Telecommunications Users Association chief executive Ernie Newman said that the move was disappointing: "If you are the only restaurant in town with an `all you can eat' menu, you are going to attract the big eaters."
As my collegue pointed out... Telecom have been trying to operate an all you can eat restarant where some customers have been eating everything off the buffet, then everything from other peoples plates, then everything from the fridges then they went into the staff room and ate all the packed lunchs...
dicks...
Any views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my employer Telecom NZ
Personally, I would like a clearer explanation on why this plan is considered to be no longer viable.
My understanding is that Telecom purchases international bandwidth based on throughput speed, not the total data used. E.g. they pay for the size of the pipe, not the total amount of data that goes through it. So it costs Telecom no more if I download 50GB or 2TB in a month.
Surely this means any reason behind cancelling this plan (and all prior efforts with traffic management) must have been based on lowering the total amount of throughput at any given time, and nothing to do with the total amount people are downloading per month.
I think loyal Telecom customers deserve more transparency in the reason behind this plans cancellation than that it is simply “no longer viable”, or that “a few users have ruined it for everyone”.
Yes I wrote that earlier that I read an article about big ISP purchasing bandwidth and not having to pay for data on the southern cross cable.. which if is the case means it really doesnt matter how much someone downloads as far as cost wise goes but does mean that the pipe is limited of course and big users cut into others bandwidth...
SauronJones: Personally, I would like a clearer explanation on why this plan is considered to be no longer viable.
My understanding is that Telecom purchases international bandwidth based on throughput speed, not the total data used. E.g. they pay for the size of the pipe, not the total amount of data that goes through it. So it costs Telecom no more if I download 50GB or 2TB in a month.
It actually does, because if you're using 2TB a month it has to purchase a bigger pipe, otherwise everyone else would suffer from slower speeds.
The size of the pipe is required to sustain the peak load, which is significantly higher than off peak loads. My reading is the intention of Big Time was to provide an incentive/(and stick in the form of management) for users to shift their usage from peak to offpeak and from international to national and thus increase the amount of data transferred.
Where users bypass traffic management and go crazy during peak times (which you'd need to do to download TBs) or download so much during offpeak that it crowds out other users, then you have a problem. Which I suspect is pretty much what happened here.
If you have more users with higher caps you end up having a higher sustained throughput. This in turn means the ISP has to buy more capacity. A 1Gbps connection that may be sufficient for x users suddenly becomes insufficiant.
browned: You have to wonder, if the few 1TB users were the problem why not kick them.
Agree!
i really doubt that is the problem, already we have seen a lot of users in here use around 100 gigs a month. If it were just a few users that were using a terrabyte i dont think telecom would have an issue, they must have known there would be some users using that and factored it in. I think the average use is far higher than they expected. Perhaps they were counting on more families to join up the old mum and dad crap that only use 5 gigs per month etc. Times have changed, mum and dad use youtube and itunes and have little kids now that chew through data too.. I think it was just badly planned and they didnt do their research properly like talking to ISP's overseas that do similar things.
browned: You have to wonder, if the few 1TB users were the problem why not kick them.
Agree!
i really doubt that is the problem, already we have seen a lot of users in here use around 100 gigs a month. If it were just a few users that were using a terrabyte i dont think telecom would have an issue, they must have known there would be some users using that and factored it in. I think the average use is far higher than they expected. Perhaps they were counting on more families to join up the old mum and dad crap that only use 5 gigs per month etc. Times have changed, mum and dad use youtube and itunes and have little kids now that chew through data too.. I think it was just badly planned and they didnt do their research properly like talking to ISP's overseas that do similar things.
Telecom is a big fat liar. They use 'unlimited' accounts to tempt people away from other ISPs and now they are suggesting that 40gb = unlimited. yeah right!
browned: You have to wonder, if the few 1TB users were the problem why not kick them.
Agree!
i really doubt that is the problem, already we have seen a lot of users in here use around 100 gigs a month. If it were just a few users that were using a terrabyte i dont think telecom would have an issue, they must have known there would be some users using that and factored it in. I think the average use is far higher than they expected. Perhaps they were counting on more families to join up the old mum and dad crap that only use 5 gigs per month etc. Times have changed, mum and dad use youtube and itunes and have little kids now that chew through data too.. I think it was just badly planned and they didnt do their research properly like talking to ISP's overseas that do similar things.
I understand that too many users downloading at high speed at the same time will "clog the pipe"; but that's what the traffic shaping was for.
Whose bandwidth am I stealing at 4am on a wedneseday morning?
And is this heavy use by BigTime users negatively affecting users on other plans, or just other BigTime users? If the problems are limited to BigTime users then I tend to think "so what"? If you don't like it, change plans. I knew going into it that any "unlimited" plan will be crippled in many respects, but that was a price I was willing to pay to not have to worry about overage.
If it is effecting the performance of users on other plans, then that is a different story.
If the plan has to be cancelled for legitimate reasons (which i suspect is the case), why can't Telecom just state what those reason are?
pystol: Telecom is a big fat liar. They use 'unlimited' accounts to tempt people away from other ISPs and now they are suggesting that 40gb = unlimited. yeah right!
Don't know about liar, but I just signed up to big time as part of total home on Saturday because.... they offered big time which was the deciding factor in my moving to Telecom; and now haven't heard a peep out of them when expected provisioning was by Wednesday. They could have, you know, let me know? Surely even in a big firm like Telecom Retail the word would be out not to allow signups from a decent time before the switch.
Be interesting to see how long it takes them to contact me and whether they will still try to stick me with the reconnection charge if I decide what is on offer is not what I signed up to. And whether they have already set in motion disconnecting by TCNZ connection. *sigh* Mess mess...
daskip: They could have, you know, let me know? Surely even in a big firm like Telecom Retail the word would be out not to allow signups from a decent time before the switch.
How are they supposed to do this when it's only just been decided and then announced this morning? Did you even read the original post?
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.
Trusted
Retired Mod
Biddle Corp
