OT: New Zealand broadband

A friend expects to work in NZ for a couple of months next year. She
will need to take a VoIP phone with her.

The property she intends to live in apparently has broadband.

She explains that NZ Telecom is rather like the GPO of the 1950s. It is
apparently a retail monopoly supplier of both phone and broadband
services. I don't mean like our current BT which is effectively a
wholesale monopoly supplier; I mean there are no retail suppliers (like
A&A through TalkTalk to Zen in the UK) who are retail suppliers
re-selling the BT product. Evidently just getting a broadband service
at the property has been extremely trying!

Is this in fact true? Or is it simply an uninformed public view? After
all, if one asked the "man in the street" here, I'm sure he would claim
that BT is a monopoly retail supplier of broadband ...

Given this situation, is it likely that the NZ broadband service will be
presented via router equipped with at least one Ethernet socket?

This is very rural NZ, so what speeds is she likely to achieve?

--
Graham J

On 07/10/2011 16:46, Graham J wrote:
> A friend expects to work in NZ for a couple of months next year. She
> will need to take a VoIP phone with her.
>
> The property she intends to live in apparently has broadband.
>
> She explains that NZ Telecom is rather like the GPO of the 1950s. It is
> apparently a retail monopoly supplier of both phone and broadband
> services. I don't mean like our current BT which is effectively a
> wholesale monopoly supplier; I mean there are no retail suppliers (like
> A&A through TalkTalk to Zen in the UK) who are retail suppliers
> re-selling the BT product. Evidently just getting a broadband service at
> the property has been extremely trying!
>
> Is this in fact true? Or is it simply an uninformed public view? After
> all, if one asked the "man in the street" here, I'm sure he would claim
> that BT is a monopoly retail supplier of broadband ...
>
> Given this situation, is it likely that the NZ broadband service will be
> presented via router equipped with at least one Ethernet socket?
>
> This is very rural NZ, so what speeds is she likely to achieve?
>
Googling produced this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...in_New_Zealand

It looks like they have competition similar to the UK, with 36 ISPs.

George

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:28:44 +0100
George Weston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 07/10/2011 16:46, Graham J wrote:
> > A friend expects to work in NZ for a couple of months next year. She
> > will need to take a VoIP phone with her.
> >
> > The property she intends to live in apparently has broadband.
> >
> > She explains that NZ Telecom is rather like the GPO of the 1950s.
> > It is apparently a retail monopoly supplier of both phone and
> > broadband services. I don't mean like our current BT which is
> > effectively a wholesale monopoly supplier; I mean there are no
> > retail suppliers (like A&A through TalkTalk to Zen in the UK) who
> > are retail suppliers re-selling the BT product. Evidently just
> > getting a broadband service at the property has been extremely
> > trying!
> >
> > Is this in fact true? Or is it simply an uninformed public view?
> > After all, if one asked the "man in the street" here, I'm sure he
> > would claim that BT is a monopoly retail supplier of broadband ...
> >
> > Given this situation, is it likely that the NZ broadband service
> > will be presented via router equipped with at least one Ethernet
> > socket?
> >
> > This is very rural NZ, so what speeds is she likely to achieve?
> >
> Googling produced this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...in_New_Zealand
>
> It looks like they have competition similar to the UK, with 36 ISPs.
>
> George

Amazingly, in the US, you are restricted, for DSL, to your 'phone
supplier. I lived in an affluent suburb of Detroit, my 'phone line was
supplied by AT&T, and if I wanted DSL, I had to use AT&T, there was no
choice. The alternative was to use high-speed supplied by the cable TV
company, but it cost more. Returning to the UK, I was astounded to find
that I could choose my ISP using my BT line.
--
Davey.

Graham J wrote:
> A friend expects to work in NZ for a couple of months next year. She
> will need to take a VoIP phone with her.
>
> The property she intends to live in apparently has broadband.
>
> She explains that NZ Telecom is rather like the GPO of the 1950s. It is
> apparently a retail monopoly supplier of both phone and broadband
> services. I don't mean like our current BT which is effectively a
> wholesale monopoly supplier; I mean there are no retail suppliers (like
> A&A through TalkTalk to Zen in the UK) who are retail suppliers
> re-selling the BT product. Evidently just getting a broadband service
> at the property has been extremely trying!
>
> Is this in fact true? Or is it simply an uninformed public view? After
> all, if one asked the "man in the street" here, I'm sure he would claim
> that BT is a monopoly retail supplier of broadband ...
>


I think its fairly true that in a given area there is but one
broadband/phone supplier.

Or perhaps not..

http://broadband.t5.co.nz/



> Given this situation, is it likely that the NZ broadband service will be
> presented via router equipped with at least one Ethernet socket?
>

My IMPRESSION from stumbling on net groups in oz and NZ is that the
router choice is fee..Billion has a much greater following there than
here, and as its what I have, I got a lot of info on it from antipodean
chat groups.


I would suggets that yiour friend regsiters with SIPGATE, and then
'takes a UK VOIP number with her' so to speak.



> This is very rural NZ, so what speeds is she likely to achieve?
>

Lap of the gods mate.
Try here

http://www.broadbandmap.govt.nz/map/

Davey <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:14:59
+0100 the perfect time to write:

>On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:28:44 +0100
>George Weston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 07/10/2011 16:46, Graham J wrote:
>> > A friend expects to work in NZ for a couple of months next year. She
>> > will need to take a VoIP phone with her.
>> >
>> > The property she intends to live in apparently has broadband.
>> >
>> > She explains that NZ Telecom is rather like the GPO of the 1950s.
>> > It is apparently a retail monopoly supplier of both phone and
>> > broadband services. I don't mean like our current BT which is
>> > effectively a wholesale monopoly supplier; I mean there are no
>> > retail suppliers (like A&A through TalkTalk to Zen in the UK) who
>> > are retail suppliers re-selling the BT product. Evidently just
>> > getting a broadband service at the property has been extremely
>> > trying!
>> >
>> > Is this in fact true? Or is it simply an uninformed public view?
>> > After all, if one asked the "man in the street" here, I'm sure he
>> > would claim that BT is a monopoly retail supplier of broadband ...
>> >
>> > Given this situation, is it likely that the NZ broadband service
>> > will be presented via router equipped with at least one Ethernet
>> > socket?
>> >
>> > This is very rural NZ, so what speeds is she likely to achieve?
>> >
>> Googling produced this:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...in_New_Zealand
>>
>> It looks like they have competition similar to the UK, with 36 ISPs.
>>
>> George
>
>Amazingly, in the US, you are restricted, for DSL, to your 'phone
>supplier. I lived in an affluent suburb of Detroit, my 'phone line was
>supplied by AT&T, and if I wanted DSL, I had to use AT&T, there was no
>choice. The alternative was to use high-speed supplied by the cable TV
>company, but it cost more. Returning to the UK, I was astounded to find
>that I could choose my ISP using my BT line.

That may vary by state, or simply be a matter of there being any
competition.
It was not the case when I was provisioning internet access for a
business in OK.
There was a locally dominant supplier (and no doubt many locals would
say it was the only supplier), but alternatives existed, and could be
better value if what you needed didn't fit one of the standard
packages available from the dominant supplier.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:18:24 +0100
Phil W Lee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Davey <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:14:59
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:28:44 +0100
> >George Weston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/10/2011 16:46, Graham J wrote:
> >> > A friend expects to work in NZ for a couple of months next year.
> >> > She will need to take a VoIP phone with her.
> >> >
> >> > The property she intends to live in apparently has broadband.
> >> >
> >> > She explains that NZ Telecom is rather like the GPO of the 1950s.
> >> > It is apparently a retail monopoly supplier of both phone and
> >> > broadband services. I don't mean like our current BT which is
> >> > effectively a wholesale monopoly supplier; I mean there are no
> >> > retail suppliers (like A&A through TalkTalk to Zen in the UK) who
> >> > are retail suppliers re-selling the BT product. Evidently just
> >> > getting a broadband service at the property has been extremely
> >> > trying!
> >> >
> >> > Is this in fact true? Or is it simply an uninformed public view?
> >> > After all, if one asked the "man in the street" here, I'm sure he
> >> > would claim that BT is a monopoly retail supplier of
> >> > broadband ...
> >> >
> >> > Given this situation, is it likely that the NZ broadband service
> >> > will be presented via router equipped with at least one Ethernet
> >> > socket?
> >> >
> >> > This is very rural NZ, so what speeds is she likely to achieve?
> >> >
> >> Googling produced this:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...in_New_Zealand
> >>
> >> It looks like they have competition similar to the UK, with 36
> >> ISPs.
> >>
> >> George
> >
> >Amazingly, in the US, you are restricted, for DSL, to your 'phone
> >supplier. I lived in an affluent suburb of Detroit, my 'phone line
> >was supplied by AT&T, and if I wanted DSL, I had to use AT&T, there
> >was no choice. The alternative was to use high-speed supplied by the
> >cable TV company, but it cost more. Returning to the UK, I was
> >astounded to find that I could choose my ISP using my BT line.
>
> That may vary by state, or simply be a matter of there being any
> competition.
> It was not the case when I was provisioning internet access for a
> business in OK.
> There was a locally dominant supplier (and no doubt many locals would
> say it was the only supplier), but alternatives existed, and could be
> better value if what you needed didn't fit one of the standard
> packages available from the dominant supplier.

Could well be. There are many variations from State to State in the US.
I believe, from many conversations on Usenet groups, that the Michigan
model was (is) the norm, but that does not preclude differences.
--
Davey.