There goes the ability to be competitive; if you were to allow the ISP to carry the bandwidth then the ISP can come up with its own traffic caps. I agree that no traffic cap is probably not right, I had a customer new to the InterWeb and he thought by downloading the /pub folder at simtel.com he would get Norton Antivirus. Ironically after about a month and a half of downloading he stopped and found he still didn’t. Seemed he had to pay for it :) When I worked in Australia for Compaq/HP no dialup provider was offering TRUE flat rate, it was all 200hrs - 300hrs, and from memory Ihug was the cheapest over there. Only recently have I seen adverts on Australian TV for Flat rate cable broadband, it is possible it has the same "non true flat rate" component as the dialup. The economies are different I know between the two countries for delivery but no one wants to be that one company to offer true FLAT RATE and then everyone gets poor QOS and run them in to the dirt. Regards Matt Brown -----Original Message----- From: Juha Saarinen [mailto:juha(a)saarinen.org] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:21 PM To: Matthew Brown Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] New Telecom Jetstream Plans Leaked? Matthew Brown wrote:

With the new plans are the ISP providing the Bandwidth to the customer ?

No, ISPs are just reselling Telecom bandwidth, according to what Chris Thompson said in Computerworld. -- Juha --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/2004

...

Where does this idea of of the customer deserving flatrate broadband for peanuts come from?

I beleive this idea comes from other countries where more than one telecommunications provider offers DSL/Cable systems, and there is actual competition. This is a great improvement from Telecom, however does not compare to other countries internet pricing. Being fair this could be put down to the lower quanitity of usable lines in NZ compared to the US, I don't think we'll be able to get the same prices as the US ever purely due to population density restrictions, however I do think the price could be dramaticly lower and Telecom still profit. Dont mean to be a complainer, I do like these new Telecom DSL offers, they are much better. JetStart actually qualifying as 'broadband' with the 256K download spec. Speed limiting in my eyes is a much preffered alternative to the huge cash bill at the end of the month. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juha Saarinen" To: "Finnigan, Jamie (NZ - Wellington)" Cc: Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [nznog] New Telecom Jetstream Plans Leaked?

Finnigan, Jamie (NZ - Wellington) wrote:

Conversely, where does the idea that Telecom deserves exemption from competition come from? Corporate charity?

...

CAUTION: This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make any use of its content unless that use is approved by Deloitte separately in writing. Any opinion, advice or information contained in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is to be treated as interim and provisional only and for the strictly limited purpose of the recipient as communicated to us. Neither the recipient nor any other person should act upon it without our separate written authorisation of reliance.

Deloitte is a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is a Swiss Verein (association), and, as such, neither Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu nor any of its member firms has any liability for each other's acts or omissions. Each of the member firms is a separate and independent legal entity operating under the names "Deloitte," "Deloitte & Touche," "Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu," or other related names. Services are provided by the member firms and not by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein.

If you have received this message in error please notify us immediately and destroy this message. Thank you.

Deloitte Internet: www.deloitte.co.nz

http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

-- Juha _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Was an apparent fact I picked up, that has now become outdated (co-worker informed me after I sent the message). Apparently there is a spec which defines the term broadband, must be greater than a set speed etc, I was told now 384Kbit and upwards can be classified as broadband. But this is just what I have been told by co-workers. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Davidson" To: Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [nznog] New Telecom Jetstream Plans Leaked?

Finnigan, Jamie wrote:

...

Where does this idea of of the customer deserving flatrate broadband for peanuts come from?

Where does this idea that 256K is broadband come from?

Keith Davidson

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Just to add my two bits. I think it all depends on the goegraphical or rather political region concerned. Someone selling 256 kbps Broadband in

U.S. would become laughing stock very fast. However someone selling 256 Kbps as broadband in say Srilanka would just barely get away with it. Then again maybe not cause the ADSL connections sold in Sri Lanka are 500 Kbps and 1 Mbps flat rate plans. But Sri Lanka is supposed to be backwards in terms of technology compared to New Zealand ?? Very confusing...

On the other hand however selling 256 Kbps as broadband in Never Never Land (located towards the northern tip of Antarctica) would most probably work.

The sad thing is that in Seychelles which is a tiny country of just 65000 people, all broadband connections sold are 500 kbps or better. Actually

Tikiri Wicks wrote: the they

only have 4 types of connections in that country. Dialup, ISDN BRI / PRI, 500 Kbps Wireless, and HDSL Leased lines at higher. The telecoms company owning the local loop (Cable and Wireless Intl.) willingly rent out raw copper pairs at a nominal rate of about 400 NZ dollars per month which is ideal for use with HDSL modems going upto 2 Mbps Bi-directional. Unfortunately they do not have high speed fibre running to the country. Instead they make do with satelite bandwidth into the country.

Well no need to add wood to a burning fire...

Many of NZNOGgers will know Andy Gardner who has been living in Mexico for a few years now. A couple of days ago we were ICQ chatting and Andy said: "Mexico's dominant telco just doubled everyone's DSL speed with no price increase. Those getting 256k suddenly found 512k available. I was on 512k so after a re-boot of my DSL modem I now find myself with 1megabit AYCE DSL for 899 pesos per month. NZ$119. Gosh, I miss Telecom." NZ has dropped from a high placing for % penetration of broadband, to, iirc, 23rd from 24 OECD countries. The sole differentiating factors are the exhorbitant costs and data caps applicable in NZ. I trust all have seen the advert re LLU in tonights paper, and are responding accordingly? Keith Davidson

On 10 Feb 2004, at 02:28, Anaru Hartley wrote:

Mexico has like, 100 million people and a Internet user base of 3.5 million (thank you CIA World Fact Book) yet New Zealand has 2 million and a population of somewhere around 4 million. Do you need statistics or something else? Maybe New Zealand Internet Users (aside from geeks/heavy users) simply don't need a fast Internet connection.

So it's worthwhile to roll out affordable broadband access to the 3.5% of Mexicans who use the Internet at all, but not to the 50% of New Zealanders who do? Or is your point that the extra 1.5 million Internet users in Mexico make all the difference in making it commercially viable to provide reasonable access? Or something else? My 3M residential, flat-rate ADSL service here in snow-bound Ontario is about to get upgraded to 5M with no increase in price. Course, there's competition in the local loop here. Joe

At 07:48 p.m. 9/02/2004 +1300, James White wrote:

...

Where does this idea that 256K is broadband come from?

I thought it was something set by Telecom?

who ever "set" it is crazy. Its anything above 2mbps. Before "broadband", you could get a 2mbps cct, so for the "new" thing it has to be better. Hence 2+ mbps, and in my thinking only really kicks in around 30mbps. As a few may know I can get a little passionate about higher speeds and why we need them. Its not about bits and bytes, but about the economic development of our country. People who would give us pathetic speeds when they can deliver a better product are damaging our economy. To my thinking this is close to treason. Michael Newberry can you find a dictionary definition to back me up ?? So maybe instead of arguing about bit rates we should just get a few treason trials going featuring Theresa Gattung and Rosemary Howard for starters. After a few executions, we might start getting broadband. Seriously - it is economic development and its at least scandalous that a company (or companies) can hold back the economy of a country in this way. Thats why CityLink was started, and why we keep having to visit Councils and explain the effect it has had. I know of 3 businesses that moved out of the Hutt to Wgtn because of the cost of networking. So use economic development in your argument for better rates and watch the political force build behind you. And yes the NZNOG videos are coming. Theres 8.9GBytes of them, so I didn't use my "broadband" dsl connection, as it would bankrupt me. Despite being in AKL today, I took a firewire disk into work and the files are copying at the moment. Thats a very good example of how dsl and its pricing is holding back NZ business. rich