Myth:Confirmed, NZ really does have rubbish broadband

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Myth:Confirmed, NZ really does have rubbish broadband

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

2036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 145

Trusted

#482693 18-Jun-2011 22:24

If they want to be sensationalist, why not just quote the Telecom 1GB starter package for $73?? People who use huge amounts of data cant be expected to understand the logic of minimal users wanting to avoid paying for more than they need. Far better to compare apples with apples.

Time to find a new industry!

antoniosk

2382 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 742

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#482728 19-Jun-2011 08:59

There are different levels of usage requirements. UFB doesn't mean everyone is instantly consuming 2TB a month of content from the Internet.

Only you?

________

Antoniosk

antoniosk

2382 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 742

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#482729 19-Jun-2011 09:00

ZollyMonsta: I use over 270gb per month.. 6gb is a joke :)

It's that ipod streaming all that content....

________

Antoniosk

ZollyMonsta

3009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 379

ID Verified

Trusted

#482737 19-Jun-2011 09:57

antoniosk:
ZollyMonsta: I use over 270gb per month.. 6gb is a joke :)

It's that ipod streaming all that content....

Indeed.

Check out my LPFM Radio Station at www.thecheese.co.nz - Now on iHeart Radio, TuneIn and Radio Garden

As per the usual std disclaimer.. "All thoughts typed here are my own."

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#483271 20-Jun-2011 16:59

freitasm: What it confirms is the reason I stopped reading Gizmodo years ago: they are crap. You should stop reading it too.

They decide to look at caps and when talking about New Zealand they about WorldNet and Kinect? Are you serious? No word on the ISPs that actually provide Internet services to half of the country (Telecom, TelstraClear, Vodafone, Orcon)?

Are they idiots or what?

The only good thing on all this pile of bad reporting is that we have another story that we can throw in the faces of people that keep coming here saying "but they have unlimited Internet in the US" when we keep saying "no, they don't".

They seem pretty correct regarding the caps to me.

How much would a 300 gig cap on telecom cost?

You'd need 4 x 80 gig plans roughly, which is around $300 nzd.

That is a hideous amount to pay.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#483331 20-Jun-2011 18:37

wreck90:
freitasm: What it confirms is the reason I stopped reading Gizmodo years ago: they are crap. You should stop reading it too.

They decide to look at caps and when talking about New Zealand they about WorldNet and Kinect? Are you serious? No word on the ISPs that actually provide Internet services to half of the country (Telecom, TelstraClear, Vodafone, Orcon)?

Are they idiots or what?

The only good thing on all this pile of bad reporting is that we have another story that we can throw in the faces of people that keep coming here saying "but they have unlimited Internet in the US" when we keep saying "no, they don't".

They seem pretty correct regarding the caps to me.

How much would a 300 gig cap on telecom cost?

You'd need 4 x 80 gig plans roughly, which is around $300 nzd.

That is a hideous amount to pay.

But when US operators quote average usage figures of 4-6GB with under 1% of users hitting 250GB and and Cisco quote 15GB as a world average what is the point you are trying to make? The average home user does not use anywhere near 300GB - why should you not have to pay the true cost of that data rather than low use users subsidising you?

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

insane

3324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1006

ID Verified

Trusted

2degrees

Subscriber

#483446 20-Jun-2011 22:32

sbiddle:

But when US operators quote average usage figures of 4-6GB with under 1% of users hitting 250GB and and Cisco quote 15GB as a world average what is the point you are trying to make? The average home user does not use anywhere near 300GB - why should you not have to pay the true cost of that data rather than low use users subsidising you?

It's a very good question, however they have something over there called competition, market pressures means they cannot charge in that fashion of they will price themselves out of the market.

Furthermore the bandwidth component of their internet service will be a small portion of their overall monthly bill. Even in NZ the bandwidth component of a relatively small plan does not cost much when you compare it to the cost of the port and ISP overheads.

On a slightly more humorous note, did anyone read this next to the 10GB Kinect plan as its use case "email, emailing files, web surfing, serious downloads like movies". Makes me chuckle

b0untypure1

1427 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 18

#483811 21-Jun-2011 18:36

sbiddle: All that's confirmed by that story is poor journalism.

PenultimateHop

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

#483820 21-Jun-2011 18:44

insane: It's a very good question, however they have something over there called competition, market pressures means they cannot charge in that fashion of they will price themselves out of the market.

Competition is exceptional in the US. There are many places where you can only receive service from one or two operators, typically Verizon and Comcast, or AT&T and Comcast. Or just AT&T. Or just Comcast. Or just Verizon. Or just Time Warner. Or just CenturyLink. Or none at all.

(Where I used to live was *just* Adelphia, which is now Time Warner. My service was a mighty 5Mbps/384K - wonderful)

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#483826 21-Jun-2011 18:55

sbiddle:
wreck90:
freitasm: What it confirms is the reason I stopped reading Gizmodo years ago: they are crap. You should stop reading it too.

They decide to look at caps and when talking about New Zealand they about WorldNet and Kinect? Are you serious? No word on the ISPs that actually provide Internet services to half of the country (Telecom, TelstraClear, Vodafone, Orcon)?

Are they idiots or what?

The only good thing on all this pile of bad reporting is that we have another story that we can throw in the faces of people that keep coming here saying "but they have unlimited Internet in the US" when we keep saying "no, they don't".

They seem pretty correct regarding the caps to me.

How much would a 300 gig cap on telecom cost?

You'd need 4 x 80 gig plans roughly, which is around $300 nzd.

That is a hideous amount to pay.

But when US operators quote average usage figures of 4-6GB with under 1% of users hitting 250GB and and Cisco quote 15GB as a world average what is the point you are trying to make? The average home user does not use anywhere near 300GB - why should you not have to pay the true cost of that data rather than low use users subsidising you?

This is not about the average user.

It is about the absolute data caps, and NZ has exceptionally low caps by international standards.

Just as our mobile prices are high.

If Sam Morgans international cable eventually gets constructed, caps may increase for competitive reasons.

If you are a high data user, then don't move to NZ. I expect the impact may be felt more by business users. No one cares about p2p users downloading illegal content.

bfginger

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 191

#485094 23-Jun-2011 16:20

At least we don't have to pay 15c/mb on top of a 200mb cap like they do in PNG.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#485100 23-Jun-2011 16:34

Don't worry, When Telecom NZ execs retire they can head off to their Cook Islands subsidiary and charge customers $29/month for a 256Kbs service with a 750MB cap and an overage of 10c/MB ( all NZ dollars)

boredsilly

9 posts

Wannabe Geek

#485527 24-Jun-2011 15:31

freitasm: What it confirms is the reason I stopped reading Gizmodo years ago: they are crap. You should stop reading it too.

They decide to look at caps and when talking about New Zealand they about WorldNet and Kinect? Are you serious? No word on the ISPs that actually provide Internet services to half of the country (Telecom, TelstraClear, Vodafone, Orcon)?

Are they idiots or what?

And if they used the main ones NZ would look even worse!

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 230

#485697 25-Jun-2011 10:28

I can get the argument that many people only chew through a gig or so per month.

Though I dont think that making that the argument for having small data caps is a good idea.
I think it would be better if data caps or cap limits were larger so buying games, watching movies, tv, VoIP etc... can be encouraged to be done over the internet.

Much more efficient than having to purchase Discs & pay extra for phone, travel to the movies if we just want to watch it on our own couch.

I think that if people are only given small caps, encouraged to use less & be capped at 64k, then IPTV, VoIP will not take off in the near future. (Granted that businesses are & have been rapidly deploying this, but im targeting the residential).

Its my opinion that allocating larger data caps , or an alternative will be the only way the average household will begin to

NZ / AU Battlefield 4 Gaming Community
http://www.sonsofvalour.net/forums/forum.php

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#485781 25-Jun-2011 15:13

NZCrusader: I can get the argument that many people only chew through a gig or so per month.

Though I dont think that making that the argument for having small data caps is a good idea.

International bandwidth is an expensive resource you have a fixed amount for the current number of customers you have, you need to share it fairly between your customers, you can't afford the best traffic management equipment that other larger scale ISP's overseas may have.

How how do you ensure fair usage and charging when you have some users who only ever use the pipe infrequently to check email and web and some users who use p2p 24x7?

Why should the low usage user pay the same amount at the high usage user who consumes more of the resource more of the time?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4