One suggestion I've heard put forth is that a larger upload pipe would make other ISP's who don't have no-servers policies more attractive than Bigpond.
They already are.
The other theory I've heard is that Telstra fear that an increased upload would encourage the spread of VOIP.
It already is.
Telstra hate the concept of broadband being a commodity, whereby you have a choice of suppliers, can switch suppliers easily, and you can cherry-pick your own services.
It makes "Once touch, one screen one click" not work.
It is far more difficult to provide high upload rates on any xDSL services than high download rates for technical reasons.
At the DSLAM end of the Upstream circuit, there are multiple xDSL services all arriving at virtually the same physical point, all carrying highly attenuated signals that are battling the crosstalk from each other.
It is not a trivial exercise to ensure reliable operation of any xDSL upstream circuit, and the higher the data rates, the tougher it gets.
While that may be the case it doesn't really cut it as an excuse.
It is afaik not something that has been an issue for any providers overseas and they would be dealing with the same number of ports if not more in many exchanges so it is obviously an issue that can be worked around.
If that is the true reason and Telstra are unable to fix it then Telstra are either
a) incompetent and dont know how to fix it
b) lazy and don't want to take the effort to fix it
c) all of the above
If its none of those things then it's probably because while that's an issue it's not the true reason for the artifical cap
yep, and they just cherry pick. and it's a small metro footprint
Just to clarify your second point, one ISP rep has suggested that a lot of the (metro) population are on a relatively small number of exchanges, e.g. a couple of hundred competitor-enabled exchanges could already be serving a third of the population.
So when "cherry-picking" a significant proportion of the population, maybe these ISPs are ensuring that there is adequate infrastructure to support all the customers that could be using their DSLAMs, so that they can offer better speeds.
And maybe Telstra just "cherry pick" with their DSLAMs only, without worrying about upgrading any infrastructure beyond what it's required to do for a simple phone line - that way, they can tick the box, claim superior coverage, but not actually be able to provide the same speeds as its competitors.
There. A straw man you can beat up a bit, rather than regurgitating tired old arguments that have little to do with the topic of the thread.
While that may be the case it doesn't really cut it as an excuse.
Why do Telstra need any excuse? If they choose to offer a product you don't like then its simple enough not to buy it.
Go for it then, but you're not a customer on frame relay, you're a kid looking for better warcraft pings on their omg Node rules connection.
Realy, and you base your statemet on what
No they prob wouldnt, The "grade of internet" in Frame relay's is so much higher the adsl.
Then what's your point about entities suing Telstra because they pay more for the corporate products compared to the residential services?
There are potentially thousands of small business in the same position but like most small business I can't afford to take on the discrimatory practices that Telstra consistently engage in.
Funny that, your ISP Internode is "discriminating" against you too because they're cherry picking all the CBD exchanges.
and they are the ones that this stupid, greedy decision of Telstra's affect the most.
Didn't realise companies aren't allowed to protect their assets and investments. Ask one of your competitors to provide you a service if you don't like it. What's that? Oh, not profitable enough.
would like to see any an isp, like internode/iinet/optus have the balls to invest, instead of spin doctoring to make them look good.
To be fair 2 of those 3 ISPs you mentioned have made somewhat of a difference in regards to investing. The other one just prefers to whinge and blame Telstra.
Plenty. They have gobbled up millions of it.
Gobbled up millions? Not bad considering they've actually made billions for the governments.
I am not sure why you expect ISPs with ~5% of Telstra's customer base to magically pull money out of their rear ends and build infrastructure that rivals Telstra's overnight ... if it was as simple as that, somebody would have thought of it by now :P
I think they'd much rather prefer to just leech off Telstras network. If they want to build their own network they already have Telstras infrastructure there on a silver platter to slop their network into.
So investments in backhaul, DSLAMs, technology like Annex M and VoIP arent enough for you? How much more should they invest?
Who could you be possibly be referring to here? Didn't know VoIP was an exclusive product, and AnnexM available to how much of the population?
Most think broadband is still 256/64 - much like the Great Wall of China keeps out rabbits..... now there is an illustration at point - most people really have no clue about broadband and, hence, will take the cheapest option, lock themselves into a 24 month contract, and think that's it.
And what if people are happy with this option>
I sure don't call that doing good for the country in terms of broadband.........
It's not possibly the governments fault is it?
Who could you be possibly be referring to here?
Lots of ISPs. Your point is??
Gobbled up millions?
Probably billions. Who knows for sure.
Not bad considering they've actually made billions for the governments.
SO why do they need to swallow up government funding that competitors could use if they are so profitable? Surely they should be using their own funds to expand their network, and especially using their own funds to repair the infrastructure they have neglected.
..
So how long do you think it should take them to build a network to match Telstras?
optus has had enough time to make a joint network haven't they, why are you mentioning only telstra, goes back to my point.
Gobbled up millions?
Probably billions. Who knows for sure.
enough to make multi-million (maybe a billion dollar) profits each year.
Soooo, when can we expect to see the Telstra fanbois addressing the question of this thread ? So far they've pretty much chosen to conveniently sidestep that particular question...
when sol gives the vito :P
edit: wait, the guy who appointed sol may make the decision :P
Kaiser Bill's Batman writes...
So far they've pretty much chosen to conveniently sidestep that particular question...
they can't answer it, my parents, and other people i know, worked for telstra until the early-mid 90's..
edit: yes telstra fanbois, RIMS/ and ram8's existed in the early 90's.
:P
optus has had enough time to make a joint network haven't they,
Took Telstra 90 years as a monopoly. What do you think?
How are the answers coming along to the other questions asked that are actually on topic?
where i work we have frame relay 512/512 for around 300 PC's. It cost 18k to install and we pay about 400 a month.
I don't believe the fact Telstra has a majority of the market share has any bearing on the issue ... much more likely their monopoly ownership of heavily regulated infrastructure is a factor.
Well you could say that the dominant position of Telstra (whatever the reason it has that dominant position) was a factor in that case.
Well you could say that the dominant position of Telstra (whatever the reason it has that dominant position) was a factor in that case.
To be absolutely honest mate, we've wandered a bit and I'm not 100% sure I am quite 'tracking'. If my answer shoots off on a tangent and shows that I'm clearly not on the same page as you, please let me know and perhaps expand so I do catch up!
So many threads ... mind is boggling! <g>
I'm pretty sure we're talking about the ACCC coming down on Telstra for retailing (via Bigpond) for less than they were wholesaling to the competition.
I think it's because Telstra have monopoly ownership of bottleneck infrastructure. I think this because one of the 'conditions' under which Telstra were privatised was that regulation would be put in place to ensure that Telstra couldn't leverage ownership of that infrastructure into a monopoly.
And you're questioning whether the ACCC would have done so if Telstra weren't in the dominant position in the marketplace, yes?
Having given it much thought I think that the answer to your question is indeterminate.
The complaints which lead to Telstra receiving the various Competition Notices it has received are the result of it's ownership of that infrastructure. And that ownership is of course going to result in them having a dominant position. However I don't believe that the Competition Notices are designed to erode Telstra's dominance ... but to stop Telstra when they did something which contravenes the TPA.
Therefore (and here is where it gets awkward <g>) I believe that if the ACCC were to receive complaints about someone else who was violating the TPA in the same way, they would issue them a Competition Notice (after whatever process they go through) just as they did with Telstra ... even if that hypothetical organisation were not in a position of dominance.
However the above paragraph is effectively worthless because I can't find a comparable case, and to be honest, if I could predict with 100% accuracy what the ACCC would do in any given case I'd be making squillions as an analyst or something <g>
I hope I didn't wander off into never never land, and that the above was at least partially relevant to your post?
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét