No the unbundeling was focussed on the incubant there was no provision to ensure foreign companies also shared thier infrastructure, this is what the people of New Zealand wanted and now we have it. This is also why unbundelkling has not worked in every other country in the world.
ronindanbo: No the unbundeling was focussed on the incubant there was no provision to ensure foreign companies also shared thier infrastructure, this is what the people of New Zealand wanted and now we have it. This is also why unbundelkling has not worked in every other country in the world.
I'm totally lost here why you think unbundling has failed and is somehow to blame here.
The only thing that is being shared is the copper phoneline. Unbundling has given you a choice of provider, nobody is forcing anybody to be a TelstraCear customer and you now have a great choice of providers with many people being able to pick between TelstraClear, Orcon, Vodafone and Telecom or another provider wholesaling Telecom services.
Your comment suggests to me that we should have a monopoly and only a single provider.
i dont see how i can say what i have said any clearer in the context of this discussion. Unbundelling only forces the incumbant to allow access to other service providers on the incumbants infrstructure. It does not force other players on the market to follow the same rules which in my opinion is very anti competitive.
ronindanbo: i dont see how i can say what i have said any clearer in the context of this discussion. Unbundelling only forces the incumbant to allow access to other service providers on the incumbants infrstructure. It does not force other players on the market to follow the same rules which in my opinion is very anti competitive.
What? Your reading something into my comments that I have not said, as I stated unbundelling was NOT about creating a level playing field it was about hobbling the incumbant, monopoly or not how does it serve us if the incumbant which is no longer a monopoly cannot compete with other (and dont fool yourself over this) larger companies.
To be honest the only reason Telecom had a monopoly is that no one else would invest in infrastructure so ask yourself this if Telecom had a monopoly how come there were so many other players on the market???, they just wanted the right to do business in our country without having to pay for it....
ronindanbo: What? Your reading something into my comments that I have not said, as I stated unbundelling was NOT about creating a level playing field it was about hobbling the incumbant, monopoly or not how does it serve us if the incumbant which is no longer a monopoly cannot compete with other (and dont fool yourself over this) larger companies.
To be honest the only reason Telecom had a monopoly is that no one else would invest in infrastructure so ask yourself this if Telecom had a monopoly how come there were so many other players on the market???, they just wanted the right to do business in our country without having to pay for it....
They got there way.
sheep
I'm guessing you fundamentally disagree with the FTTH proposals and think we should have 10 different fibre optic cables running to our houses, one for each operator? Because that's exactly what I'm hearing you say.
I really don't think your view aligns that well with this situation; if the consumer doesn't like the LLU provider's service, they can vote with their feet, because LLU has provided them with that ability. (In this case it is what the OPs going to do as I understand it).
Ideally, unbundling should provide a level playing field by allowing new provider access to the incumbent's infrastructre at the same cost as the incumbent faces. I.e. the new provider pays the incumbent a fair price for using its infrastructure. If that is calculated ideally, all that the incumbent 'misses out on' is the final product, it still gets a fair return for the service/product it provides to the new provider.
The reason why it is focused @ the incumbent is because at least where the "foreign companies" have developed their network there is no longer a monopoly; there is no reason why the consumer can't return to the incumbent's network, be it with a different provider taking advantage of LLU or the incumbent themselves. There must be very few areas where the "foreign companies" have monopoly power.
Thus, with LLU the consumer has the ability to vote with their feet and say "actually, I don't want to agree with you saying I should have both my internet and telephone with you, I think I'll move my phone and internet to another provider". As the OP has said, the disconnect fee period had already passed, and in reality, is not much different to the fee that telecom imposes on its plans. Where TC falls over is it's p... poor customer information.
To me this is an example of LLU working as it should and a telecommunications company failing to communcate properly. Nevermind that if the National fibre plan goes ahead, the LLU is really just a temporary measure...
ronindanbo: What? Your reading something into my comments that I have not said, as I stated unbundelling was NOT about creating a level playing field it was about hobbling the incumbant, monopoly or not how does it serve us if the incumbant which is no longer a monopoly cannot compete with other (and dont fool yourself over this) larger companies.
To be honest the only reason Telecom had a monopoly is that no one else would invest in infrastructure so ask yourself this if Telecom had a monopoly how come there were so many other players on the market???, they just wanted the right to do business in our country without having to pay for it....
They got there way.
sheep
But unbundelling was about attempting to create a level playing field - that was the entire point of it, not to hobble the incumbant - they did that themselves through the decisions they made and actions they took. The incumbant brought it upon itself through their past selfish, monopolistic practises that were screwing the consumer - and the consumer couldn't do a darn thing about it. I should know as I was one of the many being screwed by them - getting terrible service at a premium cost - whilst living in one of our larger cities! As soon as I had a choice - and becasue it was Lower Hutt I got a choice before many other did - I switched. [Granted there was no LLU involved in my case because the new comer did roll out their own infrastructure]
Would Telecom (as a private company) have invested in and built all that infrastructure if it hadn't been "given" to them when they were privatised!??? Well? This is where the playing field was not level! The unbundelling happened because Telecom would not allow access to something they were largely gifted. It was only fair that other players were allowed to gain access to the infrastructure at a fair and reasonable cost. And that is what has happened.
Same thing just happened to my mum - tolls with Telstraclear, broadband with Xnet - Bye Bye broadband.
There should have been more thought put into this migration. They're disrupting services with little or no communication. Customers are left in the dark having to talk to their Internet provider to find out what's happening. What a sad state of affairs.
I started this post back on 7th May. Today my daughter still does not have her broadband reinstated. She has been made to call countless times to the dweebs at Telstra Clear and Telecom - each pushing her from pillar to post - from one to the other.
She is being asked to pay fees to both just to inch her way though this process. It is third world stuff - the story keeps changing. Now THAT is great service. She is worn down. By the time this is finished she will have paid out over a hundred dollars to remedy what has been a Telstra Clear stuff up.
XNet on the other hand have been exemplary in their service. They have in regular touch and suggest others are in the same pickle. I have suggested to her that she chronicle the events and sent it off to everyone she can think of - media and the politicians.
I do not believe for a moment that she is on her own. Others like her have just jumped through the hoops on demand to minimise the disruption.
Truly disgraceful conduct on the part of TC and Telecom when we all know the work required to effect the changes required are technically minuscule.
Piri: I started this post back on 7th May. Today my daughter still does not have her broadband reinstated. She has been made to call countless times to the dweebs at Telstra Clear and Telecom - each pushing her from pillar to post - from one to the other.
She is being asked to pay fees to both just to inch her way though this process. It is third world stuff - the story keeps changing. Now THAT is great service. She is worn down. By the time this is finished she will have paid out over a hundred dollars to remedy what has been a Telstra Clear stuff up.
XNet on the other hand have been exemplary in their service. They have in regular touch and suggest others are in the same pickle. I have suggested to her that she chronicle the events and sent it off to everyone she can think of - media and the politicians.
I do not believe for a moment that she is on her own. Others like her have just jumped through the hoops on demand to minimise the disruption.
Truly disgraceful conduct on the part of TC and Telecom when we all know the work required to effect the changes required are technically minuscule.
Xnet don't (re)sell fixed analogue/pots/landlines, she has a Telstra LLU landline connection currently which she can't use Xnet standard adsl with so she would need to switch to switch her fixed landline to Telecom (or someone reselling Telecom).
Very few ISP's now (other than Telecom) will sell you a analogue/pots/landline only, so it means signing up with Telecom for the landline. Telecom has a reconnection charge, $50 something ish if I recall rightly.
I would expect the average user wouldn't understand the situation here and I'm sure the scripted phone answerers at Telstra or Telecom's wouldn't have a clue either, bound to be very frustrating.
What I would do:
Honestly, I'd be tempted to switch everything to Xnet fusion ie: naked adsl provided over Telecom wholesale gear and voip by Xnet's XFV platform (ie: no analogue/pots/fixed land line service).
Then you don't have to deal with Telstra or Telecom other than to ring up and ensure accounts are fully closed after everything is switched to Xnet.
Alternatively if she wants to use Telecom for the fixed landline so she can keep using Xnet standard adsl she will have to pay the Telecom connection fees.
If the customer wants freedom of choice or to revert to what they had. they'd have to do the following.
1. Switch the phone line service to Telecom - this would require a visit by a tech and cost.
2. Port the phone number back to Telecom - Telecom would charge for the port request.
3. Re-order the broadband via the old provider - depending on the provider this may or may not cost.
4. Then finally get tolls hooked back up with Telstraclear, via non coded access - depending on whether or not Telstraclear still allow this (they might just transfer you back to the Telstraclear network to restart the process).
You're probably looking at spending a minimum of $80 to get the above completed. You're looking at all sorts of delays due to open services orders and explaining what you want done to customer service reps. All and all it would be a very frustrating experience as seen above.
Even switching to Xnet fusion would probably incur some costs right (for number porting and switching the physical line back to Telecom wholesale gear at the exchange)?
ronindanbo - umm what did Telecom have to do with it????
She was on TC phone and Xnet Broadband. TC disconnected her internet apparently as part of their unbundling in her area. Because she has elected to run with Xnet Fusion - voice and internet - TC advise her that the "unbundled" line would have to be reinstated as a Telecom tail for Xnet purposes - she then needs Telecom to release her phone number (which has had for many years with them and TC). To do this Telecom say they have to create a "new" account for her and she must pay the minimum month fee plus other fees to "release" her number to Xnet. This despite her having for many years a Telecom xtra email address that she has been paying a fee for every month - she has an account - but they are not listening.
Ragnor I advised her to just do her best to get through the tangled web that TC and Telecom have weaved for her and to do just as you advise. - everything across to Xnet.
From my daughter's experience both TC and Telecom have been most unhelpful to the point of being obstructive. They know she is moving to another provider. A previous post I sent through a couple of weeks ago contained some rather colourful (but media acceptable?) language but did not appear for some reason -(operator error on my part maybe). So you can imagine my sentiments right now. Throughout this ordeal my daughter has been civil and matter of fact. She has been patience personified. That is far different from the people at both TC and Telecom - they have at times been terse and unhelpful - we appreciate they are only performing to a script and maybe even frustrated with their own inability to do the right thing. But it has very much been a "take it or leave" attitude. She is leaving all right -taking her little business away from them and not coming back regardless of their price. It has been a very upsetting experience for her. Countless phone calls and so little progress. She has been buoyed by support from XNet but their hands are tied..
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.
Retired Mod
Trusted
Biddle Corp
