Slashdot Mirror
Telecom NZ proposes 2c/min Modem Tax
Alastair Johnson writes "Telecom New Zealand is proposing a 2c/min "modem tax" for all residential customers. NZ traditionally has free residential local calling (part of government requirements from Telecom). Telecom is hoping to get around this by getting all ISPs to get an 0867 number for which their clients can dial without the 2c/min tax, but the 0867 numbers get less priority on the exchanges.
Check out the anti-0867 petition at Digital Edge.
" The information page essentially says that Telecom will (post-August) allow the first 10 hours per month to be free, but a 2 cent/minute charge to all residential numbers calling 0867. Update: 06/13 10:17 by H : Mea Culpa-I misread, and misunderstood. Click below for a clarification from Gromit:
Actually, what is says is that ISPs (*other* than Telecom) will have to offer
0867
numbers which will be free to call by residential users, but anyone dialling
NON-0867 (i.e. local) ISP numbers will be charged 2c/min after 10 hours. In
other
words, a residential number dialling a local number will get a 2c/min charge
(incidentally this goes against the deal the govt has with Telecom.)
I'm forced to disagree with some of your points...
:) I think it is fairly obvious that the main reason they want to move to this system is so they can get around Kiwi Share. Data calls are costing them (both financially [if the ISP is not on Telecom's network due to interconnect agreements] and in opportunity costs); they can only recoup costs by making local data calls illegal/impossible.
If anyone cares to actually look at the FACTS regarding this case you will find that there are good reasons behind the Telecom move to charging for data to non IP-Net numbers.
Yes, good reasons for Telecom
1. Is is to reduced the load on VOICE circuits so that emergency services etc. can be easily reached. There have been recorded instances of difficulty contacting these services during peek Internet usage hours.
Those reported difficulties were due to software problems in the call centres; nothing to do with the voice exchanges. Exchanges will dump normal calls in favour of 111 calls.
2. When dialing into an IP-Net number the caller is on a voice circuit only as far as their exchange. From this point onwards they are on DATA QUALITY circuits thereby increasing their 'quality of connection' and dropping error rates.
That's no different from normal phone connections. How else would 56k connection speeds be possible?
3. It reduces some of the costs for the ISP as the 'POP' (dial in number ie. MODEM) is run by Telecom and tey are responsible for all upgrades etc. to
the firmware of said POP. The circuit from the POP to the ISP is data quality and merely plugs in to their exisiting network.
My understanding is that this is just a routing issue... the modems, etc. remain with the ISPs.
4. A large number of ISPs have had no trouble with this concept. Paradise.net (once of the largest growing ISPs in NZ) has recently moved to
offering their clients access via. IP-Net, this gives them the advantage that they now have Nationwide access and that the connections their clients make to the ISP are more reliable (reducing need for packet re-sends and thus their costs).
Paradise.net doesn't care because it isn't on Telecom's network; it is with Saturn. And saying that Paradise is one of the "largest growing" ISPs is misleading; they are growing quickly, but their coverage is quite limited and I doubt they even have 10,000 customers yet.
5. For the 'local' IP-Net option there is NO ADDITIONAL charge levied on the ISP and the caller also gets around the 2c per. minute charge that would otherwise be levied if calling on a normal voice number. IF an ISP chooses to take the 'nationwide' option they will pay an increased fee but this will give them the advantage that they will immediately have notionwide conerage, this increasing their customer base.
The original plan leaked by Jim Anderton late last year specified that Telecom would pass on the 2c charge from the consumer to the destination ISP. I'm not sure if this measure is in the proposal Telecom are mooting now.
Cheers
Alastair
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
From the mid/late 70s through to 1984 the NZ government borrowed large amounts of money to put into industrial projects, and we had a very closed and regulated economy. From 1984 onwards things swung the other way: government departments became State Owned Enterprises, with many of them not being state owned for much longer, and we have the least tarriffs for imports and subsidies for exports in the world.
One of the companies that was sold was Telecom, and one of the conditions of sale was that there would always be free local residential (as opposed to business) calls, and there were limits on how fast the cost of the monthly line rental could be raised. Businesses pay for their calls of course. ISDN is only available to business, and like leased lines is extremely expensive.
At the time it was sold it was considered by many to be the most advanced telecommunications network in the world. Since then their has been very little further investment in the infrastructure, and the network is now way behind the times.
Telecom are the most profitable company in NZ, and makes a lot more money than is considered normal for a telecommunications company of it's size.
A large part of the reason for their profitability is that they are the dominant player and that there is very little regulation in their sector.
At one stage our Treasury produced a report that suggested that as Telecom had responibilities that their new competitors didn't (eg emergency calls) they should be compensated for any loss of profits resulting from competition. The way that this would work was that their competitors would pay them the difference between the profit that Telecom made and the profit that Telecom would have made without competition. Fortunately this didn't go very far. Unfortunately there has been no progress made on things like number portability and Telecom are able to dictate terms on deals for interconnections.
One of the baby bells (or was it two of them in partnership?) set up a company here (Bellsouth, which has since been sold to Vodaphone) to do mobile phones. The man they sent out to run it was asked by a reporter if he would be using similar tactics to Telecom if he were back home (I forget which part of the USA) where the parent company had similar market dominance, and he replied that if he tried he would be sent to jail.
Wireless communication based on radio modems has
been tried in Christchurch. In their infinite wisdom, the local City Council decided to require a resource consent for *each aerial*. Remember, these transmitters have an output of less than one watt. The catch is that each resource consent has an application fee of $6,000. Well done!
Another thing that apparently irritates Telecom is the fact that many calls to ISPs come through the local network (that Telecom own) but terminate in the network of a competitor (usually Clear). Because of various interconnect agreements, this means that Telecom must pay Clear a certain fee per minute of the connection, in effect subsidising the other ISPs. Telecom are trying to own all the numbers that internet calls terminate in so that they can avoid this fee.
I don't have any sympathy for the poor dears. If they allowed competition into the local loop these anomalies would not occur, and further, Telecom's neglect of the infrastructure leading to overloading could be fixed very quickly.
No matter how much a government may want to wash its hands of industries, it is vital that it retains at least some interest in the key services of electricity, water, and phone. I have no problem with the services being sold as long as the government ensures that they are being run to a standard that ensures that they remain active, and available at minimal cost the the consumer. Perhaps as this is Election Year, the government may wish to take a stand on this issue as it has with the issue of increasing power costs.
Although I am not a supporter of the left, I am wary of anything that subverts what I believe to be the future of internet technology.
This country is not in trouble as much as larger, more self important nations would like to believe. (I speak not only of the US, such attitudes can be found in our own back yard..). What we have often fallen victim to is corporate greed, on a scale that it can only be stopped by court or disaster. Due to the population of the country, the government does not have the luxury of massive budget surplusses to spend on controlling industries, and so businesses are often free to do as they wish. Mercury Energy were free to let the power cables supplying Auckland CBD rot away (as thier ancestors on the AEPB had thoughtfully done, also). Sure, these things should not happen, but similar things happen in the US. Look at the Microsoft antitrust trial. I don't really believe Microsoft is going to lose, at least not in a dramatic way. At most, they'll get a slap on the wrists.
So, despite our failings, we manage to persevere, with relatively low crime, minimal gun violence (due to fairly strict (by US standards at least) gun control) and a reasonable standard of education. We are not really in trouble at all.
That's a rather meandering thought, pretty much as it came out of my head. I do believe Telecom is wrong in its actions. This is against the web as Tim Berners-Lee sees it, this is counter productive, no matter how much money it supposedly saves for ISPs.
Ben Goodger
rgoodger@ihug.co.nz
Why, I know not, but it's refreshing to see that the left doesn't have a monopoly on ideologically driven stupidity.
One (hu)man, one vote
One dollar one vote
One bullet, one vote
[clip]
> Thing
I see large chunks of nz.comp and other nz.* Usenet posters have turned up *grin*
-- Use the source, Luke!
It says in the Kiwi Share agreement that a local free calling option must be availible, 0867 numbers are not local calls, where as the numbers they are chargeing for are local calls.
It also says that it is the users choice if they want to choose another option which involves local call charging (which in this case is not)
I'm sorry I can't pay for a dedicated connetction. Since,
some of my friends have accounts on my machine, for
talk sessions and such, I'm on the 'net very often
24 hour a day using a dynamic hostname service. This is
1999 for gods sake! Why don't I have constant, cheap
access? If the telco's don't like it they better upgrade
to suit me and other people. They have the money to do so.
Making profit is _not_ the most important thing, service
is!
Matthew namille2@vt.edu
As far as I can see there's nothing wrong with what's being done.
Nothing wrong, except that they are breaking their agreement with the government. They agreed that there would always be free local calls. Now they're saying that local calls to an ISP will be subject to a $.02 per minute tax. According to a previous post, 0867 numbers are not local numbers. Therefore they are not offering free local calls to ISPs now. The customer must pay for local calls to ISPs or use a non-local, lower priority number.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
hmm i shouldnt say this but a "friend" i know "really well" setup a bunch of servers that apparently were being primed for use as wardialers for telecom. work that one out guys, i thought that wardialing was illegal ?
There have been hoax rumors going around the US
and some other countries (Canada or Australia, I think)
about the Post Office planning to impose a fee on email.
The Telecom New Zealand thing could be a hoax or generic bogus rumor, or it could be real.
Telecom providers who offer flat rate calling and have engineered for typical voice traffic don't like model-breaking things like modem usage - but they do get to sell people extra phone lines for their modems, which they do like.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
GST is 7%. Should try living in New Brunswick, here they compounded the sals and GST. GST = 7% + 11% sales, compounded = 18.77%. Now they harmonized (sp?) it and now it is 15%, but there are no more exclusions (like unsalted penuts were GST free, but not salted ones :-/ )
I don't believe they are proposing a modem tax as such, or breaking any agreement with the government. I see it as a measure to avoid the problems of other countries where the switches are so overloaded normal voice calls are unable to be made. The new number will allow the phone company to route calls over a seperate network, this keeping the same service levels for the voice network that we have come to expect. I don't know why everybody seems to fixate on the 'possible' negatives of this issue, without taking into account the possible benefits. Faster, cheaper, more efficient internet access and a voice network you can rely on. Unlike the experiences of some of our over seas counterparts. You people seem to be so short sighted!
Yep, I can read your post, identical to the others you have made elsewhere, though this time your spelling has improved. For previous emissions from this AC, Capital Talk. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with recycling, particularly garbage, naieve garbage at that, such as this.
But you have to bear in mind... I was on a computing course. This is a computing website.
If you either aren't a nerd, or don't like nerds you shouldn't be here. I reccommend you leave. You'll find you hands hurt less if you don't drag your knuckles on the ground like that.... (/FLAME)
... and today's pet project has
Ever since Shirtcliffe (Yes, that's right. The dork that campaigned against electoral reform) retired as Chairman, and Rod Deane changed from CEO to Chairman, Telecom seem to be making more strange decisions. I have to wonder if they're trying to alienate the whole population. If that phone card thing didn't upset you, this will for sure!
Background to the phone cards (for foreigners):
Some months back Telecom discovered that all the nice ~sorta digital payphones they installed aren't Y2K compliant, and they're all going to have to be replaced. The thing is, these are magnetic card-based phones, and the new ones won't read the old cards. That card you have stashed in your wallet (for emergencies) is now just a hunka-plastic.
The outrage here was huge, and Telecom just said (and I'm paraphasing) "So what? Get over it! We know we never mentioned the possibility they might expire before, but they will now. Life's a bitch".
I have to suspect the new CEO is a few beers short of as six-pack.....
... and today's pet project has
Yeah. WRT net access: they link the schools up for free, then hit them monthly for business charges.
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Telecom NZ has several solutions other than the basic "modem tax". They after all made NZ$900m (about US$500 - on 3m people) last year, so they should be able to afford some capital expenditures. If they had proper telephone switches and a real network, that supported open IN networking standards like ETSI|ITU INAP even ISUP, they wouldn't be in so much trouble. As it is, they are locked into a closed solution from NEC. They haven't been seen to be upgrading their network in a long time, and it isn't changing.
The inter-switch trunking problem is _very_ easy to solve. Telco's in the US have been doing it for a while now. Nortel, Ascend and other hardware providers have had solutions for years (well Nortel has had one for 3? years, Ascend coming up to 1), the only problem is the short-sightedness of Telecom network managers when they purchased the closed system many years ago....
The best part of many of the solutions, is that not only does it relieve congestion on the inter-exchange trunks, it actually gives the end user better performance! Also, you don't have to charge more for the service, since it pays for itself in cost savings. Obviously this is just another cash grab from a monopoly Telco looking for some way to prop up it's stock.
Thankfully, I'm a Saturn subscriber, a local loop competitor in Wellington.
JasonI live in New Zealand and it's for real. Not a hoax.
See the nz.general usenet group for more info.
It would be great if it WAS a hoax.
You said that you laugh at any country that:
"tries to somehow restrict access to the 'net via taxes or censorship."
The censorship thing is in Australia, Australia is nothing to do with New Zealand.
The Phone company (Telecom) is largly and controled owned by American interests, so why not laugh at them?
"Thankfully, I'm a Saturn subscriber, a local loop competitor in Wellington. "
You are lucky, for most of us there is no choice of who we pay for local calls and such.
The government shouldn't have sold Telecom, and that's that.
(and telecom couldent tell me....) is whether this 'tax' applies to ALL data calls or just calls to ISP's. If its just ISP's then I'm still against it, but not so pissed off. If it is all data calls, then what about the 30 - 40 hours I spend dialled up to work each month. Suddenly I'm spending around an extra $40 a month to do my work!!! God.. telecom sux!!!!
This has nothing to do with blocking access to the net and everything to do with a monopoly killing competition. You can sure their own ISP division won't be affected. It allows them to control digital traffic and reduce the quality of competing ISPs services (some of whom are providing voice services). It's a typical monopoly abuse and legally shakey (Telecom signed an agreement to provide free local calls when they where privatised).
Here in norway, we have to pay aprox $1/hour nighttime and $2/hour daytime for dialup access.
;-)
Last year, they raised the price for local call internet with over 60%, all while claiming that they lowered the rate, just because they reduced the long-range tax somewhat.
They put every effort into making long-distance and foreign calls cheaper, all the while maintaining the high cost on the things they earn the big money from: cellular phones and dialup internet.
Some people don't know how lucky they are..
111 (the New Zealand equivalent of US 911) calls are already automatically given priority routing no matter what the loading of the switches. All the Telecom static about freeing up emergency calls is just FUD.
1. Paradise at last count has in excess of 16,000 customers, and are growing faster than any other Wellington based ISP. They will grow even faster now that they have nationwide coverage dur to IP-Net.
2. 'The original plan leaked by Jim Anderton late last year specified that Telecom would pass on the 2c charge from the consumer to the destination ISP. I'm not sure if this measure is in the proposal Telecom are mooting now. '
If you, along with everyone else, actually READ what you are talking about you will find that the customer (ie. calling party) is the person responsible for paying for the call to the ISP. Jim Anderton (as is usual) has got all his facts arse-about face.
Ok
:-)
Lets try that one again, for all those out there with room temperature IQ's..
Auckland suffered from a perido of power cuts, but:
Auckland is NOT the capital of New Zealand.
WELLINGTON IS the capital of New Zealand
In relation to foreign ownership, its not the aussies that are the problem. Its the *&#&&* yanks, and their northern neighours..
Will things like that happen in North america? i doubt it.. thats were telecoms profits are headed
I think Telecom only provides the phone number, the emergency services are run by the government. It's not the responsibility of telcos to handle emergency servicing.
The thing is that we in New Zealand are heading in the same direction as everyone else. Full time connections (for example through the Saturn cable modem service) are going to become the norm. Telecom is perfectly aware of the drift away from telephone only services, to such things as cable (Saturn) and ADSL (Telecom!). Why would they do this now? Surely they only need to wait a year or so before the extra demand on telephone lines starts to decrease as these other services take over. I really think their motivation for this move needs to be examined.
Of course, there's always the third option: divorce Internet access from the phone company, with options such as cable modem access.
There's nothing holy about dialup, or using the phone company's network. Heck, the cable companies are even drooling over the possibility that they will be able to use Internet QoS to do phone over the Internet, writing the phone company clean out of the picture.
This provides an incentive for the phone companies not to piss off their clients with such silly plans. If voice-over-IP ever becomes practical for phone purposes, then the phone companies will only have inertia on their side. Disrupt that inertia now, and what will prop up the telcos when broadband coax or Iridium-style satellite start taking chunks out of their market?
(Of course, this is the US. If something similar could be started in NZ, perhaps the same effect could be achieved. Having an antiquated phone network sounds to me like an opportunity for a voice-over-IP pilot, using something like fiber to the house or some such.)
If you, along with everyone else, actually READ what you are talking about you will find that the customer (ie. calling party) is the person responsible for paying for the call to the ISP. Jim Anderton (as is usual) has got all his facts arse-about face.
:)
I wasn't sure if Jim Anderton was right about this one or not; that's why I said "I'm not sure about this" in my original post. Keep your pants on
You're probably right in implying Jim Anderton may not be the world's most reliable/inpartial source of information.
Are you condoning Telecom's actions in your post?
Cheers
Alastair
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Another thing which is truly sickening is the fact that the government ever sold off the company in the first place
Oh yes... how I yearn for the days of the NZPO running the telephone system. Month long waits for new phone lines. I doubt we would have even got rid of pulse dialing if that were the case.
Don't get me wrong. telecom are dirty bastards. but good things have come of telecom being sold. just not as many as i'd have hoped for by now. (wheres my adsl then eh?)
You spit blood over dialing a new prefix... what if, for no good reason, you had to tell everyone that your mailing address changed? And the post office would refuse to deliver to the old address? AND if they investigated and decided that you were running a business through your mailbox, they would give your "business" (= home) address to anyone who asked? And it will cost small businesses several billion dollars.
This is not a joke. The US post office has already made this rule, quietly, despite 8,000 comments against it. Check out http://www.postalwatch.org for more details...
Chris
Ask me about Nanotechnology, Dyslexia Correction. Tell me about A.I., robotics, infrastructure.
All those nice shiny digital exchanges, with all the nice digital transmission stuff that telecom claims they installed was infact bought. planned and installed by the NZPO. Yes phones did take a long time to install, but the improvements began way before telecom took over. I know, I worked there, I installed some of the stuff. NZPO also was very good at maintenance, and the telecoms portion of it did re-invest a lot of what it earned in the network.
Myself and my collegues did some basic calculations at the time on costs/profits - even under NZPO's way overstaffed over maintained etc. way of doing things, you could still make shit-loads of money.
A message on this forum prompted me to think in the long term. What I see happenning is this:
:))
1. Telecom forces everyne over to 0867, Everyone is pissed off.
2. Telecom degrades quality of connection for 0867 and/or charges for it. Many switch to xtra.
3. A HUGE market opportunity opens for a company that can provide cheap, fast(er), dedicated (24/7) internet access (eg. Saturn).
4. This company(companies) moves in, and captures most of the market back from telecom by providing access at a reasonable rate, relaible, dedicated, and OUTSIDE THE TELECOM NETWORK.
5. End result: Through this chain of events, telecom has lost control of the Internet alltogether, and within a few years, telecom is a dwindling company for those small number of people who still insist on amking direct calls through them (nostalgia, maybe
Feel free to comment, it seems a reasonable rough outline of what is likely to happen if this continues
The other dirty trick TNZ has done (I don't think they have changed it), is that they treat all schools as BUSINESSES, and charge them accordingly - even playcentres, kindergartens etc.
No, NZ is doing fine. As others have pointed out, Auckland is the largest city, Wellington is the capital. While NZ may not have the highest standard of living (quantity), it certainly has one of the highest quality of living indexes in the world.
Unlike practically ALL other countries, US included, we now no longer have export subsidies or import tarrifs. That can make us susceptible to external shocks, and countries like the US putting tarrifs on our goods if the locals are unable to compete. In fact the recent US trade rows with Europe are quite funny, since they are about to slap protectionist tarrifs on Aus/NZ lamd to protect their own farmers.
The economy is somewhat of an experiment in free market theories. I'm not sure it works as well as some would like to believe, and the Telecom problem does prove the need for some controls to ensure the free market is a true free market. Whether a sector is controlled by one big company (Telecom in NZ telecoms, MS in s/w) or govt. it still has the same effect of killing competition and innovation.
Telecom NZ is owned by American shareholders, they're the only ones stupid enough to try something like this.
... I think TNZ are happy to let as many people as possible access as many sites as they can. More tax $$$ and TNZ profits.
And dare I say it, they don't care a fig how much the NZ internet user pays as long as the share price and dividends are up.
Actually, this is not about Net restriction
This HAS to be blatant unfair competition. Can't they be prosecuted?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Instead of telling people to stop 'whining' try fighting these companies. European Telecom companies are notorious for this overpricing because of their metering schemes. It's about time that people realized that we should be moving towards a flatrate and not a metered system. Heck, the dream was that in a few years we'd even be able to offer flatrate international calls so why let these companies bully us?
I have to laugh at any country that tries to somehow restrict access to the 'net via taxes or censorship. Considering the trend toward globalization, any roadblock to access to information could only harm a country in the long run.
Eventually, I foresee bidirectional wireless high-speed service offering ways around all the constant roadblocks to full-time access around the world.
;)
Actually, Wellington NZ has already taken a few steps down this path. Some enterprising ISPs have opened up some non-traditional ways of accessing the web in Wellington (mainly to get around Telecom's _absurd_ ISDN pricing [$200 per month plus 4c per minute]):
(a) Microwave radio: Netlink offer a wireless service to anyone with line-of-sight to Wellington's University.
(b) Satellite: Ihug offer a service made up of down-link satellite and up-link modem called Starnet.
(c) Not wireless, but still interesting... CityLink is a 100 Mb/s fibre-optic circuit linking the entire Wellington central business district with about 7 or 8 ISPs, giving up to 100 Mb/s internet access (although the pipes out of NZ can't currently handle that much bandwidth...
Cheers
Alastair
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
The PHB's strike again...
Eventually, I foresee bidirectional wireless high-speed service offering ways around all the constant roadblocks to full-time access around the world. But, isn't it about time that carriers and governments see that they should be moving towards better service to extract higher fees rather than nickel and diming everyone for the current ultra-low-speed status quo?
Life is but a mist upon the horizon.
The emergancy services arn't at risk, telecom are just suggesting that they could be effected so people will support them. The real problem is that none of telecoms 800+ million profits is going back into the bussiness.
As I understand it, the place where the overloading is the network connecting the various exchanges, and if ADSL goes via different pathways once it reaches the exchange then it would be independent of where the overloading is. Telecom seemed to imply this on their webpage, I think...
First off the me correct the one HUGE error that has been made in the original posting. The 2c per. minute levy applies ONLY to persons calling a KNOWN ISP on a standard voice circuit number. There is NO charge to call an ISP when calling on either an 0867 or 0873 number to the consumer.
If anyone cares to actually look at the FACTS regarding this case you will find that there are good reasons behind the Telecom move to charging for data to non IP-Net numbers.
1. Is is to reduced the load on VOICE circuits so that emergency services etc. can be easily reached. There have been recorded instances of difficulty contacting these services during peek Internet usage hours.
2. When dialing into an IP-Net number the caller is on a voice circuit only as far as their exchange. From this point onwards they are on DATA QUALITY circuits thereby increasing their 'quality of connection' and dropping error rates.
3. It reduces some of the costs for the ISP as the 'POP' (dial in number ie. MODEM) is run by Telecom and tey are responsible for all upgrades etc. to
the firmware of said POP. The circuit from the POP to the ISP is data quality and merely plugs in to their exisiting network.
4. A large number of ISPs have had no trouble with this concept. Paradise.net (once of the largest growing ISPs in NZ) has recently moved to
offering their clients access via. IP-Net, this gives them the advantage that they now have Nationwide access and that the connections their clients make to the ISP are more reliable (reducing need for packet re-sends and thus their costs).
5. For the 'local' IP-Net option there is NO ADDITIONAL charge levied on the ISP and the caller also gets around the 2c per. minute charge that would otherwise be levied if calling on a normal voice number. IF an ISP chooses to take the 'nationwide' option they will pay an increased fee but this will give them the advantage that they will immediately have notionwide conerage, this increasing their customer base.
Perhaps before people start rambling on about topics they should look behind what they initially see and find the REAL reasons that changes are being made.
PS. I have NO relationship with Telecom at all and am in fact a Saturn client (for both phone and Internet) so don't give me any crap about being a
'Telecom toady'
Telecom makes $800m a year on a country with maybe 3.5m people
thats at least $228 per person per year.
More people are going to clear so its probably closer to $400 per person per year
With all of this money, you would think telecom would start offering decent services, instead of being renowned for the most inefficient telecomms company in the world. Clear and Vodaphone are wh00ping its ass for a reason.
The government put them where they are in the first place, so they can shut up and do as we tell them
I recently used the 111 service to call police/ambulance to a car crash on a Saturday night.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with getting through to 111.
However, the operators were absolutely useless as they are in auckland, which was around 200k from where we were. We spent around 4 minutes explaining how to get to the crash site, and it took 25m for anyone to get there, as they were sent from the wrong headquarters.
Just as well it was not a fatal car accident.
Telecom is the most pathetic company in NZ that does not offer any decent services, and its 111 service is an example of it. If telecom is that concerned about 111, they should put some decent operators on that know their region, or decentralise it so that those operators in that region know where the emergency is
Roderick Deane, telecom Chief Executive, can suck my cock
I spend more than 600 hours online per month in New Zealand, and I worked out the charges would approch 80,000 if I don't dial the new prefix.
This of course makes me spit blood over the fact that I have to change.
I pitty the ISP's more who will have to re program modems and IPNet features, some approaching the cost of 500,000$ in help desk calls etc.
But Telecom in a way are right. I know if I wanted to dial 111 (emergency call equilavent to 911) I would want to get through, and not find out that the exchange is blocked by myself, or the 400,000 or so others that as well call ISP's for over 400 hours per month.
Just my view.
Rob
If they can tell the difference between a voice and a data transmission (how else could they charge 2c a minute for more than 10hrs usage), why do they need to change the fone numbers at all? Surely if they know which calls are data calls and which are voice calls, then dropping data lines in favour of 'higher priority' voice traffic should be easy.
This sounds like a convenient way to remove the classification of data calls as 'local calls' since the call is not made to a 'local exchange' i.e. they have removed the local dialling prefix, therefore it isn't a 'local call' therefore it is not subject to the restrictions of the 'Kiwishare' plan.
I say no way to this scheme, This is a clear violation of Telecom's agreement with the government.
If Telecom have found a way to supply internet services better and more cheaply through IP Net, then why not advertise this fact and the ISPs would of course switch to maximise their own profits.
Otherwise, it's a thinly vieled excuse to make data users pay through the nose at some point in the future.
It's times like this when I'm sure glad that I'm Canadian.
Oops, GST, I forgot.
TeeN GeeK
In Denmark where I live, I pay what is equivalent to US$0.0314 pr. minute during daytime. Half that after 19.00 in the evening to 8.00 in the morning. On top of that is a $0.036 charge per call. I also have to pay for the dialup account (~$10/mo) and the phone-line ($14/mo).
Net-wise Denmark is hell!
While I'm definate opposed to the idea of telecom trying to tax NZ net access, I would like to point out that it appears that the petitioners legal stance is slighly off. They state that telecoms actions are contrary to the Kiwi Share agreement which they quote the important part being:
"Local Call Charging - A local free-calling option will be maintained for all residential customers. Telecom may, however, develop optional tariff packages which entail local call charges for those who elect them, as an alternative."
While I'm no legal scholor it appears as if telecom has provided them with an Option in which they can call for free. And an additional tarriff, if the customer wants a higher priority line. While its sad that they would choose to single out data lines for such treatment, it doesn't appear nessesary against the agreement.
Any thoughts?
Isn't NZ telecom owned by US and Canadian investors? So what exactly is it that you're proud of (not a dig against Canada in general, just in this specific instance)?
A few points:
1) (already mentioned by others): Auckland is NOT New Zealand's capital. It is, however, NZ's largest city.
2) The blackouts affected only the central business district. Those of us in the suburbs were fine (unlike the 3 million Sydney residents who had to boil their water for a while last year).
3) The blackouts were due in part to failures in the supply lines to the CBD that were the result of an unusually hot summer (ground temps + extra loading from aircon units). The rest of the blame went on Mercury Engergy's investment and maintenance policies (Mercury is a baby Telecom in many ways).
4) It's not just Australians buying NZ out. It's anyone the government can trick into coming over here. All this foreign ownership has been government policy for over a decade now.
5) Over here, we tend not to see these problems as something that's about to happen in the US, but rather as NZ moving towards the US model (ie: the US is already there).
6) If you want to talk about bad shape, focus on the real problems - the Public Health System, Education, IT Policy...
I have a background process that saturates my connection 24/7 downloading music and the like from the newsgroups. during the day i am frequently connecting to my home machine to obtian documents and start downloads of the latest toys..
My ISP IHUG says i can use the internet as much as i like for a flat rate, i've taken them up on that. The 'kiwi share agreement' says i am entitled to free local calls to my ISP. Telecom appears to by in violation of that in order to avoid interconnect charges.
>So with no harm to internet users that I can see
But, forcing ISPs to the new number means clear etal can not compete as they did before. Telecom welcomes other providers (clear etc) to use the new numbers, but no doubt the interconnect charging would be in telecoms favour.
End result is ISPs have to pay more for their phone lines so that telecom can syphon more money overseas.
ISPs to cover this will have to charge more from their customers
-danthep
of course that is possible, Clear could raise fees which would be bad :( well, let's hope it won't come to that. I signed the petition, just to throw some shit in the fan.
In NZ, you can get quite a few capped rate specials for international calls e.g. $NZ5 calls to the UK, talk as long as you like. These "specials" only started happening when clear turned up to offer toll competition.
are among the highest in the world - that's why a lot of telecoms gear is tested there. Local calls have always been free, which obviously contributes to this.
What is ironic, that in the UK, the "free" ISPs still cost more than the per hour ISP fees in NZ.
Internet useage is up, sure. :P). calls that we would usually make if we didn't have the net to talk with.
but at the same time voice messages are decreasing (my guess), because of e-mail, icq and others i for one, and many flatmates and friends don't make many voice calls (besides ordering pizza
so their complaints about the possibilities of overloading (which are always possible under dire circumstances) are stupid. and doubly stupid a week after their own flat rate which will increase the useage.
altho, it at least we shouldn't have to worry too much about being kicked off because of overloading
i think i'm just gonna wait and see...
This is how it looks to me..
1. Telecom introduced a flat rate to its ISP, Xtra . As a means of killing off the rest of the ISP's that have had flat rates for years. eg, iHUG, Sinesurf etc..
2. They then complain that their exchanges are overloaded with all the extra traffic all the other ISP's are causing. Given that they are the largest ISP in the country. They shoot themselves in the foot by going flat rate. And now they want a way to make money out of it.
Pretty straight forward to me.. Although there's more to it than that. And this article in the New Zealand Herald is worth a read if you're intrested: Telecom spurs Internet rage .
--- "If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"
You are correct that in the fact that if you do dial the 0867 number you will not be charged.
.nz email..]
But you're missing the point: This is in clear violation of the Kiwi Share. It's an unprefixed, local call (7 digits), which means it MUST be free, not 2c per minute. You should not HAVE to dial 0867-XXXXXX.
Also, if you dial 0867, you may not get connected, because Telecom now says internet (or data) calls are not as important as voice calls. The 111 side of things is irrelevant - the switches should already dump calls to let 111 go through, so that's just a red herring.
You could see it this way.. Telecom could stop users of competing ISPs getting through, and then play the "But our XTRA ISP service doesn't have busy signals.." card. Can we say monopoly? Didn't Telecom say when they started XTRA that they wanted to 'rule the NZ internet'? Is this a step in that direction?
Also.. if you read the docs carefully they never say that the 0867 system will remain free. When everyone gets switched over (god forbid that it happens) and things settle down, what's to stop Telecom from then charging $1000 per week per 0867 number?
This is NOT a change for the good. Don't let them get away with it.
- Alastair
aj@sneep.net [I am actually a NZer, in NZ, just don't use a
Posted by Vik Olliver (at home):
:v)
I want to run a free community bulletin board in NZ. Unfortunately, Telecom won't give little old me a free magic number, so the local community have to pay for calling a local community bulletin board. This is against the Kiwi Share agreement.
It's just plain wrong. If I were paranoid I'd say that Telecom want to discourage the creation of independent data networks, people communitcating direct, and small-time ISPs in general.
Vik
1. The blackouts were in Auckland, the largest city. Wellington is the capital.
:)
2. We have not have had a frenzy of tax cutting. It's election year, so govt is talking about it for fairly obvious reasons
3. AFAIK we're being bought by the yanks, not the Australians.
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
NZ is in pretty bad shape. They had periods where there were rotating blackouts in the capital, where these rotating blackouts lasted for month.
A few years back they had a frenzy of tax cutting to stimulate the economy. Now many things in NZ are owned by Australian companies.
A taste of things to come for North America?
Man I wish I has a room temperature IQ!!
We're talking Kelvin, right?
Just curious if your running a free bulletin board, how does the NZ government find out that your running it? do you have to report this kinda thing? What happends to you when you don't?
New Zealand's GST (currently at 12.5%) is charged on absolutely everything (although companies can claim it back). Prices listed on shop shelves include tax on the ticket (this seems to be for everything except computers and computer components, go figure). New Zealand's initial GST introduction (at 10%) was timed to coincide with the removal of a manufacturing tax, prices were supposed to stay the same.
Canada's GST, on the other hand is either 7% or 8% (I forget which, one was GST, the other was Provincial). There are exceptions on all sorts of things, only half of which seem to make sense (Children's clothing and certain food products, for examples, are GST free. A weird twist of nature mad 5 donuts include tax, but made 6 tax free. 6 donuts were cheaper than 5......). dry cleaning companies suddenly started selling expensive potatoes, with dry cleaning as a free service (and thus avoid tax).
This phone tax, however, is not government run. It is an ex-state company abusing it's monopoly presence (Telecom are the only local dial-tone supplier for most of the country). The government would have had more tact (especially as this is an election year).
Also, Telecom's management have just changed their chairs around. This is really a case of a new boy trying to make an impact.
... and today's pet project has
Current fee structures for local calls, and current use leves of local telco networks, are designed for people making 20 min calls to Aunt Maude. As more and more people use their local service to make 1-2 hour calls to their ISP every night, somewhere, someone's fees are going to have to rise. And it seems to me its potentially reasonable to single out data calls for special fees, not because of the content, but because people tie up phone lines longer (typically) with data connections.
I guess in markets that already charge for local calls, this isn't such a big deal. In markets where that's not the case, though, either people will have to pay for all local calls, which may not be politically feasible, or data calls will have to pay extra fees.
There are a couple of reasons, why I think you are right. First of all I believe consumers will not suffer in any way, **PROVIDED** Telecom does not change the terms it just proposed:
;)
1. they will NOT disconnect you while you are on
2. there will be no prioritization which could not be done even without the new prefix, because emergency calls already have the ability to kick out other calls to get through (so on that point they are already trying to bullshit the people), and Telecom could as easily prioritize the existing ISP number as it could the new one (just makes it a bit easier for them)
3. AFAIK, there are no lower quality lines they could route data calls through, they don't have some old shoddy lines they could use for data, it is all the same stuff
4. service could be degraded if they route you with lots of detours, BUT that makes it only more expensive for them, so no danger here
So with no harm to internet users that I can see, your explanation is the only thing that makes sense to me.
-- I don't work for Telecom either, in fact I don't work for anybody but myself!
From what I've heard the charge will be only for KNOWN local ISP dialup lines, eg. an ISP's local Point of Presence number??? BBS's and other data calls will remain free no matter what. They couldn't determine a data call from a voice call without breaking the privacy act (again, just something i've heard). Its only if your ISP chooses not to get an 08x number and you continue to use their local dialup number that you will pay the charge.
As far as I can see there's nothing wrong with what's being done.
For those of you outside New Zealand who are looking at this, a bit of background might be in order to see what the outrage is about.
In 1990, the Governemnt sold Telecom for NZ$4.25 billion to a mostly American Consortium. They didn't just sell the service - they actually sold the whole network.
As a condition of sale, the Government retained a "Kiwi Share" in Telecom which placed certain obligations on the corporation. These were (interestingly enough, a brief search on www.telecom.co.nz didn't find this info, so I had to look elsewhere):
1.That the purchasers would sell down a portion of the initial holding to the New Zealand public,
2.That there would be a 49.9% ceiling on the shareholding of any foreign buyer,
3.That the Board would comprise at least 50% New Zealand citizens,
4.That Telecom would maintain a comprehensive residential phone network, with free local calls and increases in the line rental limited to the rate of inflation,
5.That the line rental for rural residential phones would be no more than for urban ones.
I could go into a whole lot of stuff about how the government had promised that they wouldn't sell Telecom, and how it was underpriced, but there is some more info I found here:
http://www.plain.co.nz/bohica/tele_2.HTM
Anyway, Telecom since then has been trying to work its way around some of this. Telecom executives frequently complain how much the rural and free local calling services are costing it. A while ago it introduced a 'plan' where by paying for local calls, you had a lower monthly rental. I _hope_ that this isn't the prelude to trying to get us all onto local charging.
Telecom has also been making very large profits, so it has had ample opportunity to upgrade its netwrok if this was going to be a problem.
So the question is not really about the pros and cons of charging people who make massive use of phone lines (I could see some case being made for this) - it is about meeting obligations which it is quite capable of meeting.
Roy Ward.
Watching the current consolodation in the us phone industry I realise that the best way to think of it is that scene in T2 when the bad guy (AT&T) is frozen and shattered into lots of little pieces .... everyone breathes a sigh of relief ..... untill the bits start to blob back together .....
ADSL does not use voice switch as far as I know. So moving internet surfers onto ADSL would help in this case.
:)
I think