LEE Tet Yoon
2004-09-08 06:59:31 UTC
http://www.computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/C01AEB912FAC3892CC256F07000D5DBD?OpenDocument
The confusion regarding UBS is starting to clear up
As I suspected, Telecom are not going to try to charge 5 cents/mb. According to the
CW article it's either $2.85 per gigabyte which of course is 0.285 cents/mb
(actually if they use 1024mb=1gb it's a bit less but lets not go there) or 2.85
cents per MB. I'm inclined to believe its $2.85/gb.
This charge is only for ISPs who choose to use Telecom's backhaul. If they don't,
they don't pay which is as it should be. Why Telecom didn't just state this in the
first place is any's guess. The more cynical may suggest it's because Telecom were
going to charge even if you didn't use their backhaul but they changed their mind
due to the flak they received but who knows...?
They've also confirmed they're not going to do anything to stop ISPs
offering/advertising/encouraging the use of realtime services but just don't
provide any guarantees (which is as expected).
The issue of static IPs is still unclear to me. I had though Telecom was allowing
ISPs to offer static IPs, they just didn't like it at first. But now, they say
'the pricing for that service �would be referenced against a comparable retail
offering� and not against Telecom�s �basic web-surfing retail services� without
static IP addresses.'
Does this mean they are going to charge more if ISPs want to offer static IP? I
can't see why an ISP offering a static IP is going to cost Telecom any more so
if they do, it seems a case of 'charge them more so they can't properly compete
with us' ala churn fee to me (which may cost Telecom something but I doubt it's
$100)
One interesting thing is that they are now suggesting they're going to offer
2mbit/next year. I've read about 512 and 1mbit. This is the first I've read of
2mbit. However a quick search reveals it has been mentioned before... 'The telco
is now promising a 512kbit/s service in March next year, 1Mbit/s in May and
2Mbit/s to follow at some other time.' It's not all good news though 'But the
upload speed stays a low 128kbit/s'. So don't worry Wired Country, Telecom still
aren't really trying to compete...
http://www.computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/34CBF3B6D527E698CC256F000024BF01?OpenDocument
As for the regulated offer, well read the article. Having looked on the CC
website, I think one thing the article also missed is that ISPs will also have to
pay the CC $22.5k + any other expenses. I think Telecom is supposed ot share some
of the cost. I'm not sure since I haven't read it fully but I don't think the CC
will ask Telecom to pay back the ISPs this cost if they decide in favour of the
ISPs...
The confusion regarding UBS is starting to clear up
As I suspected, Telecom are not going to try to charge 5 cents/mb. According to the
CW article it's either $2.85 per gigabyte which of course is 0.285 cents/mb
(actually if they use 1024mb=1gb it's a bit less but lets not go there) or 2.85
cents per MB. I'm inclined to believe its $2.85/gb.
This charge is only for ISPs who choose to use Telecom's backhaul. If they don't,
they don't pay which is as it should be. Why Telecom didn't just state this in the
first place is any's guess. The more cynical may suggest it's because Telecom were
going to charge even if you didn't use their backhaul but they changed their mind
due to the flak they received but who knows...?
They've also confirmed they're not going to do anything to stop ISPs
offering/advertising/encouraging the use of realtime services but just don't
provide any guarantees (which is as expected).
The issue of static IPs is still unclear to me. I had though Telecom was allowing
ISPs to offer static IPs, they just didn't like it at first. But now, they say
'the pricing for that service �would be referenced against a comparable retail
offering� and not against Telecom�s �basic web-surfing retail services� without
static IP addresses.'
Does this mean they are going to charge more if ISPs want to offer static IP? I
can't see why an ISP offering a static IP is going to cost Telecom any more so
if they do, it seems a case of 'charge them more so they can't properly compete
with us' ala churn fee to me (which may cost Telecom something but I doubt it's
$100)
One interesting thing is that they are now suggesting they're going to offer
2mbit/next year. I've read about 512 and 1mbit. This is the first I've read of
2mbit. However a quick search reveals it has been mentioned before... 'The telco
is now promising a 512kbit/s service in March next year, 1Mbit/s in May and
2Mbit/s to follow at some other time.' It's not all good news though 'But the
upload speed stays a low 128kbit/s'. So don't worry Wired Country, Telecom still
aren't really trying to compete...
http://www.computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/34CBF3B6D527E698CC256F000024BF01?OpenDocument
As for the regulated offer, well read the article. Having looked on the CC
website, I think one thing the article also missed is that ISPs will also have to
pay the CC $22.5k + any other expenses. I think Telecom is supposed ot share some
of the cost. I'm not sure since I haven't read it fully but I don't think the CC
will ask Telecom to pay back the ISPs this cost if they decide in favour of the
ISPs...
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
To unsubscribe: send mail to ***@lists.unixathome.org
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
To unsubscribe: send mail to ***@lists.unixathome.org
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message