[Snap] OFFICIAL: Snaps UFB Pricing Released!

Forums › 2degrees (including Slingshot, Orcon, Flip, Stuff Fibre, MyRepublic, 2talk and Vocus) › [Snap] OFFICIAL: Snaps UFB Pricing Released!

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

86 posts

Master Geek

#669817 8-Aug-2012 21:01

Lorenceo: You could just not use the Snap VOIP and continue using your current VOIP provider over fibre.

Of course but then why pay for a service that you will never use?

Noodles

487 posts

Ultimate Geek

#669830 8-Aug-2012 21:30

I've had my UFB install booked in for weeks, but Snap are waiting for Chorus to sort things out as we have a multi tenant building (MDU install) and they're not quite sure how to do it yet.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#669836 8-Aug-2012 21:37

maxzzz:
Lorenceo: You could just not use the Snap VOIP and continue using your current VOIP provider over fibre.

Of course but then why pay for a service that you will never use?

Unlike a a POTS line with DSL you're not paying any extra for the VoIP component so it makes no difference whether you use it or not.

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#669851 8-Aug-2012 22:07

Surely you are tho? You are also counting in the stats for people that have a landline at home so when the stats of everyone under 35 going mobile only are listed, they are distorted in the direction of dinosaurphones etc.

IMO there is no acceptable reason for bundling any voice product with any data product. Its a step back to the dark ages to force the purchase of a landline - something only @telecomnz do ;)

Richard rich.ms

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#669873 8-Aug-2012 23:20

yeah, surely you are paying more for UFB including voip than you would be if there was a comparable UFB plan with no voip service. On their VDSL plans the naked plan is $95 a month with 30GB traffic and the naked+voip plan is $110 with 5GB.

(although I don't know what richms means by forcing the purchase of a landline)

Having said all of this, we are talking about a 30/10 Mbit UFB plan for $75 a month including voip! How much cheaper do you think UFB should be? Those of us with no UFB option can get VDSL2 for $95 with no voip.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer the UFB option with voip that I wasn't going to use (actually I would try their voip option first as maybe there are benefits to other voip providers, I don't know)

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#669885 9-Aug-2012 00:27

telecom force you to buy a landline to get internet off them, they have no naked option. The move to naked was a positive step for internet access since it meant that you didnt need to purchase and pay for a service that is prettymuch redundant for most people.

To force any form of landline service with UFB is a step backwards. When you use a third party provider you are free to use your voip how you see fit. When its provided by your ISP you are locked into using it on their hardware, in your house only etc. Like with orcon and the "genius" service. A step back to the forced landline purchase times of pre-naked DSL

Richard rich.ms

Lorenceo

904 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#669895 9-Aug-2012 02:15

While I understand the thought process behind people wanting naked UFB, it's likely that the cost saving would be minimal, if anything.
Remember that with VOIP you're just connecting to a SIP server. They don't have to pay Chorus for line rental, or other similar monthly wholesale costs.
While there are no doubt other fees further up stream to provide phone services, a single user wouldn't have much of an impact on that I'd think.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#669903 9-Aug-2012 06:30

blair003: yeah, surely you are paying more for UFB including voip than you would be if there was a comparable UFB plan with no voip service. On their VDSL plans the naked plan is $95 a month with 30GB traffic and the naked+voip plan is $110 with 5GB.

Why do you make that assumption?

Most ISP's will be offering voice services using their own RGW's rather than the ONT voice port so there are no additional wholesale LFC costs to provide voice. Voice will be 802.1p tagged and use the CIR so won't suffer degradation like which is entirely possible with EUBA0 since there is no 802.1p tagging.

As the only actual cost for the ISP is providing a local number (minimal cost) it makes plenty of sense to bundle voice for free and hope that people make calls so you'll gain extra revenue.

maxzzz

86 posts

Master Geek

#669995 9-Aug-2012 11:38

sbiddle:
blair003: yeah, surely you are paying more for UFB including voip than you would be if there was a comparable UFB plan with no voip service. On their VDSL plans the naked plan is $95 a month with 30GB traffic and the naked+voip plan is $110 with 5GB.

Why do you make that assumption?

Most ISP's will be offering voice services using their own RGW's rather than the ONT voice port so there are no additional wholesale LFC costs to provide voice. Voice will be 802.1p tagged and use the CIR so won't suffer degradation like which is entirely possible with EUBA0 since there is no 802.1p tagging.

As the only actual cost for the ISP is providing a local number (minimal cost) it makes plenty of sense to bundle voice for free and hope that people make calls so you'll gain extra revenue.

While I totally agree on the fact that it is always interesting for an ISP to bundle voice and hope that people make calls and then gain extra revenue, I do not agree on the fact that there is anything for "free", you pay it one way or another. I think that the Naked VDSL2+ vs VDSL2+ & VOIP price and data allowance clearly demonstrate that there is a difference.

The actual cost of getting a local phone number, even if it is minimal, should not be passed on the customer if he/she does not want to make use of it. I would rather prefer put this money towards data packs. As customers we always wanted to have the choice, and now with naked connections we have, there is no point going backwards.

wlgspotter

331 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#670004 9-Aug-2012 11:57

blair003:
Having said all of this, we are talking about a 30/10 Mbit UFB plan for $75 a month including voip! How much cheaper do you think UFB should be? Those of us with no UFB option can get VDSL2 for $95 with no voip.

TBH that was what actually prompted me to sign up in the end! I also wondered and asked why there was no Naked UFB option, but in the end the 30/10 Plan with VoIP seemed like a good deal.

I am currently with Snap Naked Broadband @ Home plan + an additional 60G data pack option, and that already costs me $75 / month total, WITHOUT a VoIP line. I have to pay WxC another $11+ per month for their VFX service, and whilst I really like the VFX Service and would prefer to keep it if Snap offered a Naked UFB plan, in the end I decided to move my phone line over to Snap and have arranged for my number to be ported.

So, all in $75 / month for UFB 30/10 Mbit and a VoIP line isn't too bad a deal for me. At least that will save me $11+ per month compared to my current plans/options.

Now waiting for Chorus to contact me to come and do a site survey for the install...

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#670013 9-Aug-2012 12:15

sbiddle:
blair003: yeah, surely you are paying more for UFB including voip than you would be if there was a comparable UFB plan with no voip service. On their VDSL plans the naked plan is $95 a month with 30GB traffic and the naked+voip plan is $110 with 5GB.

Why do you make that assumption?

Most ISP's will be offering voice services using their own RGW's rather than the ONT voice port so there are no additional wholesale LFC costs to provide voice. Voice will be 802.1p tagged and use the CIR so won't suffer degradation like which is entirely possible with EUBA0 since there is no 802.1p tagging.

As the only actual cost for the ISP is providing a local number (minimal cost) it makes plenty of sense to bundle voice for free and hope that people make calls so you'll gain extra revenue.

You obviously know a lot more about the technical side than me but from what I understand of what you are saying it is fairly trivial for the ISP to deliver enough guaranteed voice bandwidth for a voip line over UFB (802.1p tagging will mean it uses dedicated CIR for voice regardless of other traffic) which is something that the ISP can't do (or can't easily do?) with unbundled VDSL here.

My understanding is that Snap is not doing anything special with voip service offered on their VDSL2 plans.

My understanding is based on my forum post here that had no responses, and my subsequent call to the snap help desk in which I was told that there are no benefits to SNAP VDSL+Snap Voip versus say Snap VDSL+2talk. The help desk may not have the knowledge yet as it is new to them so they may be wrong (I expected at least the traffic to Snap's voip service would be zero rated).

So going back to the question, given that Snap VDSL2 plan with voip is more expensive than the VDSL2 plan with no voip, and my understanding that the VDSL2 plan with Snap voip is no different to VDSL2 plan+a third party voip provider, I assume that there must be a portion of the UFB plan cost for providing the voip service as there is with the VDSL plans.

If anything I would have expected the voip component of the UFB plan to be more costly because they have to dedicate a CIR to voip on UFB which they are not doing on VDSL plans.

Of course if Snap VDSL2 +Snap voip is doing something that they don't have to do when providing voip over UFB, my understanding is wrong. But if my understanding is wrong, Snap should let their help desk know as I am their customer and may be interested in signing up to their voip service on my VDSL2 plan over say 2talk.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#670016 9-Aug-2012 12:18

PS: I don't blame snap for bundling voip with UFB at all, it simplifies their product lineup and I think it is a selling point on why people should move to UFB and hopefully gets them extra revenue. It's also nowhere near the same as the telecom situation in my view. You still have choice, you can just wait for another ISP to provide UFB plans with no voip.

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#670019 9-Aug-2012 12:20

Noodles: I've had my UFB install booked in for weeks, but Snap are waiting for Chorus to sort things out as we have a multi tenant building (MDU install) and they're not quite sure how to do it yet.

I think it's up to your landlord/body corporate to get it to done, so if they don't care/if it costs them money/effort you're probably screwed!

I'm in an apartment building and i've been given the usual "Talk to UFB-> Talk to the RSP ->Talk to your Landlord->Talk to your RSP" run around x.x

mercutio

1392 posts

Uber Geek

#670040 9-Aug-2012 12:59

blair003:

If anything I would have expected the voip component of the UFB plan to be more costly because they have to dedicate a CIR to voip on UFB which they are not doing on VDSL plans.

Of course if Snap VDSL2 +Snap voip is doing something that they don't have to do when providing voip over UFB, my understanding is wrong.?But if my understanding is wrong, Snap should let their help desk know as I am their customer and may be interested in signing up to their voip service on my VDSL2 plan over say 2talk.

why do they have to dedicate a CIR to voip?

where a CIR is really needed is where significant congestion could happen, and you want to proritise the voice traffic.

on ADSL this is most likely to happen on the upstream channel, which has to happen in the CPE, not at the provider end. And with the downstream speeds of UFB and VDSL it shouldn't really be necessary given "reasonable" limitations on the buffer size of the inbound connection.

Sure if you get DOS'ed you could have issues. But if it's residential grade I don't see a big problem with not having QoS for VOIP traffic.

If your biggest concern is the increased cost over 2talk, I'd remind you that 2talk is a "cost sensitive" provider, with common complaints about support, and reasonably frequent outages. Just the other day they apparently turned down their APE port, as they were having "issues". Which to my mind, seems bizzare, and irrational, unless they have some kind of buggy router which holds onto routes after they've been withdrawn. (route servers at APE got upgraded/updated).

If you're really concerned about the small amount of price difference maybe you'd be better off with just using a cellphone, or skype, which may give you even cheaper pricing.

That said the latency on a congested VDSL or UFB port is still unlikely to be as significant as average cellphone latency.

I have no idea what Snap are doing about CIR on UFB, but to your every day user, this whole CIR thing is a government wank, to try and make sure we don't get the ... experience.. we got on BUBA ADSL, and to ensure adequete provisioning. It shouldn't be seen as an expectation on speeds - and it's really complicated to implement in a sensible manner.

Basically the CIR doesn't guarantee minimum traffic levels, it segregates traffic. So if you have 2 megabit CIR, and a 10 megabit circuit packets being sent to you can be marked as "CIR traffic" and if you mark over 2 megabit of that traffic, that traffic will drop. Then you can send the rest of the traffic.

Which means if you receive 3 megabit of "cir" traffic with a 2 megabit CIR you will get 1 megabit of the traffic just being dropped. This may seem like a minor thing, until you consider that one of the advantages to moving to IP telephony is that in the future video calling can become much more integrated than it currently is - and high def video calling requires higher bitrates than normal h264 media to match quality as the compression has to be done on the fly.

So overall it's not that future proof, unless providers want to splash out for more cir for residential connections. At the same time, QoS can be implemented across the whole connection to prioritise VoIP traffic, and stop users from impeding other traffic - it's much easier with a fixed bandwidth. The main risks for hurting interactive traffic with bittorrent, bulk traffic etc effect all traffic, and not just phone calls.

If you are really looking for other options for VOIP I'd recommend VFX over 2talk. I have got no idea what Snap's VOIP service is like, but I'd expect it'd be better than 2talk.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#670048 9-Aug-2012 13:21

I think the actual point of my post was lost because of my lack of technical understanding.

I was using 2talk as an example of a 3rd party voip provider, you can insert VFX instead of 2talk and the key point of my post doesn't change.

I personally was after data to decide whether I should go with Snap VDS2+SNAP Voip, or Snap VDS2+ third party voip. The reason I cited the example was to show that on their VDSL plans, the voip option does have a cost and if they are not doing anything special on their VDSL2 plans for voip that they don't do for voip on their UFB plans, then it stands to reason that part of the UFB plan cost was for voip.

For richms, I think he wanted to use POTS for phone and didn't need the voip option.

For me, I do want to go voip. But exactly who the third party voip provider is and how much they cost is the topic of another discussion -- I was wanting to know if Snaps voip option (as my ISP) was somehow different to a third party voip option (be it 2talk, vfx or whoever)

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9