Beccara: The client would never have noticed it? I highly doubt that.
Many of here on GZ are very smart people who work in all manner of ISP's and understand the economics of it.
Most people don't know an IP address from their PC's serial number. It's not relevant whether they're members of GZ or of an ISP - in that case they're probably going to subscribe to the services their company provides, aren't they?
Beccara: TFTTH prior to the UFB renouncement would have been risky but someone with deep enough pockets could have done some form of passive pon network, Certainly not a widespread active network. They would have had to play a long game with no returns or loss's for many years after the build.
We're not building an active network, we would be building a PON network. And before you refer to any posts about the Zyxel FSG2200HNU CPE, that's all way way gone and has changed to be something else - partially for that reason, but also because Zyxel were not particularly responsive.
Alcatel has a reasonably nice end to end solution which we're likely to implement in both countries, as does Motorola.
Beccara: With the UFB around the corner it would be reckless to spend the money over building a UFB network, The prices you're website estimates are waaay off for anything but a 20+ year return wait.
That depends on the cost of the build, doesn't it? And the business case is mine to justify. The UFB seems to be getting worse and worse by the month, otherwise I'd have been one of the first people who'd have wanted to take advantage of it.
Beccara: There are too many red flags in this thread both technical and business related to take you seriously. Your flat rate plans would have to be 10 times as much or have be oversubscribed enough that your clients would be lucky to get 1/10th of their speed.
What do you think we'd be providing? 1:1 bandwidth? Of course there would be contention. The assumption on a high-speed line is that there will be a certain amount of usage, not continual saturation.
The economics are mine to figure out, in conjunction with people far smarter than myself - I know to within a couple of cents what it's going to cost me to deliver 1GB of information to a customer, I can use that as a basis for figuring out my plan prices, but until we launch those prices may or may not change.
Beccara: And now you've just posted an exit clause "if I still decide to bother with NZ"
NZ is a small market. It may not be worth doing - but that's not to stop me from trying. If it so happens that the costs versus revenue don't balance out then it wouldn't be done.
There are plenty of providers who have given the excuse of "NZ is a small market, NZ is too far away" etc etc in order to justify what they're doing and their prices.
And now you've just posted an exit clause "if I still decide to bother with NZ"
I found that odd too, given the previous discussions here and even a little as two months ago this detailed post.
But things changing in this thread seem to be par for the course.
As mentioned, NZ is a small market, and there are still some unknowns.
If it turns out to be not feasible once all of the puzzle has been put together, then it won't happen, and you can suffer with your UFB. If on the other hand it does turn out to be feasible once all of the puzzle has been put together, then you'll see us building out very soon - there's pretty much no way in hell that we'll be buying anything from Telecom, ergo the desire to build something ourselves.
Call me crazy but I don't really see how it could be seen that the costs vs revenue could balance out (in the next 20 or so years). This thread seem really really odd, and if people from both India and NZ smell a troll then this probably is one...
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
