In Case you missed it

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

Politicians questioning 128kbp upstream cap.



http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3303342a28,00.html

Kind regards


Joel W

[Juha Saarinen]

Post by Joel Wiramu Pauling
Politicians questioning 128kbp upstream cap.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3303342a28,00.html

I don't understand why it's being questioned now, a year after the
government agreed to write the cap into law. Wasn't there the technical
advice to explain at the time that the internet is a two-way medium?

[Andrew Walters]

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:59, you wrote:

| I don't understand why it's being questioned now, a year after the
| government agreed to write the cap into law. Wasn't there the technical
| advice to explain at the time that the internet is a two-way medium?

Simple - (1) last year wasn't election year, and (2) NZ can't concentrate on
more than one issue at a time, and last year the Foreshore stuff, and after
that the Civil Union bill made sure nothing else (like upload speed regs) got
much attention from Joe Public!

AW

[ ---
on the side I've heard it said that part of the reason the CU bill was
introduced when it was (being a hot issue that it was), was to distract from
the foreshore/seabed bill, again because we can't multitask politically and
some of 'them' know that - so telecommunications stuff didn't have a chance!
--- ]

[Steve Withers (Home)]

Post by Andrew Walters
| I don't understand why it's being questioned now, a year after the
| government agreed to write the cap into law. Wasn't there the technical
| advice to explain at the time that the internet is a two-way medium?
Simple - (1) last year wasn't election year, and (2) NZ can't concentrate on
more than one issue at a time, and last year the Foreshore stuff, and after
that the Civil Union bill made sure nothing else (like upload speed regs) got
much attention from Joe Public!
AW

I'd say it's the NZ media that can't handle more than one issue at a time.

All important issues are actually going on all the time - as one can see
when using "Google Alerts" for various topics.

[Juha Saarinen]

Post by Steve Withers (Home)
I'd say it's the NZ media that can't handle more than one issue at a time.

You would, wouldn't you, because it has no relevance to what we're
talking about, and it's not actually true.

Post by Steve Withers (Home)
All important issues are actually going on all the time - as one can see
when using "Google Alerts" for various topics.

Indeed, and those little alerts are caused by...?

"NZ Media" has actually covered the issue very well, and is still
covering it. You just need to adjust your Google Alerts away from the
blinkered sources you are using.

And now back to the normal ADSL programming, thanks.

New Xtra business plans out today, in case anyone's interested.

[Steve Withers (Home)]

Post by Juha Saarinen

Post by Steve Withers (Home)
I'd say it's the NZ media that can't handle more than one issue at a time.

You would, wouldn't you, because it has no relevance to what we're
talking about, and it's not actually true.

That is debatable, Juha.....and if you want to debate it, we can do that.

The mainstream media don't cover a braod range of issues well.

The IT press in NZ is NOT the mainstream media. It's niche followed by a
few thousand at best.

Post by Juha Saarinen

Post by Steve Withers (Home)
All important issues are actually going on all the time - as one can
see when using "Google Alerts" for various topics.

Indeed, and those little alerts are caused by...?

I agree! The stories are there in the wider media.....but they are not
focused upon in the way they can and should be.

Post by Juha Saarinen
"NZ Media" has actually covered the issue very well, and is still
covering it. You just need to adjust your Google Alerts away from the
blinkered sources you are using.

....and yet still very few people even know WHY they should care.

Post by Juha Saarinen
And now back to the normal ADSL programming, thanks.

You've had your rant.....and that's fine.

But do you ever askyourself why - despite your work - so few undertsand
the issues?

It's becasue the news you report isn't adequately covered or featured in
the lowest-common-denomitor, mainstream TV News that most people consume.

If people don't know why this is important....it's because no one told
them.

That might not be you, but it certainly is the media they DO
consume.......which doesn't appear to include you, Juha.

[LEE Tet Yoon]

Post by Andrew Walters
| I don't understand why it's being questioned now, a year after the
| government agreed to write the cap into law. Wasn't there the technical
| advice to explain at the time that the internet is a two-way medium?
Simple - (1) last year wasn't election year, and (2) NZ can't concentrate on
more than one issue at a time, and last year the Foreshore stuff, and after
that the Civil Union bill made sure nothing else (like upload speed regs) got
much attention from Joe Public!

I should add, if I recall someone e-mailed every political party (well the ones in parliament anyway I think) and none of them at the time wanted to unbundle the local loop although the article seems to suggest (I can't be bothered looking up the parlimentary records) that National is now having 'doubts'.. In fact the only MP I know of (I'm sure there are others but the only one I've heard of) that apparently wanted to unbundle and put up some fight for it was Paul Swain.

Personally, I never understood what the CC was thinking recommending the 128k limit in the first place. The only thingI can think of that their recommendation was that Telecom should not be required to offer more than 128k average (which is still a bad idea IMHO) but instead the law passed in parliament was that Telecom should not offer more than 128k maximum (or at least this seems to be the general interpretation of the law) for UBS.

Perhaps too the gov wanted to take small nips at Telecom since as has been suggested before, they might be afraid to do anything which affects Telecom's stock prices too much given their importance to the NZ share market.