GDM: I'm wondering why the Naked DSL is $70.
River is $34 +- and my telecom line rental is $35 +-
So together that works out the same as Naked DSL or Telecom ADSL - where's my advantage? I lose a good POTS and get a crappy VOIP for the same money.
As a reasonably low download user I could get Telco ASDL at $30+- and 1.50 per gig, which is cheaper than River (for less than 4 gig approx)
I thought that Telecom had to allow access by third parties for only $20 per month??
So why don't XNET charge that plus the standard DSL charge? eg. $55+-. Now that's a competitive price.
I asked this question of XNET help desk, but of course got no response.
Perhaps I should go back to Telecom, apart from the hype there seems to be no advantage to having xnet for the average user.
The OP mentioned about seemingly no advantage to having Xnet (NDSL) for the average user. Well, perhaps not that "obvious", but with NDSL (Xnet Fusion) you're getting FS/FS for $70 per month. River ($34) + Telecom line rental of $35 = approx $69 per month. However, do note River only gives you 128k Up and FS down, and with upload cappbed at 128k your download speed will also be limited at about 4 Mbps, regardless of how fast your modem can sync up at. This will not be the case with a FS/FS connection. As a comparison, Xnet do have a FS/FS connection (Flood) @ $49 /month. So to compare and make it equal to their NDSL offering, you'll be paying $49 (Flood) + $35 (TNZ line rental) = $84 / month. Compared to NDSL (Fusion) of $70 per month you'll actually save approx $14-$15 per month going with Xnet nDSL.
It is this same base calculation/thought that swayed my decision to go with Xnet/NDSL. There are obviously other benefits of NDSL, but this alone does make it quite attractive for me.
As said, perhaps having a FS/FS connection (NDSL) is not obvious/advantages to the "average" user, but from my personal experience, once you've tried FS/FS you'll not want to go back to FS down/128k up again. :)