Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 
285 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8


Reply # 33711 23-Apr-2006 15:52
Send private message

Heh most probably.... Go Go WiMAX i say... DSL = old technology... bring on Wireless

25662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5411

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Subscriber

Reply # 33715 23-Apr-2006 16:00
Send private message

SilentOne:
Anyways thats my drop in the stormy seas. Granted I don't like aspects of how Telecom works, but if they weren't here with the KiwShare agreement with the Government.. it really would be an offshore country looking after Our... My interests and that doesn't bode well.




The Kiwishare and TSO that replaced it ARE the problem that is holding us back. The sooner they are gone the better.


 
 
 
 


Juha
1318 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted
Subscriber

Reply # 33721 23-Apr-2006 16:35
Send private message

SilentOne: Heh most probably.... Go Go WiMAX i say... DSL = old technology... bring on Wireless


The problem with NZ not having unbundled is that competing operators don't have sufficient customer bases now to start building $whatever last-mile networks themselves. It's all very well to point at wireless as the great local-loop bypass technology, but once you start rolling out say a WiMAX network, Telecom will compete aggressively like they did with Saturn. The ComCom allows predatory spot pricing by the incumbent unfortunately, unlike in other jurisdictions around the world where the regulator steps in to prevent monopolists from trying to starve out new entrants with anti-competitive measures.




285 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8


Reply # 33725 23-Apr-2006 17:47
Send private message

Telecom is highly regulated as to what they can and can't do. Prime example is how Telecom put in a bid to the ComCom to bypass the 5 yrear plan on mobile termination prices and lower all of its mobile prices over a 12 month period. The ComCom said it was anti-competitive..... so... recap.... Telecom offers to lower costs to other profiders to enter its cell network.. which would be passed onto the customer at cheaper rates... .. ComCom says no thanks.

I wasn't pointing to WiMAX as an alternative to LLU... I was highlighting there's two sides to the story and LLU isn't the be all and end all of cheaper, faster internet or even the only thing that would need to be done to enure, as a country, NZ keeps up with internet technology.


WiMAX or some form of wireless is bound to supersede ADSL.... for the same reasons 3rd world countries get cell phone networks rather than fixed lines, they are cheaper, more serviceable and to a degree more scableable and future proof.

From a competivite business point of view it would be grouped within a businesses R&D ... Telecom has purchased the license to a wireless spectrum just in case, as have other large corporates in New Zealand.... just in case..... theres no use entering a new market/medium/whatever when you've missed the technological boat.  WiMAX might still be a flop, its still early days.. but its an atlernative at the moment in some areas in New Zealand.


25662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5411

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Subscriber

Reply # 33727 23-Apr-2006 18:01
Send private message

SilentOne: Telecom is highly regulated as to what they can and can't do.



I assume this isn't Telecom NZ you're talking about? :-)


285 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8


Reply # 33728 23-Apr-2006 18:42
Send private message

Heh yea i know, they do seem to communicate poorly with the public and appear aloof and distant while standing behind their lawyers... but yes Telecom NZ are heavliy regulated.

25662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5411

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Subscriber

Reply # 33729 23-Apr-2006 19:06
Send private message

SilentOne: Telecom is highly regulated as to what they can and can't do. Prime example is how Telecom put in a bid to the ComCom to bypass the 5 yrear plan on mobile termination prices and lower all of its mobile prices over a 12 month period. The ComCom said it was anti-competitive..... so... recap.... Telecom offers to lower costs to other profiders to enter its cell network.. which would be passed onto the customer at cheaper rates... .. ComCom says no thanks.


Telecom's proposal was to lower the rates over a 3 1/2 yr period as detailed here in their submission so I'm not sure where you got the 12 month period from.


http://www.comcom.govt.nz//IndustryRegulation/Telecommunications/Investigations/MobileTerminationRates/ContentFiles/Documents/Telecom commercial offer.pdf

The commerce commission rejected Telecom's offer because it wanted rates dropped over a much short time frame.

Juha
1318 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted
Subscriber

Reply # 33730 23-Apr-2006 19:09
Send private message

SilentOne: Heh yea i know, they do seem to communicate poorly with the public and appear aloof and distant while standing behind their lawyers... but yes Telecom NZ are heavliy regulated.


Hmm... I don't think that's the case.

For a time it looked as though, as its undertakings had stated, Telecom's  interconnection pricing would find a basis in cost, rather than the prices  it chose to list. However, the Privy Council took another view - one which
highlighted a fundamental flaw in the NZ model that has shaped the landscape  of competition every since.

In its ruling, the Privy Council stated:
"The introduction of efficient competition (by such anti-trust

legislation a section 36) did not in itself instantly remove the evils
of the monopolist's overcharging: it produced the conditions which,
by market forces, eventually force the monopolist of operate efficiently
(and therefore more cheaply) and to abandon policies of excessive
charging. Such legislation is neither effective nor apt to take the
place of regulatory proceeding. [However,] since the Commerce Act
contains the machinery for dealing with the monopoly rents [(section
53)]…,it would, in Their Lordships' view, be wrong to construe
section 36 so as to extend its scope to produce a quasi-regulatory
system which the Act expressly provides for, with all the necessary
powers and safeguards, in another part of the Act."

The Privy Council found that the Commerce Act, as it existed, provided the necessary tools to prevent monopoly abuse, should the government wish to use them, but that section 36 was not - as the regime's founders believed - an effective 'access regime' to provide entrants with reasonable access to necessary facilities. The Baumol-Willig rule was formulated in the United States, where regulations are designed to prevent monopoly profits. As the Privy Council noted, provisions existed elsewhere in the Commerce
Act to take action against monopoly rents, therefore, it considered it inappropriate to make such a judgement when considering Clear's section 36 application. The policy 'problem' for NZ's light-handed model had been batted firmly back into the court of New Zealand policy-makers.

In tandem with this court action, the Commerce Commission, following Clear's application to the High Court, initiated its own general inquiry into the telecommunications market. In a review prescient to the predicament of today's market, the Commission concluded that the Commerce Act and the Telecommunications Disclosure Regulations were unlikely to be effective in removing obstacles to competition in the industry. It stated:
"Telecom has become the de facto industry regulator; it owns

or controls most of the critical inputs, it competes with all the
firms to which it supplies those inputs, and, by and large, it makes
the rules under which competition is permitted to take place."

Telecom took the Commission to the High Court and succeeded in obtaining a ruling that the Commission had overstepped its powers in conducting such a broad inquiry. (Clearly, a ruling to this effect by the Commission would have been detrimental to Telecom's court defence against CLEAR and any potential policy response arising from it.) Ever since, the Commission's preference, in terms of substantive competition issues, has been that  

it should be private parties with sufficient resources that prosecute anti-competitive issues through the courts, rather than itself.

Politically, the Privy Council ruling was welcomed by Communications Minister Maurice Williamson. The process was seen as a vindication of the NZ model, whereby two private competitors had struck interconnection terms via the courts without a regulator. However, at official level, there was some disquiet, and a recognition that New Zealand was left without an effective access regime.

Questions were raised about the thresholds underpinning the Commerce Act, notably for a breach of section 36 that required proof not only of dominance, but also anti-competitive intent.

Changes to the Act, involving modifications to thresholds, are currently before Parliament - six years after the Privy Council ruling.





285 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8


Reply # 33733 23-Apr-2006 19:53
Send private message

My initial point was there are many conceptions that are concluded primarily on opinions. I'm not standing beside Telecom in my ramblings as I myself would love to see many things that they hold sway over to be different.

What I was getting at is that everybody initially in this post were comparing speeds, blaming it on LLU and the rest of it without thinking of other implications and reasons why the Government didn't enforce it last time. ComCom aren't stupid and wouldn't have been "glazened" with Telecoms "list" prices.. hence their enquiry. There must have been other reasons why LLU wasn't enforced, perhaps the position the country was in at that time didn't provide a viable option for LLU, or perhaps the way it had been rolled out in other countries was still to early to gauge the outcome and its benefits.

I personally do see LLU as a STEP in the right direction but its not a small issue and even though we have other countries to model it off, we are in a unique situation with the country we are in and the availible population we have to work with. I'd love nothing more than to have similar infratructures that exist in the bigger, wealthier countries like the States, Sweden etc with HUGE internet speeds to exist in NZ.

25662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5411

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Subscriber

Reply # 33734 23-Apr-2006 20:10
Send private message

SilentOne: What I was getting at is that everybody initially in this post were comparing speeds, blaming it on LLU and the rest of it without thinking of other implications and reasons why the Government didn't enforce it last time. ComCom aren't stupid and wouldn't have been "glazened" with Telecoms "list" prices.. hence their enquiry. There must have been other reasons why LLU wasn't enforced, perhaps the position the country was in at that time didn't provide a viable option for LLU, or perhaps the way it had been rolled out in other countries was still to early to gauge the outcome and its benefits.


The decision not to proceed with LLU in New Zealand had nothing to do with the commerce commission. It was a decision made by the communications minister & government.


285 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8


Reply # 33735 23-Apr-2006 20:19
Send private message

That would be due to my poor re-arranging skills Smile ... i used "reasons why the Government didn't enforce it last time" then re-arranged sentances... sorry to have wrongly labelled the governing parties.

360 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2


Reply # 33746 23-Apr-2006 23:55
Send private message

nzbnw:
centaurianz: I've gone back to 256kbps and a 40GB data cap.

Telecom's 3.5Mbps offerings are mandarins not oranges. (The data caps leave a sour taste in your mouth too!) In my book, if you're selling an orange - you should get an orange.

ADSL2 and unbundling, anyone?




ADSL2 Yes, Unbundling NO WAY.

Unbundling will not solve
New Zealand’s problems, and besides why should Telecom have to give into the government on an issue that is really not their problem. Telecom as with all other businesses are here for one reason and one reason only, and it's not to make an operating loss. They way I see it is Telecom owns the lines end of story. And it is only because Telecom is doing well out of broadband that other ISPs want in. Telecom represents free business and the ideals of a free market, and those who say otherwise are merely communists. That’s my take anyways and I guess most of you would disagree, but before you do, think about this.

What would you do if you where Telecom. And don’t say unbundle the local loop.

Regards

Ben



I cannot dispute the fact that the local copper loop is indeed the property of Telecom NZ, but if the government were really keen in moving NZ forward in terms of internet connectivity without making it unfair for Telecom NZ, then the government should either buy back the local loop at whatever cost or invest in new infrastructure and then rent it out to parties interested in offering ADSL, phone or any communication means for that matter. That way, we will lower the cost to setup a telecommunication business and subsequently a surge in competition in this market - i.e. a major gain for consumers.

I believe this is in a way better than LLU in that we do not place Telecom NZ in an unfavourable business position. The government maintains the local loop, upgrade it and invest it further using the $$$ from renting them out. This assures the public that the party holding ownership of the local loop isn't business-oriented or profit-oriented, but out to do a service to all NZers.

Anyway, don't flame me for saying this, it's just my opinion. :)



362 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 33749 24-Apr-2006 07:40
Send private message

perhaps labour could use some of the 8 Billion Dollar surplus it has. Ooops they already spent that covering their electrion promises

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

UFB connections pass 460,000
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:26


The Warehouse Group to adopt IBM Cloud to support digital transformation
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:22


Dimension Data peeks into digital business 2018
Posted 11-Dec-2017 10:55


2018 Cyber Security Predictions
Posted 7-Dec-2017 14:55


Global Govtech Accelerator to drive public sector innovation in Wellington
Posted 7-Dec-2017 11:21


Stuff Pix media strategy a new direction
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:37


Digital transformation is dead
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:31


Fake news and cyber security
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:27


Dimension Data New Zealand strengthens cybersecurity practice
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:27


Epson NZ launches new Expression Premium Photo range
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:26


Eventbrite and Twickets launch integration partnership in Australia and New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:23


New Fujifilm macro lens lands in New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:16


Cyber security not being taken seriously enough
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:13


Sony commences Android 8.0 Oreo rollout in New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:08


Revera partners with Nyriad to deliver blockchain pilot to NZ Government
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:01



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



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.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.