Unleashed havoc

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Unleashed havoc

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

BDFL - Memuneh
79288 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#51001 4-Nov-2006 11:05

antigrav, I think you will have to tone down your use of expletives. And I mean it right now and here. Otherwise you are banned.

antigrav: Let's do some math, SCC cost $1.3 billion divided by population of OZ 20mil and NZ 4 mil is $54.16.
So for $4 more than my current broadband plan costs in one month from each person in NZ and AU we could have a brand spanking new better SCC built.

Yeah, it's the international connectivity that's the problem, what crap.
The SCC has paid for it's self, not sure how long after it was built it did that, and guess what, it has BW to spare.
I guess we are saving money by not fully utilizing it eh?

Did it ever occurred to you that there's no way on Earth you should or could divide the cost of that cable by the entire population of Australia and New Zealand? Some people don't give a toss about Internet.

Some people need help leaving their addictions, some people need help feeding their children, some people need help with basic heatlh, some people need help with education. So, when priorities come in, a troll like yourself is not on top.

antigrav:
Maybe it's the 'New Zealand' at the end of Telecom's name that makes you all defend it, maybe you think your being patriotic when you appoligise for it.

No one is apologising on behalf of Telecom. People are just trying to understand why and how. But it looks like your vitriol against the corporation is just that, and just because it's the largest one in New Zealand. If it wasn't Telecom New Zealand you would be against something else.

You are almost at the point of getting the "Persona Non Grata" badge here.

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#51005 4-Nov-2006 12:33

freitasm: antigrav, I think you will have to tone down your use of expletives. And I mean it right now and here. Otherwise you are banned.

antigrav: Let's do some math, SCC cost $1.3 billion divided by population of OZ 20mil and NZ 4 mil is $54.16.
So for $4 more than my current broadband plan costs in one month from each person in NZ and AU we could have a brand spanking new better SCC built.

Yeah, it's the international connectivity that's the problem, what crap.
The SCC has paid for it's self, not sure how long after it was built it did that, and guess what, it has BW to spare.
I guess we are saving money by not fully utilizing it eh?

Did it ever occurred to you that there's no way on Earth you should or could divide the cost of that cable by the entire population of Australia and New Zealand? Some people don't give a toss about Internet.

Really, because I was under the impression that there were 24 million flat rate broadband subscribers in Australasia.

There aren't?

And not every dollar goes into securing more international pipes?

Go on, your kidding right?

No, of course not there aren't, but it does nicely illistrate that international capacity really is a non issue.
Under the conditions I specified they could build another SCC every other month and still make money, so while the real figures will fall far short of my figures never the less there is still more than enough money to build the needed connections.

If you doubt that there are more than enough people and money to easily fund international fibre connections then do explain why the SCC has paid for it's self, I'd like to know how long it took!

Some people need help leaving their addictions, some people need help feeding their children, some people need help with basic heatlh, some people need help with education. So, when priorities come in, a troll like yourself is not on top.

antigrav:
Maybe it's the 'New Zealand' at the end of Telecom's name that makes you all defend it, maybe you think your being patriotic when you appoligise for it.

No one is apologising on behalf of Telecom.

We are either reading different posts, or reading them very differently.

People are just trying to understand why and how.

Why and how what?
Why people who have traveled the world over say that only the middle of China has worse broadband than we have here? (obviously helped by the recent comcom regulations and the Go Large plan I have praised Telecom for on Geekzone)

But it looks like your vitriol against the corporation is just that, and just because it's the largest one in New Zealand.

One of the largest, the next 'largest' pretty much said 'we give up' not too long ago feeling that it was hopeless.

And no, it's not because it is 'one of the largest' ;) (can't help but
smile when I say that) but because it is the one that has been keeping
my broadband slow, capping my data, and constantly pushing back it's
own plans to improve things every single year.

No, my vitriol is directed at Telecom because it holds all the cards and is being an DONKEY about it.
(A certain 3 letter word refering to a Donkey is not allowed because that same spelling can be used to mean buttocks)

Theresa admitted this with her 'it has used confusion as it's cheif
marketing tools' and the Governments view is clear, they didn't step in
and regulate because they thought Telecom was playing fair.

Telecom again admitted by saying 'we got it'.

And I think it has, a little.

But only a little because I guess I assume that leopards don't change their spots so completely so quickly.

I'm optomistic but I wouldn't let my guard down and clearly neither is
the Government as it is pushing for better seperation of Telecom than
Telecom was hoping for.

If it wasn't Telecom New Zealand you would be against something else.

I'm against plenty of things even with Telecom earning my ire.
I'm against Bush, pollution, drug companies, oil companies, war.

You are almost at the point of getting the "Persona Non Grata" badge here.

Ok, I will try to lighten up and be less sarcastic, but it goes both ways as well.
I have had personal attacks and given them back.
When I inquired why those that agreed with me did so by contacting me
in private only I asked why and was told they were used to the reaction
from 'Telecomies' and didn't want the greif.

Clearly these can be charged issues for geeks ;) , especially when all the frustration generated from slow speeds and small caps get's filed under 'Telecom sucks' ;)

So here is an honest question, those of you who defend Telecom, I guess
you must be saying 'New Zealand sucks' to yourself (when our poor BB
frustrates) if you think it's not Telecom's fault? (actually yes
thinking back I have heard lots about poor economy and isolation and
scattered population taking the blame)

And another question, if you don't blame Telecom for our poor BB and
hence probably think we got it right the first time by not going for
LLU (and think the rest of the world that has faster BB got it wrong by
unbundling?) then what do you think the answer is? (remembering that if
you think Telecom is good then they were doing everything right and
it's not a case of them not having enough money!)

If you think that the rest of the world, the NZ government and the
majority of the public are mistaken then what do you think should have
happened?

If I'm not going to be able to have a heated debate without getting
banned then at the very least I'd like to knowe what makes pro Telecom
people tick.

If these questions sound like arguments they aren't meant to and please
don't take them as such, if I understood pro Telecom people's reasoning
I wouldn't have to ask.

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#51008 4-Nov-2006 12:54

If you have just read my above post read it again, there was a word incorrectly interpreted as 'bad' and it took my ages to find it so I reposted it in parts till the objection was gone allowing me to find the offending paragraph.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79288 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#51009 4-Nov-2006 13:00

antigrav: If you think that the rest of the world, the NZ government and the majority of the public are mistaken then what do you think should have happened?

If I'm not going to be able to have a heated debate without getting banned then at the very least I'd like to knowe what makes pro Telecom people tick.

You can have a heated argument. But name calling is not allowed. Also attack the idea, not the person. Is this clear?

As for what it should've happened? LLU 10 years ago. It's too late now. All ISPs will try and use the old copper.

I said and repeat: LLU is not the same as technology development. They all want to suck what's there. I have not yet seen a single company saying anything about investment in wired broadband. The opportunity to be the first in the market is there. But no one wants to put their money where their mouth is.

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#51010 4-Nov-2006 13:42

freitasm:
antigrav: If you think that the rest of the world, the NZ government and the majority of the public are mistaken then what do you think should have happened?

If I'm not going to be able to have a heated debate without getting banned then at the very least I'd like to knowe what makes pro Telecom people tick.

You can have a heated argument. But name calling is not allowed. Also attack the idea, not the person. Is this clear?

As for what it should've happened? LLU 10 years ago. It's too late now. All ISPs will try and use the old copper.

I said and repeat: LLU is not the same as technology development. They all want to suck what's there. I have not yet seen a single company saying anything about investment in wired broadband. The opportunity to be the first in the market is there. But no one wants to put their money where their mouth is.

I suppose in the heat of an argument I could have called someone a name but I don't recall doing any such thing and that doesn't sound like me.
I have riddicled peoples ideas but not people directly.

LLU is a stepping stone along with regulations to stop anticompetative behaviour. (a company would have been mad to propose investing in wired broadband with what happened to Telstra, it was Telecom and the government at fault over that one)
LLU allows them to make some money to fund FTTP hopefully and build the customerbase to do so, and nothing has changed, yes LLU should have happened 10 years ago, now we are 10 years behind but LLU is still the best hope.

Also while I love the idea of fibre, never the less copper is enough, with more exchanges we could have VDSL 100mbit down over copper, and even adsl2+ is enough for streaming hdtv.

Of course the smart more is to go big on fibre because whoever does will own NZ's ~~internet~~ digital future unless they manage to screw it up so badly they force regulation. (and clearly it's not easy to do that, look how long it took Telecom!)

Actually I think someone should setup a public trust, apply for a loan, get fibre installed to people premisis, pay off the cost with the monthly service fee until finally you own your connection and have to pay nothing.
This could be done for international traffic too, it would just require getting enough people together to do it.

I think that if they don't get busy eventually there is a real chance users will come together to try and do such.

There are people who want fibre, there are people who want to lend money, there are people who want to sell fibre.
All it would require is a bit of organization, and in the end we would be better off for it.

nzbnw

2374 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Spark NZ

#51012 4-Nov-2006 14:05

antigrav: If you have just read my above post read it again,

Who would have the time, I mean look at the size of !!! It's just soooooooooooooo long.

juha

1317 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#51013 4-Nov-2006 14:09

freitasm: As for what it should've happened? LLU 10 years ago. It's too late now. All ISPs will try and use the old copper.

Yes, and that really is the root of the problem. As ex-comms minister Paul Swain told me, New Zealand privatised Telecom without any consideration as to what regulation might be necessary to foster not only competition but to meet any social goals that may be placed on important national infrastructure.

It's 2006 now, and we're still bickering about whether or not do what everyone else in the world has done already. All the evidence from overseas point to competition on the local loop being a good thing - and before Jama jumps on me for saying so, note that Dr Roderick Deane said the same in 1995 already.

I said and repeat: LLU is not the same as technology development. They all want to suck what's there. I have not yet seen a single company saying anything about investment in wired broadband. The opportunity to be the first in the market is there. But no one wants to put their money where their mouth is.

Hmm, well, I'll have to respectfully disagree here... there's definitely investment being announced, but understandably, providers can't order gear and start putting it into exchanges and cabinets until LLU is enacted with the other regulation. Telecom could take the initiative here and let providers do it already, but doubt that'll happen.

Orcon's got Siemens and a $30 million budget for instance, waiting to install VDSL2. I know other providers wanting to do the same, because ADSL2+ is old hat already, and VDSL2 makes more sense. One key issue that the new regulation needs to deal with however is that sub-loop unbundling starts at the jointing cabinets, and not like Telecom wants, the nearest active cabinet only. The DSLAMs need to get close to customers.

Juha

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

kwaan

70 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#51015 4-Nov-2006 14:28

Lets all just finish our arguments here and blame telecom and theresea gattueng for the rest of our lives to hold back NZ from being a developed technological country.....

nzbnw

2374 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Spark NZ

#51016 4-Nov-2006 14:38

kwaan: Lets all just finish our arguments here and blame telecom and theresea gattueng for the rest of our lives to hold back NZ from being a developed technological country.....

I cant beleive you had the nerve to say that after all the goings on in this thread.

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#51017 4-Nov-2006 14:50

One key issue that the new regulation needs to deal with however is that sub-loop unbundling starts at the jointing cabinets, and not like Telecom wants, the nearest active cabinet only. The DSLAMs need to get close to customers.

Here here!

Saying that LLU isn't new technology is wrong because it will allow VDSL2&2+ by building getting DSLAM's closer as Juha mentions.
And if you don't want to define that as new technology over adsl then fine, but if that's not new technology what do we need new technology for?

What we need is broadband that is fast and reliable, and while fibre is the ultimate I will go out on a limb and say: '100-150mbit ought to be enough for any almost residential customer for 15 years at least'.

And unlike Bill Gates I'm pretty sure I'll be right.

BTW, as for 'It was a good idea 10 years ago but not now', why? What has changed? Not New Zealands internet ;)

cokemaster

Exited
4929 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#51021 4-Nov-2006 16:02

LLU is not technology, its just a process where a competitor connects up someone elses phonelines to his equipment.

Those other technologies already exist and nothing is stopping a competitor from using those technologies... if they had the will to invest instead of fighting over old technology which is likely to pull us back more.

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

riahon

946 posts

Ultimate Geek

#51027 4-Nov-2006 16:58

Build a ~~bridge~~ network and get over it.

Antigrav has the right idea - get together a group of people willing to organise it, willing to fund it and willing to build it and get it done. It cant be hard, you seem to have all the know how. Tell you what - let me know when it is available in the nawton / hamilton area and if you are competitive with Telecom, or even 10% more expensive then I promise to be your very first customer. I have 5 siblings whom I will also convince to move to your network - I await your call.

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#51046 4-Nov-2006 21:05

cokemaster: LLU is not technology, its just a process where a competitor connects up someone elses phonelines to his equipment.

Those other technologies already exist and nothing is stopping a competitor from using those technologies... if they had the will to invest instead of fighting over old technology which is likely to pull us back more.

But if LLU means that ISP's can offer VDSL2 or 2+ or maybe the next DSL technology which they otherwise have no way of doing then yes, It is. (it is regulation that immediatly allows brand new high preformance and affordible technology)

Or maybe we should wait for Telecom to give us VDSL, does 2020 sound good?
BTW fibre, now that's old technology, VDSL is much newer.
And if you think any ISP is going to lay copper to deliver VDSL your dreaming.

Now fibre is better of course but for a moment compare the cost of a national fibre network to the cost of getting DSLAM's closer to the door, it doesn't take an accountant to work that one out.

Of course ADSL2+ is so old now I question if there is any point unless Telecom can launch it everywhere by lunchtime yesterday, apparently they plan to begin next year and it doesn't sound like there is anything as firm as previous dates which have past. (plus it's covered so they have to offer it wholesale, so about now they are probably looking at dragging their heels till there is no point)

Also LLU has meant that Telecom has one chance to stay relevant, maybe they realise it, fttp.
Now if super cheap VDSL is offered by ISP's then Telecom are going to have to keep fibre competitive.

As for my fibre idea, it might be interesting to look into costs, anyone know what a good deal on fibre is per meter, and signal boosters...

Hypernova

50 posts

Geek

#51048 4-Nov-2006 21:37

If you want a bigger slice, bake a bigger pie.

IMO small ISPs should band together and pool resources for new networks.

antigrav

68 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#51050 4-Nov-2006 21:43

Very interesting: www.nordu.net/nordunet2000/presentations/canarie.ppt

The cost of fibre is in the laying, what pisses me off is they always seem to be ripping up roads for no reason, but I doubt they are chucking fibre in there, too bad cause the fibre costs nothing.

There ought to be a law against ripping up the road and not laying fibre!

Even with the costs of laying it you make back the cost in 6 months to a year.

All that is needed is a modicum of organization because if you build FTTP rather than have an ISP do it you pay once, after a year your connection is free, check out that power point presentation.

Enough to make me reach for a spade!

[Moderator edit (bradstewart): Hyperlinked and reformated]

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5