Modifications to UBS

[Mark Thompson]

Hi there,

I don't know who is aware of this and whether there is any truth to the
statement but you may want to read this:

http://www.orcon.net.nz/company/press/54318/

Secondly can someone clarify to me how UBS works?

As far as I'm aware the IP Space is managed by the ISP (ie their own
IPS) and the bandwidth is the ISP's own bandwidth. Yet they seem to be
able to control all the immediate things to do with UBS.

I certainly don't think the commerce commission had this in mind.

Cheers,

Mark

[LEE Tet Yoon]

Post by Mark Thompson
Hi there,
http://www.orcon.net.nz/company/press/54318/
Secondly can someone clarify to me how UBS works?
As far as I'm aware the IP Space is managed by the ISP (ie their own IPS) and the bandwidth is the ISP's own bandwidth. Yet they seem to be able to control all the immediate things to do with UBS.

But you're still using part of Telecom's network so I'm sure they're going to claim it costs them so much money to provide bandwidth from the DSLAM to the ISPs line. And as for static IPs? Well that would allow people to run servers and we couldn't have that could we?

Post by Mark Thompson
I certainly don't think the commerce commission had this in mind.

Nor do I.....

<RANT>
I suppose Telecom realised they won't be able to rip us off any more if they let ISPs do what they want...
<END RANT (well kind of)>

I could go on but suffice to say I find this a jerk off, although not surprising given this is Telecom we're talking about here. It does show Telecom is never likely to change although IMHO Telecom are shooting themselves in the foot. With the proposal as it stood, and the claim they were going to launch 512k next year, a lot of people (although not me), including the CC I'm sure, were starting to think the CC made the right decision. And people were starting to feel better about Telecom. Yes people were annoyed at the churn fee but other then that, everyone was happy. To change it now, a few weeks later, especially that it's after Orcon had advertised their planned product in the paper is going to be very unpopular. Who knows, they might be force into an embrassing backdown but even if not, they would not be popular. At least if they had always announced and planned this, people's opini
ons probably wouldn't have gotten that much worse

However it does prove what I said about advertising too early is a risky decision. Although I suspect everyone (perhaps even Orcon?) but Telecom are glad they did since it's going to ensure good publicity...

P.S. Ironically, I just signed up with Orcon on the 10th!

[Malcolm Lockyer]

Post by LEE Tet Yoon

Post by Mark Thompson
http://www.orcon.net.nz/company/press/54318/
I certainly don't think the commerce commission had this in mind.

Nor do I.....

Is it just me, or does implying blanket limits (such as a 10Gig cap, no
static addresses etc.) completely go against the *point* of offering UBS
in the first place? Isn't this cutting out *much* of an ISP's control to
differentiate themselves from others? I know there is still things like
layer 2 switching control avalible from an ISP - but how could the
public know or understand things like that?

It looks like a totally weird move by TC, especially after they started
to redeem themselves in many people's eyes.

With jetstream games going (NO wonder usage of it is going down - they
need some admins with a clue to put up useful content - not just wget
random files (sorry jsg admins if your reading, your probably under alot
of pressure from TC), placed in a random directory structure - were we
all but have to crawl through to see if there is anything new, or lurk
on the forums constantly) and TC avoiding flat rate plans, its strangely
like we are going backwards - albeit we now have 256K. Looks like there
is a new universal constant - TC will continue to be the jerks they
are... no matter what happens.


M

[Craig Humphrey]

<super rant>
I'm sorry, is it just me, or is this just yet another example of Telecom
taking advantage of it's monopolistic situation?

1. Telecom (errrr... Sorry, Xtra, that completely independent business
unit that is supposed to be on the same playing field as all the other
ISPs....) know what they're about to provide to ISP's, in terms of
wholesale, so announce plans to the public, before they make the
wholesale available to ISPs. Thus being able to get market share early,
then relying on the churn fee to stop users from switching to
cheaper/sensible/quality plans from other ISPs, when Telecom finally
allows the ISPs to offer competing products.

2. Telecom finalize the UBS specification (note: I'm just reading this
from the Orcon article mentioned, so you'll have to take their word, not
mine) for ISPs. An ISP (Orcon) announces a plan, based on that
specification that, oh, woops, blows Telecom's (err... Xtra's...) plans
out of the water. Telecom suddenly realises that the competing ISP has
managed to beat them using their (Telecom's) own wholesale service...
So back-peddles, reneges on the finalised specification and changes it
to take away the key selling points of the competing ISPs plans, thus
attempting to render them the same as Telecom (err... Xtra's...) plans
[doesn't this defeat the entire purpose of wholesale? If Telecom
restricts what people can do, how are ISP's supposed to differentiate
their plans?]

More power to Orcon for taking it on the chin and honouring their plans,
unlike Telecom.

</super rant>

Later'ish
Craig
My views and opinions are just that, mine, and certainly don't represent
my employer, who loves Telecom and will go a long way to keep them
happy.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:30 PM
Subject: Modifications to UBS
Hi there,
I don't know who is aware of this and whether there is any
truth to the
http://www.orcon.net.nz/company/press/54318/
Secondly can someone clarify to me how UBS works?
As far as I'm aware the IP Space is managed by the ISP (ie their own
IPS) and the bandwidth is the ISP's own bandwidth. Yet they
seem to be
able to control all the immediate things to do with UBS.
I certainly don't think the commerce commission had this in mind.
Cheers,
Mark
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

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

Post by Craig Humphrey
2. Telecom finalize the UBS specification (note: I'm just
reading this from the Orcon article mentioned, so you'll
have to take their word, not mine) for ISPs. An ISP
(Orcon) announces a plan, based on that specification that
, oh, woops, blows Telecom's (err... Xtra's...) plans out
of the water. Telecom suddenly realises that the
competing ISP has managed to beat them using their
(Telecom's) own wholesale service... So back-peddles,
reneges on the finalised specification and changes it to
take away the key selling points of the competing ISPs
plans, thus attempting to render them the same as Telecom
(err... Xtra's...) plans [doesn't this defeat the entire
purpose of wholesale? If Telecom restricts what people
can do, how are ISP's supposed to differentiate their
plans?]
More power to Orcon for taking it on the chin and
honouring their plans, unlike Telecom.
</super rant>

I had thought that Telecom had said something like this is
the final draft but we might change things if we think it's
necessary... But looking back, the article I read on the
Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/businessstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=3580256&thesection=business&thesubsection=telecommunications&thesecondsubsection=general

actually says 'Telecom will now give the providers details
of the final offer. Butler said that while the offer was
more or less set in stone, there was some room for
negotiation. "If there are issues we've not thought about,
such as migration, then we're absolutely prepared to work it
through." '

If this is the same thing Telecom told ISPs I wonder who
exactly negoiated with Telecom for these changes? Or maybe
Telecom never though about people actually offering better &
cheaper products then them although I don't know who they've
worked it through with, def not Orcon it seems...

Interestingly, I still can't seem to find any info on what
Telecom plan to charge ISPs if their user's average is
higher then 10gb. Also, having reread the press release, it
appears ISPs may be able to offer static IPs, they just
can't advertise/promote it (although what exactly
constitutes promotion is anyones guess)

[Craig Humphrey]

Here's a better article:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/356B8A20E567C86DCC256EED00750BAB

The Static IP seems to be up to the ISP.
The bandwidth cap is an average per user, so ISP's could either set up a
variety of plans, or just risk it...

Still, seems like Telecom is re-adjusting the playing field to suit it's
own internal model, rather than providing a blank canvas for ISPs. What
are the odds that the CC (which hasn't ratified Telecom's plans, and
must do so), will just accept Telecom's plan, since "Telecom know
best".... <sigh>

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:30 PM
Subject: Modifications to UBS
Hi there,
I don't know who is aware of this and whether there is any
truth to the
http://www.orcon.net.nz/company/press/54318/
Secondly can someone clarify to me how UBS works?
As far as I'm aware the IP Space is managed by the ISP (ie their own
IPS) and the bandwidth is the ISP's own bandwidth. Yet they
seem to be
able to control all the immediate things to do with UBS.
I certainly don't think the commerce commission had this in mind.
Cheers,
Mark
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

[Paul Warner]

Also reading this article

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.

Does this mean that Telescum have given up on the over 10G plan to reduce
the speed to 65K to charge now at 5c/Meg

Post by l***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Craig Humphrey
2. Telecom finalize the UBS specification (note: I'm just
reading this from the Orcon article mentioned, so you'll
have to take their word, not mine) for ISPs. An ISP
(Orcon) announces a plan, based on that specification that
, oh, woops, blows Telecom's (err... Xtra's...) plans out
of the water. Telecom suddenly realises that the
competing ISP has managed to beat them using their
(Telecom's) own wholesale service... So back-peddles,
reneges on the finalised specification and changes it to
take away the key selling points of the competing ISPs
plans, thus attempting to render them the same as Telecom
(err... Xtra's...) plans [doesn't this defeat the entire
purpose of wholesale? If Telecom restricts what people
can do, how are ISP's supposed to differentiate their
plans?]
More power to Orcon for taking it on the chin and
honouring their plans, unlike Telecom.
</super rant>

I had thought that Telecom had said something like this is
the final draft but we might change things if we think it's
necessary... But looking back, the article I read on the
Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/businessstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=3580256&thesection=business&thesubsection=telecommunications&thesecondsubsection=general
actually says 'Telecom will now give the providers details
of the final offer. Butler said that while the offer was
more or less set in stone, there was some room for
negotiation. "If there are issues we've not thought about,
such as migration, then we're absolutely prepared to work it
through." '
If this is the same thing Telecom told ISPs I wonder who
exactly negoiated with Telecom for these changes? Or maybe
Telecom never though about people actually offering better &
cheaper products then them although I don't know who they've
worked it through with, def not Orcon it seems...
Interestingly, I still can't seem to find any info on what
Telecom plan to charge ISPs if their user's average is
higher then 10gb. Also, having reread the press release, it
appears ISPs may be able to offer static IPs, they just
can't advertise/promote it (although what exactly
constitutes promotion is anyones guess)
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

Paul Warner

***@bigfoot.com

[Ben]

The "reduce speed to 64kb/s after 10gig" was part of the Jetstream Surf
plans... Although it apparently never actually eventuated.

Then again, maybe we'll see another "press release" next week...

Post by Paul Warner
Also reading this article

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

Post by Paul Warner
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.
Does this mean that Telescum have given up on the over 10G plan to
reduce the speed to 65K to charge now at 5c/Meg

Post by l***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Craig Humphrey
2. Telecom finalize the UBS specification (note: I'm just reading
this from the Orcon article mentioned, so you'll have to take their
word, not mine) for ISPs. An ISP
(Orcon) announces a plan, based on that specification that , oh,
woops, blows Telecom's (err... Xtra's...) plans out of the water.
Telecom suddenly realises that the competing ISP has managed to
beat them using their (Telecom's) own wholesale service... So
back-peddles, reneges on the finalised specification and changes it
to take away the key selling points of the competing ISPs plans,
thus attempting to render them the same as Telecom (err...
Xtra's...) plans [doesn't this defeat the entire purpose of
wholesale? If Telecom restricts what people can do, how are ISP's
supposed to differentiate their
plans?]
More power to Orcon for taking it on the chin and
honouring their plans, unlike Telecom.
</super rant>

I had thought that Telecom had said something like this is
the final draft but we might change things if we think it's
necessary... But looking back, the article I read on the Herald

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/businessstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=3580
256&thesection=business&thesubsection=telecommunications&thesecondsubsec
tion=general

Post by Paul Warner

Post by l***@ihug.co.nz
actually says 'Telecom will now give the providers details
of the final offer. Butler said that while the offer was
more or less set in stone, there was some room for negotiation. "If
there are issues we've not thought about, such as migration, then
we're absolutely prepared to work it through." '
If this is the same thing Telecom told ISPs I wonder who exactly
negoiated with Telecom for these changes? Or maybe Telecom never
though about people actually offering better & cheaper products then
them although I don't know who they've worked it through with, def
not Orcon it seems...
Interestingly, I still can't seem to find any info on what Telecom
plan to charge ISPs if their user's average is higher then 10gb.
Also, having reread the press release, it appears ISPs may be able
to offer static IPs, they just can't advertise/promote it (although
what exactly constitutes promotion is anyones guess)
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

Paul Warner

[LEE Tet Yoon]

Post by Ben
The "reduce speed to 64kb/s after 10gig" was part of the Jetstream Surf
plans... Although it apparently never actually eventuated.

A lot of people including me think it's because the retail product was rushed.

Although I do have a more sinister suggestion maybe Telecom didn't want to start it so
customers don't realise how much they use & change ISPs.

In any case it's supposedly starting in September if I recall correctly. Regardless of their
original intentions, personally, I'm thinking even if they can do it in September, it won't start
until October since Telecom don't want to lose customers before the churn fee comes in...

[Stephen Judd]

Post by LEE Tet Yoon

Post by Ben
The "reduce speed to 64kb/s after 10gig" was part of the Jetstream Surf
plans... Although it apparently never actually eventuated.

A lot of people including me think it's because the retail product was rushed.
Although I do have a more sinister suggestion maybe Telecom didn't want to start it so
customers don't realise how much they use & change ISPs.

I'm pretty sure it's because the marketing is far in advance of the
delivery capability. There is no need to ascribe to conspiracy what can
be explained by cockup.
--
Stephen Judd
***@vital.org.nz
http://vital.org.nz