![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Screeb:BiggusDoggus:
Yes I read the article.
The article does *not* say that NZer's pay $31 for 90 minutes, or the US pays $79 for 800 minutes. You have taken stats from one part of the article and combined them with a quote from 2Degrees (that's impartiality for you) and come up with your calculation.
Yes, the US is more expensive for a whole raft of reasons. Including the fact a lot of their apparently great value plans (which include heaps of data and texts etc etc) involve the *receiver* of the call or text being charged.
So your entire argument rests on 2degrees apparently flat out lying about NZ making far less calling minutes per month than other countries?
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries
Screeb:ockel:
The OECD measurement is based on a theoretical basket of calls (at different dayparts and different distances - local/national/ILD) including on-net and off-net calls/txts. The baskets are derived from Teligen and readily available for analysis by the public. The ComCom uses the Teligen baskets in its quarterly/annual reviews.
Yes, so? I don't get what you're trying to say.
BiggusDoggus:
Not at all. Just because NZer's talk less on mobiles doesn't mean it's neccessarily more expensive. It may just mean.....they talk less on mobiles.
Just because NZer's eat less Big Mac's than Americans does that mean Big Mac's are more expensive here? Just because NZer's drink less red wine than Italians does that mean red wine is more expensive here?
Does 2Degress have an ulterior motive to try and make kiwis think they're getting "ripped off"? Of course they do.
ockel:
As per BiggusDoggus I'm noting that you're significantly misquoting the OECD statistics and the interpretation therein. The $31/mth refers to a basket of calls not the average calls made by a NZ mobile user.
To enable comparisons between countries the Teligen theoretical baskets (low, medium. high) for both mobile and landline users are constructed based on tariffs charged by operators.
[...]
Using average usage and average spend (from completely different sources) suggests that perhaps you didnt understand how the OECD numbers are derived. I was trying to help point you in the right direction to gain perspective on the matter.
Despite TUANZ claiming that the OECD data isnt reliable but often quotes the ComCom reports (using the same methodology) claiming prices are too high is highly hypocritical.
PaulBrislen:
If it were up to me I'd probably say something like "I think they've already made their mind up and are just looking for an excuse to regulate" but that certainly wouldn't be a Vodafone point of view.
Screeb:BiggusDoggus:
Not at all. Just because NZer's talk less on mobiles doesn't mean it's neccessarily more expensive. It may just mean.....they talk less on mobiles.
Just because NZer's eat less Big Mac's than Americans does that mean Big Mac's are more expensive here? Just because NZer's drink less red wine than Italians does that mean red wine is more expensive here?
Care to show how NZ isn't getting ripped off then?
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries
Screeb: And a bit more on topic: Paul, why is Telecom so concerned with termination charges being lowered so drastically? Vodafone's public position on the matter is obvious - they're getting ~$100 million a year in MTR charges from Telecom. Hey, free money! But Telecom seemingly has no reason - after all, I'm sure they don't like giving away $100m a year to their "competitor". Of course, we all know the true reason both companies don't want the rates lowered - which leads me to: Why isn't Vodafone saying anything about MTRs being a barrier to entry? Instead, you insist on talking about pass-through, which is really besides the point.
BiggusDoggus:
My pleasure (at the risk of repeating myself).
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2750833/OECD-figures-make-mobile-rates-look-good
Just because NZer's talk less on mobiles doesn't mean it's neccessarily more expensive. It may just mean.....they talk less on mobiles.
nzbnw:
What the?
If VF pays Telecom $100M in termination and in a simplistic world, Telecom pays VF $100M, how much money changes hands? No free money at all.
Pass through is absolutely relevant, as shown above you can set the termination rates at whatever level you like, $1 per minute for all anyone cares as long as each network is paying each other a similar figure in termination rates. Lowering the rates won't achieve anything without a guarantee these reductions will flow through in the retail market.
Well that’s my simplistic personal view anyway.
nzbnw
nzbnw: I know there will be a balance to pay, what your article does not say is how much VF pay Telecom, nor does it say that $100 million is the difference between the two payments.
I still stand by my comments and Pauls view that pass-through is critical.
nzbnw
Telecom pays Vodafone $100 million in mobile termination rates each year but that it doesn’t make a fuss because it shuts out competition such as 2degrees.(from previous article)
Many billions of dollars each year get charged backwards and forwards but the net effect, we think, is that Telecom pays Vodafone over $100 million a year. And that reveals the truth about mobile termination rates. They aren't about efficient pricing or even raising revenue for the big two. Their main effect is to try to keep new providers out of the market. That's because, when a new entrant emerges, most of its customers will have to call or text friends on the old networks - so the new entrants' prices have to be higher than they want them to be.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |