UBS Per Meg Charges

[ADSL-List @ ProData]

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/356B8A20E567C86DCC256EED00750BAB

"Orcon managing director Seeby Woodhouse didn't respond to an inquiry from
Computerworld yesterday. However, he posted a press release on Orcon's
website overnight saying the provider will wear the cost of excess traffic
over 10GB a month (understood to be 5c/MB). Customers who signed up in
advance for Orcon's UBS plan on the premise that they would receive static
IP addresses will get these, Woodhouse promised."

I know it's unconfirmed, but how could TC charge 5c per meg (for traffic
over the 10G limit) for what is effectively LOCAL traffic!!?? That is what
they currently charge end users for INTERNATIONAL traffic over the limit
now!! This is just getting f#*king ridiculous!! I can see why they pulled
out of the APE national traffic connection now!!

Sam.

[Craig Humphrey]

Telecom don't differentiate between local and international traffic...
It's what makes them different :)

[snip snip]

Post by ADSL-List @ ProData
I know it's unconfirmed, but how could TC charge 5c per meg
(for traffic
over the 10G limit) for what is effectively LOCAL traffic!!??
That is what
they currently charge end users for INTERNATIONAL traffic
over the limit
now!! This is just getting f#*king ridiculous!! I can see
why they pulled
out of the APE national traffic connection now!!
Sam.

[Sascha Beaumont]

Post by Craig Humphrey
Telecom don't differentiate between local and international traffic...
It's what makes them different :)

Might want to rephrase that. Telecom don't differentiate between local
and international traffic on *Jetstream* plans, they simply measure what
goes over the line.

Xtra don't differentiate either on Jetstream or Dialup plans at least.

Telecom can, and do differentiate between local and international
traffic on high end connections, eg. For exmaple the DDS or ATM
connections referenced in the article for business'.

Sascha

[Jeremy Brooking]

Post by ADSL-List @ ProData
I know it's unconfirmed, but how could TC charge 5c per meg (for traffic
over the 10G limit) for what is effectively LOCAL traffic!!?? That is what
they currently charge end users for INTERNATIONAL traffic over the limit
now!! This is just getting f#*king ridiculous!! I can see why they pulled
out of the APE national traffic connection now!!

Local traffic? From my understanding of UBS, this charge will be applied
to traffic transitted from Telecom equipment in the exchange, to the ISP
pop in the same exchange.

5c/meg to transit traffic from one device in the exchange, to another
device in the same exchange?

Whats next? Telecom employees mugging people in the streets...

They may as well, both cases seem like daylight robbery to me.

[LEE Tet Yoon]

Local traffic? From my understanding of UBS, this charge will be applied to traffic transitted from Telecom equipment in the exchange, to the ISP pop in the same exchange.
5c/meg to transit traffic from one device in the exchange, to another device in the same exchange?
Whats next? Telecom employees mugging people in the streets...
They may as well, both cases seem like daylight robbery to me.

Maybe they mean 5c/meg average over the average?

E.g. if an ISP has 1000 customers who use a total of 10,000gb they pay nothing. If those same 1000 customers use a total of 11,000gb they pay $51.20 in total extra (because each customer is using 1gb on average more then the 'limit'). If this is indeed the case then perhaps it isn't so bad although small ISPs are likely to have big problems...

Surely this must be the case? I know Telecom are bad but I don't see any way Telecom can justify 5c/meg. Given that they allow an average of 10gb per customer, and the ISPs pay Telecom something like $24.90/customer then an ISP should just claim they have more customers then they actually have and pay Telecom the extra, unless Telecom disallow this. Even if Telecom try to claim they would be making more money from the extra 'customer' if said 'customer' was a real 'customer' (this doesn't make sense but it's the only way Telecom can justify refusing to let ISPs pay for more customers then they actually have) and add say $100/'fake customer' that's still only $125/month for 10 gig not $512/month for 10 gig... Personally, I think the most Telecom can justify charging ISPs is one more customer for every 10 gig (total not average) and even that's a real stretch.

Please realise that the situation is different from an end user/retail user wanting to pay for two accounts with 10gig. In that case, Telecom can at least claim the reason they cannot offer a customer 2 10gig accounts is because they price are set with the assumption that not everyone is going to use 10gig whereas if a customer wants two 10 gigs accounts, they're more likely to use them both.

[Stephen Judd]

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
I know Telecom are bad but I don't see any way Telecom can justify 5c/meg.

Telecom's sole justification is maximising returns to shareholders. The
justification for any seller charging any price is "because I can".

I find the ire focussed at Telecom a bit odd, actually. They're doing
exactly what any Big Dumb Company(tm) would do. The right for them to do
from a shareholder's perspective is go right up the line the Commerce
Commision will tolerate, and not a millimetre further back.

There are lots of reasons for us to be unhappy with what they offer, but
it seems to me that if we want things done in the interests of the
general public, rather than Telecom shareholders, then intervention in
the market is necessary - and that means that the commerce commission
and various ministers ought to be copping the flak. It isn't the role of
private corporations to pursue public policy goals. That's goverment's
job.

Stephen
--
Stephen Judd
***@vital.org.nz
http://vital.org.nz

[Mark Thompson]

Post by Stephen Judd

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
I know Telecom are bad but I don't see any way Telecom can justify 5c/meg.

Telecom's sole justification is maximising returns to shareholders. The
justification for any seller charging any price is "because I can".
I find the ire focussed at Telecom a bit odd, actually. They're doing
exactly what any Big Dumb Company(tm) would do. The right for them to do
from a shareholder's perspective is go right up the line the Commerce
Commision will tolerate, and not a millimetre further back.

The electricity industry model works well. Where one company can
generate and retail power but can not own the lines. Maybe they should
look at doing that.

a seperate company owns the phone lines. allows every other company
equal axs to said lines. i know it would be a mess but it would open up
and encourage competition...

[paul warner]

Post by Stephen Judd

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
I know Telecom are bad but I don't see any way Telecom can justify 5c/meg.

Telecom's sole justification is maximising returns to shareholders. The
justification for any seller charging any price is "because I can".
I find the ire focussed at Telecom a bit odd, actually. They're doing
exactly what any Big Dumb Company(tm) would do. The right for them to do
from a shareholder's perspective is go right up the line the Commerce
Commision will tolerate, and not a millimetre further back.

The electricity industry model works well. Where one company can generate
and retail power but can not own the lines. Maybe they should look at
doing that.
a seperate company owns the phone lines. allows every other company equal
axs to said lines. i know it would be a mess but it would open up and
encourage competition...

I would hardly say that it works well when they just hike the price of
power at will and the consumer can't do anything about it.. At least with
Telecom you can go else where..


Regards,

Paul Warner

***@bigfoot.com

[Dave - Dave.net.nz]

Post by paul warner
I would hardly say that it works well when they just hike the price of
power at will and the consumer can't do anything about it.. At least
with Telecom you can go else where..

ummm to who?

[Paul Warner]

Post by Dave - Dave.net.nz

Post by paul warner
I would hardly say that it works well when they just hike the price of
power at will and the consumer can't do anything about it.. At least with
Telecom you can go else where..

ummm to who?

Ummm.. Cell phone to Vodaphone. Toll calls to heaps of others out there.
Internet to Woosh. If you live in Wellywood or Christchurch your wireline
and internet to TelsraClear.




Paul Warner

***@bigfoot.com

[Mark Thompson]

Post by paul warner

Post by Mark Thompson
The electricity industry model works well. Where one company can
generate and retail power but can not own the lines. Maybe they
should look at doing that.
a seperate company owns the phone lines. allows every other company
equal axs to said lines. i know it would be a mess but it would open
up and encourage competition...

I would hardly say that it works well when they just hike the price of
power at will and the consumer can't do anything about it.. At least
with Telecom you can go else where..

www.nzelectricity.co.nz

I suggest you read all about the industry there.

But this isn't the forum to discuss this so I shall so no more :)

[LEE Tet Yoon]

The electricity industry model works well. Where one company can generate and retail power but can not own the lines. Maybe they should look at doing that.
a seperate company owns the phone lines. allows every other company equal axs to said lines. i know it would be a mess but it would open up and encourage competition...

Or just unbundle. You don't have to necessarily ban the line company from having a
retail service but if you force the telco to unbundle they can't pull stuff like this...

[LEE Tet Yoon]

I've received an email about this and realised I made a mistake in my post & it
wasn't as clear as it should have been...

What I was saying was there are two possibilites assuming the 5c/mb is correct.
One is 5c/mb average above the average. The other is 5c/user/mb above the
average. The first one isn't so bad although it'll be a big problem for ISPs with a
small userbase with high data usage. But as for the second one, I do not see any
way Telecom could justify it to anyone (including the CC & gov)

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
Maybe they mean 5c/meg average over the average?
E.g. if an ISP has 1000 customers who use a total of 10,000gb they pay nothing. If those same 1000 customers use a total of 11,000gb they pay $51.20 in total extra (because each customer is using 1gb on average more then the 'limit'). If this is indeed the case then perhaps it isn't so bad although small ISPs are likely to have big problems...

I.E. Here I'm saying if it's 5c/mb average above the average then it's not so bad...

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
Surely this must be the case? I know Telecom are bad but I don't see any way Telecom can justify 5c/meg. Given that they allow an average of 10gb per

I.E. Here I'm saying I don't see any way Telecom can justify 5c/user/mb above the average...

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
customer, and the ISPs pay Telecom something like $24.90/customer then an ISP should just claim they have more customers then they actually have and pay Telecom the extra, unless Telecom disallow this. Even if Telecom try to claim they would be making more money from the extra 'customer' if said 'customer' was a real 'customer' (this doesn't make sense but it's the only way Telecom can justify refusing to let ISPs pay for more customers then they actually have) and add say $100/'fake customer' that's still only $125/month for 10 gig not $512/month for 10 gig... Personally, I think the most Telecom can justify charging ISPs is one more customer for every 10 gig (total not average) and even that's a real stretch.
Please realise that the situation is different from an end user/retail user wanting to pay for two accounts with 10gig. In that case, Telecom can at least claim the reason they cannot offer a customer 2 10gig accounts is because they price are set with the assumption that not everyone is going to use 10gig whereas if a customer wants two 10 gigs accounts, they're more likely to use them both.

[Craig Humphrey]

And if you live in Auckland (where the bulk of the population does) and
Telecom hike the price of your landline, charge more for add-on services
and wont admit to cross-talk on your line...?

Let me guess, move to Wellington or Christchurch and sign up for
TelstraClear :) The cost of living is cheaper after all...

Just my 2c.

Later'ish
Craig
[A Wellingtonian stuck in Auckland]

Post by Paul Warner
Ummm.. Cell phone to Vodaphone. Toll calls to heaps of
others out there.
Internet to Woosh. If you live in Wellywood or Christchurch
your wireline
and internet to TelsraClear.
Paul Warner

[Nicholas Lee]

Post by Craig Humphrey
And if you live in Auckland (where the bulk of the population does) and

Can you see the Sky Tower?

Get Wired Country. Ihug are providing voice lines over wired country at
the moment. I imagine other ISPs will follow shortly.


Nicholas

[l***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Paul Warner
Ummm.. Cell phone to Vodaphone. Toll calls to heaps of
others out there. Internet to Woosh. If you live in
Wellywood or Christchurch your wireline and internet to
TelsraClear.

Woosh cannot be considered a real fixed point alternative
internet provider IMHO based on the current performance and
price of using their network. They might be good for the
mobile & semi mobile Internet market though.

Internet through Wired Country's network maybe but not
Woosh.

And personally, I don't quite get what this has to do with
the original suggestion. From what I read, the poster was
only talking about banning Telecom offering retail services
through their wired last mile network, which maybe should
cover TC offering retail services through their cable (not
necessarily though) and TC & Telecom offering toll calls but
I don't see why it has to cover wireless internet, mobile
com etc.

In any case, the way I see it there's no point trying to
compare the telco and power industries, they're two diff
beasts.

However as said before, I think the suggestion is a bad
idea. Better just to unbundle Telecom's last mile but let
them offer retail services if they want. They'll probably
just end up offering decent wholesale service and there
won't be much/any unbundling but once the option is there,
they won't dare pull so much crap.

[l***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Nicholas Lee
Can you see the Sky Tower?

You need to see the black band. Also seeing it is not
enough. I have a clear LOS of the black band and I'm in the
red portion of the coverage map but the signal is still too
weak because it's too far. If you live a distance, you'll
just have to sign up and hope for the best. If you can't get
service, you don't pay but it's still disappointing.

However WC do have plans to cover the whole of Auckland.

Post by Nicholas Lee
Get Wired Country. Ihug are providing voice lines over
wired country at the moment. I imagine other ISPs will
follow shortly.

You can get phone service from Ihug and Internet from
another ISP if you want. But the only ISPs who have
officially launched service with WC worth considering for
residential service are Ihug, EzySurf/ICONZ (be cautious of
their unlimited plans though, international latency is poor)
and PCConnect.

[Nicholas Lee]

Post by l***@ihug.co.nz
However WC do have plans to cover the whole of Auckland.

Only a matter of time.


In fact given Telecom's approach to management of their monopoly postion
we'll probably see more solutions involving wireless technology.

Eventually they be forced to open things up so the market can decide the
true value of their services.

Post by l***@ihug.co.nz
You can get phone service from Ihug and Internet from
another ISP if you want. But the only ISPs who have
officially launched service with WC worth considering for
residential service are Ihug, EzySurf/ICONZ (be cautious of
their unlimited plans though, international latency is poor)
and PCConnect.

Any here using the WC phone service? What's the quality like?


Nicholas