's part of the reason the government is getting involved.


we don't have any companies with FTTH in any cities or towns to speak of right now - it a perfect opportunity for competition.  I also fail to see how Telecom could sustain a 'loss leader' approach if there is nothing else to lead the customers in to.  The key to all this is to build a FTTH network and then have a reason for people to want to subscribe to it.

Screeb:
Setting aside existing copper loops and FTTH for now, how many new developments have gone up in the last 10-15 years, and how many big apartment buildings?  And of those, how many have had copper/fiber/cable installed by anyone other than chorus/telecom?  Surely those were good opportunities, especially for the larger for companies like TelstraClear and Vodafone?  Perhaps a little less talk and a lot more action is required.


You can't just hook up a big apartment or development with copper/fiber/cable without an existing infrastructure, or without utilising an existing one, e.g. Telecom's exchanges. Only since unbundling of the local loop has it been possible for ISPs to put their equipment in Telecom's exchanges. That is why it hasn't happened in the last 10-15 years.


why do you need telecom's exchanges to do this?  There is a lot of Telecom, TelstraClear, CityLink, Vector, Wired Country and other fibers running past plenty of recently built developments and apartments in several locations.  If you're an ISP you'll probably have fiber tails from one, if not several of the above coming into your data center anyway- whats stopping you from adding the tail into the apartment building/development and housing your own dslam/ethernet switch/equip-of-choice in the comms room or new cabinet and going from there?




Technical Evangelist
Microsoft NZ
about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs


671 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 10


  Reply # 193755 3-Feb-2009 18:20
Send private message

Regs: we don't have any companies with FTTH in any cities or towns to speak of right now - it a perfect opportunity for competition.  I also fail to see how Telecom could sustain a 'loss leader' approach if there is nothing else to lead the customers in to.  The key to all this is to build a FTTH network and then have a reason for people to want to subscribe to it.


Telecom would "lead the customers" to its xDSL network by lowering the price. Again, cost is an issue, which is why the government is stepping in. If it was economical it would have happened already.


why do you need telecom's exchanges to do this?  There is a lot of Telecom, TelstraClear, CityLink, Vector, Wired Country and other fibers running past plenty of recently built developments and apartments in several locations.  If you're an ISP you'll probably have fiber tails from one, if not several of the above coming into your data center anyway- whats stopping you from adding the tail into the apartment building/development and housing your own dslam/ethernet switch/equip-of-choice in the comms room or new cabinet and going from there?


I believe Telecom, Vector, and TelstraClear have already wired up some select new areas for testing. The thing is they can't do it everywhere (it's gotta be convenient), not to mention it creates a new product to support for a very small user base.

187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5


Reply # 194066 4-Feb-2009 17:30
Send private message

I will vote for SCREEB at the next general election.


There seem to be too many Telecom employees on this forum!!






BDFL - Memuneh
61316 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12062

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 194068 4-Feb-2009 17:42
Send private message

djrm:

I will vote for SCREEB at the next general election.


There seem to be too many Telecom employees on this forum!!




Once now and again I am required to get involved when people make this kind of silly comments.

Just because someone does not agree with your view it doesn't automatically make the other party a paid employee or a paid spokesperson. It just happens that some people have different opinions and views.

This kind of comment is not welcome here. Please do not post it again or moderators will ban the account.




Infrastructure Geek
4056 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Trusted
Microsoft NZ
Subscriber

  Reply # 194073 4-Feb-2009 17:59
Send private message

djrm:

I will vote for SCREEB at the next general election.


There seem to be too many Telecom employees on this forum!!



i'd like to point out that i'm not a telecom employee.  Nor am I a current telecom shareholder.  In fact I buy my internet and phone services from callplus and they are delivered over telstraclear fibre.  At a previous location it was over a Vector fiber.   (Yay for competition)

I just get sick of seeing companies complain about monopolies and using unbundling etc as excuses to avoid making their own infrastructure investments.  I especially dislike telstraclear for the amount of time any money they sunk into complaining about unbundling while ignoring the customers they *could* reach.  Its been damn hard to buy stuff off telstraclear over the years as no one seems to want to sell you any of the products they create!

I also find it hard to listen to people complain about pricing, quality of service etc while continually comparing the infrastructure of this country against other countries who we couldnt even hope to emulate given both different geographical location and different population densities.  Some people just seem to want everything for nothing.  The fact is that sometimes we have to pay more if we want something better - and there are plenty of people out there who would happily do so if they can see the benefits.  In case you need a specific example here's one I particularly like "Telecom cost me thousands of dollars in lost business because my blah@xtra.co.nz email address was down for several hours this afternoon".  If email is that important to your business, buy a commercial email service instead of relying on an account bundled with your internet connection that provides you with no flexibility if you decide you no longer want to use xtra as your ISP!

(Please note that I mean the above statements are meant as general ones, not specifically tailored towards and reply or person participating in this thread.  screeb, for example, makes several points taht I agree with completely)





Technical Evangelist
Microsoft NZ
about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs


187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5


  Reply # 194074 4-Feb-2009 18:00
Send private message

Sorry Alpha but some of the replies were of a patronising manner and it just seems that you can't critise the main player without being told that you don't know what you are talking about!!!!!


About the other comments - it does seem that certain areas get preference each and every time!


Personally I think, and I must admit to having an interest in this, Telecom should look at the areas where there is poor coverage of bb, first, before leaping ahead with VDSL2!!

187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5


  Reply # 194075 4-Feb-2009 18:05
Send private message

I wasn't talking about you, Reg! Your points were not done in a demeaning manner, and as you have said, you both tended to agree.

Minimalist
5489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 418

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 194076 4-Feb-2009 18:06
Send private message

Telecom is a business, they have to make business decisions not charity decisions. Their rollouts will target the population density and the market that is most likely to use/benefit from the rollout. Rolling out to a low socio economic area out in the sticks is going to make far less positive impact on a large number of peopls lives than rolling out to a suburb where a large majority of households will directly benefit from the rollout.

Disclaimer: I have proudly not paid Telecom a cent directly for many years and I have also done my time in "low socio-economic areas in the sticks" so I am not biased there either.

187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5


  Reply # 194077 4-Feb-2009 18:12
Send private message

I know they are a business and that is why they put in 9 EOIs for the BIF, with 8 of them in rural areas. So in other words, we all end up paying for Telecom expanding their service - nice.



{MOD EDIT : SP : EOI = Expressions Of Interest and BIF = Broadband Investment Fund. Please use full wording to ensure everyone knows what you are talking about.}



BDFL - Memuneh
61316 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12062

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 194079 4-Feb-2009 18:21
Send private message

djrm: Personally I think, and I must admit to having an interest in this, Telecom should look at the areas where there is poor coverage of bb, first, before leaping ahead with VDSL2!!


It doesn't work this way. I will put you an example. When the Local Loop Unbundling came out I wrote it was rubish. I still think it is.

The way it's done it creates incentives for telcos to wait for Telecom to invest in the network and then cry for space in exchanges, paying rent (simplified vision).

I was talking to a person from another telco and asked if he would be ok if the LLU came with rules such as "if you want to put equipment in two AKL exchanges, you have to put equipment in one exchange somewhere else". This would force then to invest in areas with low return.

You see my point? As it is now all telcos rushed to Auckland. Not even the capital has third party equipments in the exchange (still coming).

His answer? "No. We have to put equipments in Auckland so we can make money to then fund investments somewhere else - if we think it's worth it".

So you see? It's not only Telecom, but the other telcos do the same. They go where money is first. Later on, if they think they can make money somewhere else then they will roll out the equipments. Otherwise they wouldn't have the money to do it.

Why I think LLU wasn't good enough? Because those companies had no incentive at all to do anything except where the big money making areas are. This creates exactly the problem we have now, where Telecom provides services in rural areas, and then charge more - everyone cries, no one wants to pay the kiwi share, but no one wants to invest there either...

My view. And I am not a Telecom employee. I am self-employed.




187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5


  Reply # 194080 4-Feb-2009 18:29
Send private message

Its not just rural though, even in Auckland. Pt Chev had to petition to have their exchanges upgraded sooner, initially they had a year of 2011. There are still chunks of Auckland without fast bb.

So have you any solutions?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.