[TelstraClear] Why did telstra clear not extend their cable network BEFORE UFB

Forums › One New Zealand (including Vodafone, WxC, Farmside) › [TelstraClear] Why did telstra clear not extend their cable network BEFORE UFB

1 | 2 | 3

ObidiahSlope

260 posts

Ultimate Geek

#546426 17-Nov-2011 12:06

Linuxluver wrote

"..but the cable network has not been greatly extended since then as almost every new connection cost more than it earned....and borrowing money to pay for a losing system made (and makes...) no sense. "

Yes but Telstra were silly about it. A former business account manager at Telstra told me that they provisioned certain office buildings as part of their obligations as phone providers for some NZ wide bushinesses.

He found other business in the same office block were mad keen to sign up with Telstra, and it would have taken a minor effort to connect other tenants in the same building.

Bur top management would not allow it. They were fixated on how they were going to be allowed access to the Telecom network.

Obsequious hypocrite

ObidiahSlope

260 posts

Ultimate Geek

#546433 17-Nov-2011 12:23

Another instance of Telstra being silly;

A certain district council was a telstra customer. The connection between the Telstra exchange and the council offices was on telecom copper. The exchange and the office were 600 metres away from each other

The council was going to dig up the road between them for some water supply replacement work and approached Telstra and asked them if they were interested in putting in a cable at the same time in the same hole and giving Telecom the flick

Telstra were not interested.

Obsequious hypocrite

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#546441 17-Nov-2011 12:43

Linuxluver:

This is just as insane as what Labour did in 1990......and again, we will all suffer because of this government's ideological commitment to deprive us all of our own assets.

Unfortunately the country was in dire straits and needed cash.

Regarding Telecom, I believe Douglas actually wanted split it up to sell it so it wasn't a vertically integrated monopoly but was overruled by caucus as they needed the bigger price tag at the time.

Not splitting it was a mistake, not selling it.. hmm well only the lines in the ground is the natural monopoly part that I wouldn't have sold.

Not sure where your $50 billion value number comes from, reference?

Regarding power generation, there are many companies that generate power and many ways to generate power. I don't classify it as a public good or natural monopoly that the government should run/own. I'm fine with the partial sell down of those 4 companies.

Now the power lines, that's a different story they are a natural monopoly and should remain state owned. They aren't considering selling those.

I consider this a fairly centrist stance, ie: for the state owning things are public goods/natural monopolies and against owning things that are not.

The state owning a natural monopoly is probably more effective than regulating a private natural monopoly.

The state owning a non natural monopoly just crowds out legitimate private business.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#546466 17-Nov-2011 13:27

ObidiahSlope: Another instance of Telstra being silly;

A certain district council was a telstra customer. The connection between the Telstra exchange and the council offices was on telecom copper. The exchange and the office were 600 metres away from each other

The council was going to dig up the road between them for some water supply replacement work and approached Telstra and asked them if they were interested in putting in a cable at the same time in the same hole and giving Telecom the flick

Telstra were not interested.

While I don't doubt the story it would make absolutely no business sence for TelstraClear to lay copper. TelstraClear have deployed services over Telecom copper for many years, there is nothing stopping them from doing this.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#546519 17-Nov-2011 14:35

ObidiahSlope: Another instance of Telstra being silly;

A certain district council was a telstra customer. The connection between the Telstra exchange and the council offices was on telecom copper. The exchange and the office were 600 metres away from each other

The council was going to dig up the road between them for some water supply replacement work and approached Telstra and asked them if they were interested in putting in a cable at the same time in the same hole and giving Telecom the flick

Telstra were not interested.

600m

I could set up 180mbit full duplex over that distance with wireless gear for less than $2,500.

At $2.50 per meter just for the fibre before you even consider putting it in a conduit and adding switching gear at each end, what would the cost be?

Then we have to ask, what would the council do with 100mbit let alone 180mbit?

Was the council offering to put the fibre and conduit in and pay for the technical time required to do the design etc?

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

graemeh

2078 posts

Uber Geek

#546524 17-Nov-2011 14:40

DonGould:
ObidiahSlope: Another instance of Telstra being silly;

A certain district council was a telstra customer. The connection between the Telstra exchange and the council offices was on telecom copper. The exchange and the office were 600 metres away from each other

The council was going to dig up the road between them for some water supply replacement work and approached Telstra and asked them if they were interested in putting in a cable at the same time in the same hole and giving Telecom the flick

Telstra were not interested.

600m

I could set up 180mbit full duplex over that distance with wireless gear for less than $2,500.

At $2.50 per meter just for the fibre before you even consider putting it in a conduit and adding switching gear at each end, what would the cost be?

Then we have to ask, what would the council do with 100mbit let alone 180mbit?

Was the council offering to put the fibre and conduit in and pay for the technical time required to do the design etc?

Then there is the ongoing maintenance in an area that TelstraClear probably didn't have any other infrastructure.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#546699 17-Nov-2011 22:39

Ragnor:
Regarding power generation, there are many companies that generate power and many ways to generate power. I don't classify it as a public good or natural monopoly that the government should run/own. I'm fine with the partial sell down of those 4 companies.

I definitely classify it as a public good. You can do without internet, but electricity is really an essential service.
If you could just manufacture more of it to satisfy demand and keep prices down, it would be apropriate for it to be a free market, but energy is a limited resource. Public companies are obliged to operate for the public good, private comanies are obliged to operate for profit.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Morph

190 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#546708 17-Nov-2011 23:27

Skolink:
Ragnor:
Regarding power generation, there are many companies that generate power and many ways to generate power. I don't classify it as a public good or natural monopoly that the government should run/own. I'm fine with the partial sell down of those 4 companies.

I definitely classify it as a public good. You can do without internet, but electricity is really an essential service.
If you could just manufacture more of it to satisfy demand and keep prices down, it would be apropriate for it to be a free market, but energy is a limited resource. Public companies are obliged to operate for the public good, private comanies are obliged to operate for profit.

You realize how much profit SOE's produce?

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#546887 18-Nov-2011 13:54

Skolink:

If you could just manufacture more of it to satisfy demand and keep prices down.

Residential solar panels, micro wind, micro water.....

Beccara

1469 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#546897 18-Nov-2011 14:04

Heh, Micro this and that with Macro-support needed

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#546918 18-Nov-2011 14:27

Skolink: If you could just manufacture more of it to satisfy demand and keep prices down, it would be apropriate for it to be a free market, but energy is a limited resource.

Yeah, if only there were a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
[/FSTDT]

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#547076 18-Nov-2011 21:24

Ragnor:
Linuxluver:

This is just as insane as what Labour did in 1990......and again, we will all suffer because of this government's ideological commitment to deprive us all of our own assets.

Unfortunately the country was in dire straits and needed cash.

Regarding Telecom, I believe Douglas actually wanted split it up to sell it so it wasn't a vertically integrated monopoly but was overruled by caucus as they needed the bigger price tag at the time.

Not splitting it was a mistake, not selling it.. hmm well only the lines in the ground is the natural monopoly part that I wouldn't have sold.

Not sure where your $50 billion value number comes from, reference?

Regarding power generation, there are many companies that generate power and many ways to generate power. I don't classify it as a public good or natural monopoly that the government should run/own. I'm fine with the partial sell down of those 4 companies.

Now the power lines, that's a different story they are a natural monopoly and should remain state owned. They aren't considering selling those.

I consider this a fairly centrist stance, ie: for the state owning things are public goods/natural monopolies and against owning things that are not.

The state owning a natural monopoly is probably more effective than regulating a private natural monopoly.

The state owning a non natural monopoly just crowds out legitimate private business.

The $50B was the cost of starting from scratch and building the same copper-wire network to every home and business all over again. Everywhere.

It's a number from 20 years. The only reference I have is I read it in a newspaper 20 years ago. :-)

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

1 | 2 | 3