I thought "started building his weapons cache" was a euphemism, only to find out it's just rocks and stone discs. I am simultaneously disappointed and relieved.

I thought we were on the same page as to the quality of NZ net and only in disagreement as to its cause?

I'm not with Telecom and enjoy a (relatively) good service as a direct result. In the past, this would have been rather difficult. Telecom's a shadow of its former self, however... and is steadily decreasing in power. Its shares have been taking a hit almost daily -- expand the history of that link back to 2008 to see the extent.

Here's a good source of ISP plans in NZ. Telecom are somewhere in the middle. As for market penetration, I'm unable to find any hard data on it. It used to be 90%~ Xtra at the beginning of the naughties. In 2005-2006, it had gone down to 75% shared with TelstraClear. I have no idea what it is now.

Back to my original argument: Monopoly? Not so much anymore. Return on investment? Definitely. We have four million people. TelstraClear have been finding it difficult to justify expanding their cable network in NZ (they actually tried to let their existing cable network fall out of favour for a few years and have only recently begun to roll out new fiber). Telecom, monopoly or no, have very real financial concerns preventing them from ripping up our shitty national copper network for something better. Undersea cabling linking us to the rest of the 'net suffers from the same difficulty of recouping the investment; that's why international traffic is expensive and ISPs often lift their data caps for national traffic.

The one thing NZ internet has going for it is that we're a perfect test bed for new technology.

due to cryogenics and the strong possibility of future revival, it's pretty difficult to shoot somebody to true death -- only legal death :)

I pay the NZ equivalent for 10mbit up/down and 80gb cap, on a network owned 100% by one of Telecom's competitors.
But nice try.

Speaking as a kiwi...

Wut?

Three words.
Return on investment.

NZ has fantastic connection to the world, and an TelstraClear is in the process of laying a brand new high capacity cable. I have a 10mbit up/down cable connection and there's no bottlenecks anywhere, let alone on one of the most popular sites on the world -- YouTube. I don't know what this w0mprat fellow is on about in this regard.

What we DO suffer from is lack of return on investment. Those undersea cables cost quite a bit to lay and we live in a country that only recently passed the four-million population mark. Our telecommunications monopoly that is only now being addressed has resulted in a below-OCD-average uptake of broadband technology, exacerbating the return-on-investment problem. Due to the cost of international data transfer, almost all plans in NZ are capped at ridiculously low levels (20gb/month is "good" here).

It's not all doom and gloom though... the new undersea cable has an insane capacity and Telecom's monopolistic grip is being loosened. Unfortunately, thanks to this new law, that light at the end of the tunnel? It's an oncoming train.

Indirectly, perhaps. I believe the primary reason is to help towards getting a free trade agreement with the US, which is what the last two governments have been clamoring for (it's doesn't appear to be that lucrative, though).

Some of the major ISPs have stated that they will be very laxx about compliance to this new law. I don't anticipate any changes to the way I use the net.

On the flip side, some ISPs here have been doing this before the law was even concieved.

Mod this AC up -- this is the crux of the issue and is not to be skipped over.

The term "New Zealander" includes Maori, just as it includes all other racial backgrounds that make up the people of Aotearoa.

And yeah they'd kick some arse :). Well, maybe. I think Pa are getting a bit outdated.

Do you want to talk about it?

Perhaps you could rephrase your argument then? All I've read thus far has been a misunderstanding of science.

Are you after philosophy? Because I can't help you here. As far as I'm concerned, until something passes into the realm of the testable, it's baseless speculation. That isn't to say that it is impossible for some things to be tested. Given enough time (a LOT of time), science should eventually give us all the answers... and cease to be science. But that's just speculation. Even though that's the pattern of science so far... it serves its own ends in terms of discovering that deemed undiscoverable... it doesn't count as evidence that all is undiscoverable -- that's a logical fallacy (all X i've seen is Y thefore all X is Y).

Are you trying to argue against the senses? Well, go nuts man. If you're right then there's no reason to argue against them -- we'll never know the truth -- and we'll just have to make do with the illusion. If you're wrong then for all intents and purposes, nothing has changed. In either case we're treading the same path.

Are you arguing against the scientific method? You say it's not applicable to everything -- do you have any examples?

Sorry, it's just kind of hard to read what you're after.

I guess another way of percieving it would be to expand on that last paragraph -- to test its bulletproofness. It's quite easy to do. Just go up to someone with an opposing view point and apply yourself. For example, I can (and do) take on anyone who adopts a more supernatural stance towards existence. Astrology (as exampled above), god(s), spirits, you name it. Not only have my arguments not even been dented in these debates, they haven't even gotten close to it.

Taking evolution vs. creationism as an example, where my opponent brings up a challenge against evolution, I have the answer, no matter what it is. That's because evolution is solid science (at the moment, it's a more solid science than the theory of gravity) and what hole is a creationist going to find in it that thousands of fulltime scientists can't? In the meantime, my assertions inevitably cause them to fall back on fallicious logic ("god wrote the book so it's right" -> "the book is right so god is real" / "god works in mysterious ways" translated "I don't know or care to know").

It's practically bullet proof and you're using the fruits of it to communicate with a chap in New Zealand.