Lets hope Naked DSL is Naked DSL, I look forward to dumping my phone line and saving and extra $40 per month.
Pity they don't mention regulation of ADSL-2 or phone/ADSL package separation. (toll packages)
but at least Telecom can no longer set data caps
Now watch as it goes to court and gets locked up in dispute for the next few years while telecom offer new ADSL-2 deals at half the current cost to xtra customers.
Why do I feel its too little too late. With those tiny dslam cabinets there is no room for Competitors hardware to be installed.
Still at least they have admitted that they got it wrong last time (even if they blame the commissioner)
Craig Box wrote:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=25636
Craig
wlug mailing list | wlug@list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
Glenn Enright wrote:
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 6:09 pm, Gavin Denby wrote:
Lets hope Naked DSL is Naked DSL, I look forward to dumping my phone line and saving and extra $40 per month.
Certainly looks good. Lets hope it procedes as written...
And works better than Probe did
But looks good, Love the number of Reviews. Especially the one about telecom being able to compete just where the competition is. does that mean our phone bills will come down to match the kapiti cost, Wellington and Christchurch prices (where they compete with Telstra) ... not that telecom are overcharging or anything ....
Well, this all looks like a step in the right direction. I could do with some form of higher speed Internet (56k isn't really good enough for my purposes) but I am not exactly willing to pay $40/month for a data cap that I will exceed in a day.
So, I wonder how long until the effects of this decision become visible in *DSL speeds and prices....
On 5/3/06, Glenn Enright elinar@ihug.co.nz wrote:
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 6:09 pm, Gavin Denby wrote:
Lets hope Naked DSL is Naked DSL, I look forward to dumping my phone line and saving and extra $40 per month.
Certainly looks good. Lets hope it procedes as written...
wlug mailing list | wlug@list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
-- -David Goodwin Email: dgsoftnz@gmail.com
David Goodwin wrote:
Well, this all looks like a step in the right direction. I could do with some form of higher speed Internet (56k isn't really good enough for my purposes) but I am not exactly willing to pay $40/month for a data cap that I will exceed in a day.
So, I wonder how long until the effects of this decision become visible in *DSL speeds and prices....
Aye !!! and there is the rub.
I won't be holding my breath. WI-FI - Big Cities only. Satellite (not till we get a local one) Fibre again Big Cities only ... and then we are out of options
At least they mention a rural package. Now we just need to find a technology that sees over hills and into gully's ... G3 Cellphone data systems ?????
As I understand things, It'll still be a couple of years until we see the full effects of this. (Legislation needs to be finalised and passed).
Also, will the current infrastructure handle this? My flat is currently getting a max of about 300kb (small 'b') on our 2mb connection - because our exchange is overloaded and due to be upgraded by telecom "sometime in the future". And that 300kb is only when our net works at all... Our ISP says they've had many complaints about this, ever since Telecom started upgrading to 3.5mb.
Still, looks like what many of us have been waiting for, for quite a long time.
Joseph.
On 5/3/06, Gavin Denby redhat@ihug.co.nz wrote:
David Goodwin wrote:
Well, this all looks like a step in the right direction. I could do with some form of higher speed Internet (56k isn't really good enough for my purposes) but I am not exactly willing to pay $40/month for a data cap that I will exceed in a day.
So, I wonder how long until the effects of this decision become visible in *DSL speeds and prices....
Aye !!! and there is the rub.
I won't be holding my breath. WI-FI - Big Cities only. Satellite (not till we get a local one) Fibre again Big Cities only ... and then we are out of options
At least they mention a rural package. Now we just need to find a technology that sees over hills and into gully's ... G3 Cellphone data systems ?????
wlug mailing list | wlug@list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
Joseph Gibbs wrote:
As I understand things, It'll still be a couple of years until we see the full effects of this. (Legislation needs to be finalised and passed).
The paper suggests 2008 at a minimum for LLU to be ready. It's somewhat vague about the details as it's a "plan of action" and calls for more detailed papers to be written describing the "how". These papers are generally to be ready by July 2006, although some are to be ready by 2007.
Also, will the current infrastructure handle this? My flat is currently getting a max of about 300kb (small 'b') on our 2mb connection - because our exchange is overloaded and due to be upgraded by telecom "sometime in the future". And that 300kb is only when our net works at all... Our ISP says they've had many complaints about this, ever since Telecom started upgrading to 3.5mb.
There are several reasons why you get that speed: 1) Your line quality might suck. 2) A sucky DSLAM (Conklin) 3) Congestion from your DSLAM to the ISP 4) Congestion from the ISP to your destination site.
LLU fixes the first 2 trivially, and makes 3 avoidable.
Still, looks like what many of us have been waiting for, for quite a long time.
Indeed.
Joseph Gibbs wrote:
Also, will the current infrastructure handle this? My flat is currently getting a max of about 300kb (small 'b') on our 2mb connection - because our exchange is overloaded and due to be upgraded by telecom "sometime in the future". And that 300kb is only when our net works at all... Our ISP says they've had many complaints about this, ever since Telecom started upgrading to 3.5mb.
There are several reasons why you get that speed:
- Your line quality might suck.
- A sucky DSLAM (Conklin)
- Congestion from your DSLAM to the ISP
- Congestion from the ISP to your destination site.
LLU fixes the first 2 trivially, and makes 3 avoidable.
Excuse my ignorance, but is a DSLAM and the 'exhange' in fact one in the same (or in the same 'box')?
Also (perhaps this warrants a new topic), Telecom won't give us or our ISP any indication of when our local exhange will be upgraded. Any ideas on how I can hassle Telecom to get that done faster? Our ISP says that they have many people with the same problem, and that no one knows when any particular exhange may be upgraded, just that there's a list of exchanges that need it.
Also, out of interest, what sort of area (in terms of size or amount of lines) does any one particular exchange usually service?
Joseph.
LLU fixes the first 2 trivially, and makes 3 avoidable.
Excuse my ignorance, but is a DSLAM and the 'exhange' in fact one in the same (or in the same 'box')?
A telephone exchange is a building that has a nice fast connection back to a more central telephone exchange. A DSLAM is a device that sits on the other end of the copper wire to you. It can be in an exchange, assuming you have copper all the way between you and your exchange.
Nowadays, lots of people have fibre from the telephone exchange to a local cabinet, and copper from the cabinet to the home. This means you have to have little DSLAMs in the cabinets, rather than one (bigger) DSLAM in the exchange. This is the problem with newer subdivisions - it makes it harder to get the numbers up in order to "DSL enable" a cabinet.
Craig
Joseph Gibbs wrote:
There are several reasons why you get that speed:
- Your line quality might suck.
- A sucky DSLAM (Conklin)
- Congestion from your DSLAM to the ISP
- Congestion from the ISP to your destination site.
LLU fixes the first 2 trivially, and makes 3 avoidable.
A correction to this, it fixes the second trivally. It actually has the potential to make the first point much much worse due to less co-ordination between the users of the copper
Excuse my ignorance, but is a DSLAM and the 'exhange' in fact one in the same (or in the same 'box')?
DSLAMs live (traditionally) in Exchanges.
Also (perhaps this warrants a new topic), Telecom won't give us or our ISP any indication of when our local exhange will be upgraded. Any ideas on how I can hassle Telecom to get that done faster? Our ISP says that they have many people with the same problem, and that no one knows when any particular exhange may be upgraded, just that there's a list of exchanges that need it.
Also, out of interest, what sort of area (in terms of size or amount of lines) does any one particular exchange usually service?
As a rough guide.
A typical DSLAM terminates roughly 2k DSL connections and I believe has a 155Mbps upstream link to a RAN. A DSLAM of this type takes up about half a rack (20-30U) and generates lots of power and heat.
In cases like Craig mentioned where fibre has been pushed out closer to the home and the DSLAM lives in a cabinet small mini-DSLAM devices called Conklins are used. These have 8 ports (although they are stackable up to about 48 ports I believe). Conklins only have capacity for an 4Mbps upstream link.
Further complicating things DSLAMs can be subtended of each other (Conklins are always subtended to a bigger DSLAM) causing futher sharing of the available bandwidth.
Cheers
I didn't read the whole release and as I live in Oz now I don't care too much, but it is still good news.
In Oz they have local loop unbundling too. Though no naked DSL so I still have to pay Telstra for a line rental. Though that is less than $18 a month. I get my broardband from a company called Internode. Originally they didn't have a DSLAM at my location but now they do so I'm in line for transition from a Telstra DSLAM (limited to 1.5Mbit) to their own ADSL2 24Mbit DSLAM. I get 40GB of traffic a month for around $80. Rate limited to 7k/sec after 40GB. I imagine NZ will have similar plans within a fairly short period.
Regards
Gavin Denby wrote:
Lets hope Naked DSL is Naked DSL, I look forward to dumping my phone line and saving and extra $40 per month.
Pity they don't mention regulation of ADSL-2 or phone/ADSL package separation. (toll packages)
but at least Telecom can no longer set data caps
Now watch as it goes to court and gets locked up in dispute for the next few years while telecom offer new ADSL-2 deals at half the current cost to xtra customers.
Why do I feel its too little too late. With those tiny dslam cabinets there is no room for Competitors hardware to be installed.
Still at least they have admitted that they got it wrong last time (even if they blame the commissioner)
Craig Box wrote:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=25636
Craig
wlug mailing list | wlug@list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
wlug mailing list | wlug@list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
Oliver Jones wrote:
I didn't read the whole release and as I live in Oz now I don't care too much, but it is still good news.
In Oz they have local loop unbundling too. Though no naked DSL so I still have to pay Telstra for a line rental. Though that is less than $18 a month. I get my broardband from a company called Internode. Originally they didn't have a DSLAM at my location but now they do so I'm in line for transition from a Telstra DSLAM (limited to 1.5Mbit) to their own ADSL2 24Mbit DSLAM. I get 40GB of traffic a month for around $80. Rate limited to 7k/sec after 40GB. I imagine NZ will have similar plans within a fairly short period.
Funny that... Terressa Guttung was able to give a convincing reason as to why one *should* unbundle the local loop as well as why one *should not* unbundle the local loop.
Personally, I think what Jonny Martin presented at NZNOG sums it up... http://resources.nznog.org/Thursday-230306/LocalLoopUnbundlingPanel/NZNOG06-...
Gavin Denby wrote:
Lets hope Naked DSL is Naked DSL, I look forward to dumping my phone line and saving and extra $40 per month.
Pity they don't mention regulation of ADSL-2 or phone/ADSL package separation. (toll packages)
LLC means that anyone can put what type of DSLAM they want in the exchange. The point is that if Telecom don't use ADSL-2 someone else will.
but at least Telecom can no longer set data caps
Theres no mention of datacaps in here. While theres not limits from the house to the exchange, you still have to get the data from the exchange to the ISP. And ISP's in theory *could* lay their own fibre to the exchange but more likely they are going to be buying transit from Telecom. Since it's this transit that telecom is putting the caps on at the moment, it seems likely that they will continue to do so.
Now watch as it goes to court and gets locked up in dispute for the next few years while telecom offer new ADSL-2 deals at half the current cost to xtra customers.
UBS means that they must provide similar access to other ISPs. The paper extends UBS further to realtime services and removes the 128k upload restriction. The paper suggests that UBS is a shortterm measure until full LLU is available (which they project to be 2008).
Why do I feel its too little too late.
They give telecom a chance to "fix" the problem with the infamous "UBS/250,000 customers and 30% wholesale" deal. Telecom failed, and now they really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complain about this. Hopefully this will make it easier for the government to push through much more sweeping changes.
With those tiny dslam cabinets there is no room for Competitors hardware to be installed.
They must provide space according to this paper.
Still at least they have admitted that they got it wrong last time (even if they blame the commissioner)
Shrug, it's not an easy game to play. :)
Craig Box wrote:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=25636
Ihug have responded, Now lets see how they roll out the first 20 million they have been waiting to spend
http://www.ihug.co.nz/info/pr/releases/Handbrake%20comes%20off%20broadband%2...
participants (9)
-
Craig Box -
David Goodwin -
Gavin Denby -
Glenn Enright -
Joseph Gibbs -
Lindsay Druett -
Matt Brown -
Oliver Jones -
Perry Lorier