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. :)