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. :)