Why no unlimited broadband packages in New Zealand?

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Why no unlimited broadband packages in New Zealand?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

698 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#231705 6-Jul-2009 16:53

jpollock: All through this, I've been responding to other people's points.
Spam was brought up, I pointed out that spam was never a substantial part of the traffic on my systems.

Don't know what your point is here.

Verizon was brought up as the be-all-end-all of Internet access. I pointed out that it was expensive when compared to the NZ market.

And I pointed out with _prices_ and _data caps_ and _speeds_ (dirty facts!) that this is false. I'm still amused by your comparison of FiOS to Telecom's cheapest plan.

You pointed out that watching Hulu is illegal. I pointed out the exact paragraph in the Copyright Ammendment Act which indicates that region coding is not a protected TPM and can be worked around legally. You then try and waffle about US law, but still neglect to point to the specific clause you feel is being violated.

I'm not going to wade through US law to find out if my suspicions are correct to settle an internet argument. It's reasonable to assume it breaks US law to export copyrighted material without having the license. Regardless, it's off topic.

Finally, we talk about TV vs Bandwidth charges. My point has been that it is cheaper to watch TV on the Internet than it is to pay for Sky, or even torrent it (which is definitely a copyright violation in NZ). Since I supported my argument with _math_ (dirty facts!), you then changed the subject to not having access to Sky Sports. Personally, I don't watch Sky Sports, they don't carry the sports I like. I'll go somewhere else (like NHL.com, or MLB.com) and watch the sports I actually care about, for about the same price as the Sky Sports package.

Now, the value judgement may be different for someone else. It may be worth the NZ$50-70/month for the ability to watch the sport, particularly if you care about rugby.

It's cheaper/possible for only your situation (no SKY Sports / local content). The lack of unlimited plans removes the possibility for those other situations because it results in no local internet TV services (eg Sky Online).

As for Sky Online, they probably found it was competing with MySkyHDi, so why offer it?

No, Sky Online went down because of lack of uncapped plans. How hard is that to understand? They explicitly said that was the reason when they shut it down.

Also, they are stuck because the customer is paying for _both_ the
sky subscription _and_ the traffic. That math doesn't work at all. It
might work if the Telcos implemented free local peering, but they
don't. TVNZ and TV3 seem to be doing pretty well with their online
offerings.

So what you're saying is it would work if we had uncapped local traffic. Strange, I thought that was MY argument.

So, let's recap:

Legal (or less illegal if we take your pov) is cheaper than torrents
Legal is cheaper than paying for Sky

Again, only in your non-local content situation. Not to mention the ridiculous round-about method you have to use to do it (proxy).

If you're not using video, you've got enough traffic in a basic plan.

So? Of course not everyone needs uncapped internet. I'm not saying that. (Though it would help people know that they won't have any "bill shocks" - an audience Telecom is targetting with Big Time)

Bandwidth is cheap enough to support all of this today, the only problem is that people haven't quite figured out that the Internet _replaces_ subscription TV instead of complementing it.

There are far more uses for large amounts of bandwidth (more than is cost effective in NZ at the moment) than just TV.

Can ISPs do better? Definitely. Would it be better in an uncapped world? I doubt it.

Again, you're implying that NZ's capped internet scape is better than every country with uncapped internet, which is demonstrably false.

What would make it better?

1) minimum speed guarantees (local, national and international)

Available but costly. Much cheaper overseas.

2) local peering

No arguments there.

3) cheaper national traffic
4) even cheaper local traffic (free?)

How is that different from "free" international traffic in terms of your arguments against such a thing?

5) more than one physical network provider

Depends. Duplication of services across the same medium (fibre | wireless | satellite, etc) is wasteful (it would be far better to have the physical networks owned by a neutral, non-vertically-integrated regulated body).

jpollock

600 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted

#231932 7-Jul-2009 10:36

And I pointed out with _prices_ and _data caps_ and _speeds_ (dirty facts!) that this is false. I'm still amused by your comparison of FiOS to Telecom's cheapest plan.

I stated that caps help with market penetration - more people are able to afford access. Since you pointed out FiOS, the affordability of FIOS becomes important when discussing market penetration. Now, if Verizon had an uncapped plan at US$15/month, then we can say, "You know what, it _is_ possible to offer cheap, fast, uncapped plans".

I'm not going to wade through US law to find out if my suspicions are correct to settle an internet argument. It's reasonable to assume it breaks US law to export copyrighted material without having the license. Regardless, it's off topic.

Actually, if it were illegal to export copyrighted material (outside of a geographic region it is licensed for), then Amazon would be the largest copyright violator the world has ever seen. Ever bought a DVD from Amazon US/UK?

Don't make claims that something is illegal unless you've got evidence that it is. There is a tonne of recent case law in the US around this subject, so it's pretty easy to read. Heck, the just finished Comcast network PVR case is a great one to look to, and my reading of that case (although I'm not a lawyer), would again back up my view.

It's cheaper/possible for only your situation (no SKY Sports / local content). The lack of unlimited plans removes the possibility for those other situations because it results in no local internet TV services (eg Sky Online).

Isn't that what FTA is for? Freeview and analog gives me all the local content I can handle (Singing Bee? Honestly?). Unless you're claiming that "The Box" is somehow local content? I can also get the news and other local content off of TVNZ's and TV3's online presences. Is there any local content on Sky that isn't FTA (other than sport)?

So what you're saying is it would work if we had uncapped local traffic. Strange, I thought that was MY argument.

No, I have (repeatedly), stated that you can get the content legally online, and that it is cheaper to get it online than it is to get either illegally or through Sky. The fact that it isn't free to gain access to is something else entirely.

Consider it as, "I have one pot of money to spend to get TV, I can spend it on Sky/TCL, or I can spend a little less and pay TNZ/TCL/Orcon/Slingshot/etc. Who would I rather give my money to?" Personally, I choose to disintermediate Sky. They just raised their prices. I'm not going to keep giving them money.

This flowed from the uncapped plan discussion, since it appears the dominant driver of large broadband plans is video, specifically torrents of both movies and TV shows. So, turn off Sky, turn off the torrent and save some cash.

Again, only in your non-local content situation. Not to mention the ridiculous round-about method you have to use to do it (proxy).

Ridiculously easy, you mean, and hardly "round-about". There are pre-built packages for every PC OS (Linux, OSX and Windows), heck, there are even instructions for the AppleTV. It's only hard on platforms like Linux which make network configuration difficult just for the fun of it. On OS X, it's as simple as clicking on the Apple icon, and saying, "Location->USA" or "Location->UK".

Again, you're implying that NZ's capped internet scape is better than every country with uncapped internet, which is demonstrably false.

O.k. demonstrate it. Show me a country with an uncapped plan offering at least 8mbps which is unfiltered and unshaped for at most NZ$30 per month (US$18.79, UKP11.53) and _no_ contract. The service must also be offered to at least 75%+ of the population, so subsidised local networks need not apply (bye-bye Sweden). The cheapest BT plan is UKP15 (capped with an 18month contract btw). AT&T is offering US$15, but that's only a 768kbps plan.

3) cheaper national traffic
4) even cheaper local traffic (free?)

How is that different from "free" international traffic in terms of your arguments against such a thing?

It attacks the root cause of the problem, the unequal transmission of data across the US interconnection points. Free local peering would offer the large data storage companies (Akamai, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) a _commercial_ reason to host in NZ, both offloading the international link, and lowering the average cost of 1GB of traffic. A simple uncapping of traffic would not have this effect.

Of course, there's no real commercial reason for an ISP to do it, other than being able to undercut their competitors. That usually isn't enough of a reason.

5) more than one physical network provider

Depends. Duplication of services across the same medium (fibre | wireless | satellite, etc) is wasteful (it would be far better to have the physical networks owned by a neutral, non-vertically-integrated regulated body).

See, that I disagree with that as well, oversupply drives down prices rapidly, as is demonstrated by the US backbone market post .com (WorldCom) bust, the US->Europe undersea cable market, and Telstra pulling their traffic off of Southern Cross. A single regulated body ends up as a government organisation that has no reason to drop their prices, and every reason to keep prices high. Ref: NZ Lines Companies, TNZ wholesale prices. However, that's more of a "religious belief" than anything else.

---
http://blog.jason.pollock.ca

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#232022 7-Jul-2009 13:37

The quote splitting is getting a bit over the top guys.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#232041 7-Jul-2009 14:08

Ragnor:

The

haven't

quote

splitting

clue

is getting a bit

what

over the

you're

top

talking

guys

about!

.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#232064 7-Jul-2009 14:43

The prosecution rests...

michaeln

238 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 44

Trusted

#232136 7-Jul-2009 17:14

Some points:

1. The cost of international bandwidth to NZ ISPs is very high. ISPs would rather like to make a profit. At a very minimum they need to not make a loss.

2. As access rates rise worldwide, the use of data caps is becoming more common. The following US ISPs all have data caps or something very like them (see links)

Comcast

Time Warner

AT&T

Verizon

These same ISPs have bandwidth costs 5 to 10 times less than any NZ ISP.

3. One of the problems with unlimited bandwidth is that 'average' literally has no meaning when applied to usage profiles.

Let me explain.

You 'know' what average means. For a set of randomly distributed numbers, the average is the middle, where most of the numbers are.

But, the implicit assumption there is that the numbers are 'normally' distributed, with most in the middle, and broadband usage profiles are not even remotely like that. Unfettered usage looks more like:
#
#
##
###
####
####
#####
######
######## * ######

with number of users on the y axis and amount of usage on x. Most users have low to moderate usage, a few users have huge usage. If you calculate the 'average' usage of the above graph (total usage divided by number of users) it's about where the '*' is. That is, the 'average' usage is much greater than the usage of most users. In other words, 'average' is not a particularly helpful concept here. (In fact, technically, it's not even a meaningful concept, since 'average' implies a Normal distribution).

To put it another way, without constraints, about 2% of the users will consume 80% or more of the bandwidth. For flat rate pricing, that means 98% of the customers subsidise that 2%.

4. The cost of international bandwidth to NZ ISPs is very high.

HP

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

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#232186 7-Jul-2009 20:10

jpollock:
I stated that caps help with market penetration - more people are able to afford access. Since you pointed out FiOS, the affordability of FIOS becomes important when discussing market penetration. Now, if Verizon had an uncapped plan at US$15/month, then we can say, "You know what, it _is_ possible to offer cheap, fast, uncapped plans".

There's no reason there can't be cheap capped plans that help with your "market penetration" (source? Last I checked, countries with bigger market penetration typically had relatively cheap uncapped plans (see the links I posted earlier)) as well as more expensive uncapped plans. No one is asking for fast uncapped plans for US$15/month.

Amazon

The difference between Amazon and the Hulu case is that Amazon is not the initiator of the export. It's the purchaser who is claiming they have the right to buy the material from the US. It wouldn't be Hulu's fault if you broke US law by watching it via a proxy, just like it woulnd't be Amazon's fault if you bought something from them illegally.

Is there any local content on Sky that isn't FTA (other than sport)?

Why doesn't sport count? I don't watch SKY, so I don't know about anything else.

TV vs legal online

Again, as I have said, it depends on the content you want to watch / availability online.

Ridiculously easy, you mean, and hardly "round-about". There are pre-built packages for every PC OS (Linux, OSX and Windows), heck, there are even instructions for the AppleTV. It's only hard on platforms like Linux which make network configuration difficult just for the fun of it. On OS X, it's as simple as clicking on the Apple icon, and saying, "Location->USA" or "Location->UK".

I'm talking about the whole thing, from setting up the proxy to watching Hulu. Yeah, I'll just tell my grandma to save a few bucks by getting rid of SKY, setting up an EC2 proxy, changing her network settings to use it, then watching Hulu.

O.k. demonstrate it. Show me a country with an uncapped plan offering at least 8mbps which is unfiltered and unshaped for at most NZ$30 per month (US$18.79, UKP11.53) and _no_ contract. The service must also be offered to at least 75%+ of the population, so subsidised local networks need not apply (bye-bye Sweden). The cheapest BT plan is UKP15 (capped with an 18month contract btw). AT&T is offering US$15, but that's only a 768kbps plan.

Why those ridiculous restrictions? Again, I'm not suggesting an unfiltered, unshaped 8mpbs plan for $30 and no contract (wtf?), and offered to 75%+. How utterly ridiculous.

I think you'll find you're quite alone in thinking NZ's internet is better than the rest of the world.

It attacks the root cause of the problem, the unequal transmission of data across the US interconnection points. Free local peering would offer the large data storage companies (Akamai, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) a _commercial_ reason to host in NZ, both offloading the international link, and lowering the average cost of 1GB of traffic. A simple uncapping of traffic would not have this effect.

Of course, there's no real commercial reason for an ISP to do it, other than being able to undercut their competitors. That usually isn't enough of a reason.

It attacks the root cause of the problem

Problem? What problem? I thought all was fine and dandy? That "international data may be expensive but hey, you can still watch TV online, so it's all good"?

See, that I disagree with that as well, oversupply drives down prices rapidly, as is demonstrated by the US backbone market post .com (WorldCom) bust, the US->Europe undersea cable market, and Telstra pulling their traffic off of Southern Cross. A single regulated body ends up as a government organisation that has no reason to drop their prices, and every reason to keep prices high. Ref: NZ Lines Companies, TNZ wholesale prices. However, that's more of a "religious belief" than anything else.

It's not cost effective. It's would be far more economical to pool resources. And it wouldn't just be "a regulated body" - the entire point, in the case of say, FibreCo, would be to drop prices and increase quality, so if that didn't happen, then something has gone wrong. FibreCo's goal wouldn't be to maximise profit (or at least, the prices would be government mandated).

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 551

Trusted

#232198 7-Jul-2009 20:51

>Show me a country with an uncapped plan offering at least 8mbps which is unfiltered and unshaped for at most NZ$30 per month (US$18.79, UKP11.53) and _no_ contract. The service must also be offered to at least 75%+ of the population, so subsidised local networks need not apply (bye-bye Sweden). The cheapest BT plan is UKP15 (capped with an 18month contract btw). AT&T is offering US$15, but that's only a 768kbps plan.

Moscow's ISP corbina

Prices are higher with the distance from moscow... but still unlimited 2-4mbit for 40-50NZD

I'm sure Asian countries have something alike or even better.

helping others at evgenyk.nz

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#232218 7-Jul-2009 22:07

So back on topic there actually are uncapped plans or partially uncapped plans (free offpeak) but they are either very expensive or have horrible quality.

Everyone is keeping an eye on Telecom's Big Time plan this time around. The first time around, Go Large was pretty much a disaster due over promising about the level of performance and under estimating the cancerous effect on latency and bandwidth a bunch of geeks using encrypted bit torrent can be.

Telecom is the largest ISP in NZ (~55% market share of retail adsl) and thus should have the best economy of scale for purchasing bandwidth and investing in caching and traffic management... but yeah remains to be seen.

browned

636 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 36

#232335 8-Jul-2009 11:38

michaeln: Some points:
2. As access rates rise worldwide, the use of data caps is becoming more common. The following US ISPs all have data caps or something very like them (see links)

Comcast

Time Warner

AT&T

Verizon

And with the introduction of some of those data caps some US senators are investigating introducing some laws that would stop ISP's from putting caps on. There is also talk of limiting the cost of capped packages as some ISP'a have seen capping as a way of increasing costs to client by 150%.

As strange as it sounds, capped packages seem to cost more than unlimited ones and ISP's could be considered to be fixing prices.

cheers
db

Home Server: AMD Threadripper 1950X, 64GB, 56TB HDD, Define R6 Case, 10GbE, ESXi 6.7, UNRAID, NextPVR, Emby Server, Plex Server.
Lounge Media Center: NVIDIA Shield TV 16GB: Kodi18 with Titan MOD, Emby.
Kids Media Center: NVIDIA Shield TV 16GB: Kodi18 with Titan MOD, Emby.
Main PC: Ryzen 7 2700, 16GB RAM, RX 570, 2 x 24"

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#232337 8-Jul-2009 11:42

kobiak: Prices are higher with the distance from moscow... but still unlimited 2-4mbit for 40-50NZD

I am sure someone here would complain: "What? Unlimited by only 2Mbps?"

Other day I say a KOL ad on a paper: unlimited dialup Internet access. Are people taking that one offer?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

michaeln

238 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 44

Trusted

#232405 8-Jul-2009 13:16

browned:
And with the introduction of some of those data caps some US senators are investigating introducing some laws that would stop ISP's from putting caps on. There is also talk of limiting the cost of capped packages as some ISP'a have seen capping as a way of increasing costs to client by 150%.

As strange as it sounds, capped packages seem to cost more than unlimited ones and ISP's could be considered to be fixing prices.

cheers
db

Or it could have more to do with the fact that US ISPs have used 'unlimited' in a way that, in NZ, would bring the Fair Trading people down about their ears like a ton of bricks.

The problem is that most/all of the 'uncapped/unlimited' plans were anything but, with terms and conditions and 'reasonable use' conditions that were implemented in the form of ...caps

lchiu7

6521 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 543

Trusted

#232415 8-Jul-2009 13:29

I have seen mention of capped in the US meaning something like 250GB. That would be quite acceptable for most people here apart from those who insist on watching TV from the US all the time or running web servers etc.

Staying in Wellington. Check out my AirBnB in the Wellington CBD. https://www.airbnb.co.nz/h/wellycbd PM me and mention GZ to get a 15% discount and no AirBnB charges.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#232424 8-Jul-2009 13:37

kobiak:

>Show me a country with an uncapped plan offering at least 8mbps which is unfiltered and unshaped for at most NZ$30 per month (US$18.79, UKP11.53) and _no_ contract. The service must also be offered to at least 75%+ of the population, so subsidised local networks need not apply (bye-bye Sweden). The cheapest BT plan is UKP15 (capped with an 18month contract btw). AT&T is offering US$15, but that's only a 768kbps plan.

Moscow's ISP corbina

Prices are higher with the distance from moscow... but still unlimited 2-4mbit for 40-50NZD

I'm sure Asian countries have something alike or even better.

lets see

uncapped plan? Yes
offering at least 8mb/s? No
unfiltered and unshaped? Don't know.
30NZD/month? No
offered to 75%+ of the popuation? No.

Why even mention it?

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#232506 8-Jul-2009 15:02

All residential connections are a shared network best effort service, the whole argument about finding an unfiltered/unshaped plan is pure fantasy.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5