Joe Abley wrote:
The question of whether the business decision in
question is the right
one is really a matter for TCL and their owners. But if you assume for a
second that as a business decision it makes sense, then all TCL are
doing is what they are supposed to be doing as a commercial company --
trying to maximise their profits. They're not a government department,
and they're not a charity.
This is bordering on OT, but as business conduct has direct bearing upon
operational issues, here goes:
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of TCL customers, yours truly
included, questioned the wisdom of said business decision that
effectively locked them out of sites that in some cases they needed to
JSR noted that the decision meant international traffic charges were
incurred for some users, and how many helpdesk calls about "I'm a
Clear/Paradise/Saturn/Netlink customer who need to access the Kiwibank
site, but can't" were logged during the time?
If the intention was to show how fragile the NZ Internet is, TCL
certainly succeeded. I doubt it "maximised profits" however through that
Also remember that it was people working at CLEAR who
came up with the
APE in the first place, and built it with assistance from their friends
at Citylink. CLEAR and Plain were the first people to peer there.
If CLEAR and Telstra NZ had not been willing to peer with people for so
long at the APE, it's entirely possible that it would never have reached
critical mass, and might not have grown to the size it is today.
It strikes me that Clear and its techies (hi Joe!) had a very different
idea as to the benefits of peering than Telstra has demonstrated recently.
Certainly, the APE Web pages seem to say peering is mutually beneficial
rather than a commercial resource to be milked, but maybe I'm showing my