Talk:IiNet

Ozemail has been purchased by iiNet making them the 3rd largest ISP in Australia

citation of claims?

It claims it was the first ISP to offer PPP access in Australia, and believed to be the first to base operations on the then new Linux operating system. . Any citation that it has claimed this or it is true. I know of ISPs in NZ using Linux in 1993 so possibly it was common in Aus too. - SimonLyall 20:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Sydney and Newcastle APANA hubs were Linux systems from February 1993. (Newcastle being the first to be 100% reliant on Linux, with Sydney taking a while to upgrade all its several backbone systems.) I managed to find a posting to the Newcastle local news hierarchy from the time... It would place the date of Scorch's upgrade to Linux as the 25th of February that year.

  Newsgroups: ncle.computers
  Path: scorch!cbaird
  From: cbaird@scorch.apana.org.au (Chris Baird)
  Subject: Re: LINUX
  Organization: Craggenmoore public Unix system , Newcastle , Oz
  Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 01:39:19 GMT
  Message-ID: <1993Feb28.013919.770@scorch.apana.org.au>
  References: <1993Feb23.184425.21665@scorch.apana.org.au>
  <esMkrAWKBh107h@krikkit1.apana.org.au> <1993Feb27.180009.22364@scorch.apana.org.au%gt;
  Keywords: Linux SLS telnet ftp SLIP
   
  jarqui@scorch.apana.org.au (Jared Quinn) writes:
    > . . . and was able to telnet to my own system (wow!)...
   
  How about resuming the SLIP project, now that a couple of
  systems have the capability? (Granted, SLIP over 2400bps lines
  isn't gonna be breathtaking, but it'll mean near-instant email
  to other local machines, with a bit of fun ftp'ing thrown in.
  Hell, the packet radio mob have put up with 1200bps...)
   
  If there's anything that needs to be ftp'd, just ask me.
   
  --
  Chris Baird,,  <cbaird@scorch.apana.org.au>

It is a pity the long history of APANA isn't on Wikipedia... ---203.14.156.193

Gang of four / Ozemail buy

I have heard that one reason behind the buy of ozemail was to get into the "Gang of Four" peering arrangement. However this fell though when the others in the gang decided that the peering stayed with MCI rather than with Ozemail. Anyone got any sources on this? - SimonLyall 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK it was never the plan - iiNet was buying Ozemail from MCI and MCI was the one with the GoF peering arrangement, not Ozemail. Asking the iinet reps on the Whirlpool forum will get you a 100% correct answer. -- Chuq 04:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looks like it's unsourced and/or probably untrue so we can't say that. I did here some rumors though, especially wrt depeering/repeering at PIPE around that time. Don't believe everything you read on Whirlpool. - SimonLyall 04:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent re-write

I notice the entire section "regulatory conflict with Telstra" was removed. Does anyone else believe that it should be re-instated? -- Chuq 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

if it were me it really needs to be rewritten with a wider perspective including iinet's battles (in conjunction with other providers) in the ACCC over access and other rights, and the media coverage of iiNets changes in the west australian newspaper. the section as it stood on reading the history had a lot of iinet spin in it - often the point of spin is to preempt criticism with a defence. 203.59.8.150 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the main problem I have with its removal is that it described the difference between iiBroadband, iiBroadband1, iiBroadband2 and iiBroadband2+, and their respective similarities (or lack of) between those and ADSL, ADSL2, ADSL2+. I thought it was fairly neutral in describing the differences, at least more neutral that what you would find on the official site. If there is a problem with it then I would recommend editing or adding to it to make it better, as a preference to deleting valid content. -- Chuq 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point - the revised version of the reinstated paragraph definitely feels less "branded", which is a good thing. The "branding" was my basic problem with the entire article as it stood 2 days ago - apologies for my overenthusiasm in removing this particular section. The other stuff the earlier poster mentioned does indeed belong here, but I wouldn't know where to start looking for it. Orderinchaos78 15:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

the west article comment misleading

I removed the part about 'the west' citing that Mr Malone had stepped down from his position. This was in the article reading it, however it is biased and full of speculation, and MM has not stepped down. like anything else you will read on the issue at the moment, so I removed it.

~Luke Redgen

firstly, the west did not cite that, nor did 53149897 claim it - I wrote "said Mr Malone had been sidelined", which was very similar to the west's "with Mr Malone this week being effectively sidelined" (para 5 of article). the west's business section is the state's leading business publication, operating and being seen in iinet's main market. hence I readded it, but people can read this section and the article for themselves to find out about mr malone. i note the above poster comes from an iinet ip. 220.235.18.209 12:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reinserted a reference to the West's claim, as WA Business News has now actually contradicted the claim, so both sides are now presented. As for the above two posts - the original addition did attribute the POV to the newspaper without expressing an opinion.

Regardless of who we work for or who we use, in the absence of accurate information, the media are all we have, and as they can be sued or taken to the regulators or the PCC if they knowingly publish false information. The West are covering it, News Ltd papers aren't getting involved, WA Business News is offering another opinion (which as an independent publication is great I think) and iiNet occasionally chuck a press release out there. In some cases, a better interpretation of the source material is possible and I see that was done a few days ago on the earlier WABN article. Orderinchaos78 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In an article published today, June 21st, WA Business News again stated that Malone was still CEO and firmly in charge. Tonight, the company announced that Malone had spent over $4m increasing his holdings to 20%. All the announces are signed off by Malone, as was the deal with PowerTel. Other than the one comment from the West about being "effectively sidelined", is there any evidence at all that anything at all has changed? (203.59.64.196 21 June 2006 14:48) (Please sign your posts)

Malone certainly seems to be in charge now, but at the time of the original article's publication some changes in the management structure had taken place giving more business-centred people effective control, and Malone's personal stake in the business fell. That being said, it was valid from the start to quote the West - there was no verifiable proof anywhere that it was "biased and full of speculation" and as far as I can see, there still isn't - and to quote other information (both supporting and contradicting) as it emerged on a breaking story. There is also such things as corporate damage control and PR, which may explain the subscriber exclusive for WABN. Orderinchaos78 16:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Corporate Bias and Factual Inaccuracy

Below are some detailed points challenging the bias and accuracy of this page, in accordance with my understanding of the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy. Please note that the comments below are not written from a NPOV, and could possibly show bias in the other direction. No bias against iiNet, or tarnishing of iiNet's reputation is either intended or desired.

The comments below are not suggested as a replacement for the article text, but more as a starting point to develop a more accurate and less biased article. Where items are not referenced, it is hoped that the points are easily verifiable or self evident. 130.95.128.51 13 June 2006 05:02

I can wear some of the criticism in this section, as some of the paragraphs referred to were authored by myself, ironically with the intent to provide a *less* pro-iiNet article (if you look at [page as it stood until 9 May], you'll see what I saw). Now that it's limping, we've got to make it walk.

I agree strongly with the need to develop a more accurate, less biased, referenced article and I think you've raised some excellent points which can go some way to fixing this up. Verification will be an issue in some instances primarily due to the age of the matters under discussion, as well as the commercial nature of the information meaning independent confirmation is rarely possible and corporate announcements, not known for NPOV, are the main documentary source of information.

It's very clear to me that you have a clear and informed understanding of the Internet market and technology in the 1990s in Western Australia, and it's nice to know we've got some good heads on this little project! I'm curious who you are now, as I probably know you. Orderinchaos78 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to make this more readable, as it can get otherwise very quickly. :) Please add to this schema if you edit.

The issue as a heading Quote from article

• Comments by 130.95.128.51 on 13 June

Comments by Orderinchaos78 on 15 June

Third largest ISP?

iiNet Limited (ASX: IIN) is one of Australia's major Internet Service Providers. Focusing primarily on ADSL-based Internet access, it is currently Australia's third largest ISP. The company trades as iiNet in Australia and as ihug in New Zealand.

• There is no citation for being Australia's third largest ISP

Agreed. [1] Google suggests the source is iiNet and MCI articles, while Primus also claim the title. Not clear whether this is ADSL alone or total size. A news article I read in 2005 claimed the Ozemail acquisition had pushed iiNet from 6th to 3rd but I don't know where they got their measurements from. Unfortunately it is difficult to measure - while there is no doubt Telstra and Optusnet are largest in that order, what comes after is questionable, given the unwillingness of ISPs to agree on a common system of rules for measuring their own size, and the obvious commercial advantages of providing the highest number possible.

Also the nature of the business is such that it can be hard to measure (I actually tried to do this for a company I was working for back in 2000) - is a suspended customer or one who hasn't paid for two months (or six) a customer or not a customer? Do some sets of figures include overseas customers, with others including only Australia? Are customers with two different products treated as two separate customers? Is a customer who only buys an email box for $5 a month equivalent to a corporate cohoster - i.e. is size measured in customer terms or in FTQ terms? OneTel used to claim higher internet share based on bundles, but customers often weren't aware they had been bundled - is that still a problem with other companies today?

These questions can't be answered easily, and apply not just to iiNet but to the entire industry. I've looked and can find no reliable page that ranks Australian ISPs. Yahoo Finance's iiNet profile says 620,000 for iiNet at some unspecified time in 2005. Primus claims 600,000 [2] and 700,000 [3], Optusnet claims 825,000 [4] and to be well ahead of all others bar Bigpond. Telstra claims 1.2m, 1.5m or 2.0m depending on where you source. A now-defunct blog, badtelstra.blogspot.com, quoted a 14 July 2005 article on australianit.news.com.au saying iiNet had dropped from 3rd to 4th - this was after the acquisition of Ozemail. Several sources in 2004 (including MCI, iiNet and The Age) say 4th at that time. Orderinchaos78 18:19, 15 June 2006

Maybe this will help a little?

• "According telecommunications analyst firm Paul Budde Communications EFTel trails the top five ISPs Telstra (1,800,000), Optus (890,000), iiNet (650,000), Primus (570,000) and TPG (300,000), and second tier providers Veridas, Dodo and TPG." [5]

Then again, it doesn't tell us whether that's total customers, total active customers, or DSL customers. Also, the Australian had a graph in the first half of March - don't know when specifically.

the graph from the australian (which was looking at broadband only) had:

• telstra 42.8%
• optus 19%
• iinet 6.1%
• primus 4.6%
• tpg 4.3%
• westnet 3.1%
• aapt 2.6%
• people telecom 2.5%
• unwired 1.6%
• exetel 1.2%
• other 12.2%

= 100% (sourced from whirlpool [6])

Greg 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good find!! I looked far and wide for something like that :P Thanks. Orderinchaos78 21:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

PPP/Linux - Was it first? Probably not.

iiNet was founded in 1993 by Michael Malone and Michael O'Reilly, who started the business in a suburban garage in Perth, Western Australia as iiNet Technologies Pty Ltd. It began as one of the first Australian ISPs to offer TCP/IP Internet access, as opposed to the store-and-forward techniques (such as MHSnet) that were then in use at other ISPs.

It claims it was the first ISP to offer PPP access in Australia, and to be the first to base operations on the then new Linux operating system.

• PPP access was also offered by other ISPs close to the time of the release of RFC1661 in 1994.

• The claim that it was the first to base itself upon Linux is misleading. Informed Technology and other Perth ISPs had Linux based systems before iiNet was founded.

Agreed on both counts. This paragraph is called into doubt the moment one verifiable example contradicts it. IT is a likely candidate [7] - not sure of any others? Either the dispute of iiNet's claim should be noted, or the point should be removed entirely (from an encyclopaedic view does it matter to the operations of a modern large carrier?) Personally I think the former would be preferable simply because we do have people that spot missing things and put them in, which means we revisit this entire question in 6 months' time.

IT was not an ISP in 1993, when iiNet began. Informed Technology commenced life about the same time as iiNet, but as a Bulletin Board System, perhaps using Linux. In 1994, several months after iiNet began, IT joined Perthnet, a link up between several Perth BBS's. In mid 1994, they got their first full Internet link. At the time that iiNet launched PPP, there were no linux drivers available at all. Michael O'Reilly wrote the drivers, and submitted them into the open source effort, although his base package was not the one used, several of his later patches were. (203.59.64.196 21 June 2006 14:53) (Please sign your posts.)

IT was a BBS as early as 1990, I remember it well from the Fidonet days, it had a node number of 3:690/101 and several users were quite active there. It made a move to the Internet no later than Feb 1993. Orderinchaos78 16:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

IT did not make their move to "the Internet" until after iiNet. They did have email and USENet news, along with dialix, much earlier than that, certainly in 1993. iiNet was the first entity to offer full Internet access, meaning open access to irc, gopher, telnet and the like. IT's own web site states "... in 1993 became the second Western Australian owned provider of Internet access to the general public." - [8]. Note the second, following iiNet.

Telstra prior to 1997

The company outgrew its suburban home in 1995 and moved to CBD office accommodation. Its early growth during the Internet boom was hampered by the ability of Telstra (not itself an ISP until 1997) to deliver enough telephone lines to cope with demand, and by the sheer competitive pressure in the Perth market, which had a comparative oversupply of low-cost providers.

• The claim of Telstra starting as an ISP in 1997 incorrect. Telstra ran the aarnet network commercially from 1994.

Bigpond commenced operations in 1997 - replacing the failed OnAustralia MSN service which was designed to compete with the Internet which ran for most of 1996 as a joint venture with Microsoft. While it did run the aarnet network, this was not a commercial ISP offering. The above section was mine, and I agree it lacks clarity. At the time I was looking for authoritative references to OnAustralia but could find none. (Anyone else know of any?) [9] [10]

• The implication of deliberate hampering by Telstra is not balanced. The existing PSTN network was not designed for high capacity to be delivered to a suburban house, and many ISPs in Perth, including iiNet, started running from personal homes. Telstra did deliver many hundreds of phone lines to suburban houses to several ISPs, despite the limits of their own network.

Again a clarity issue - I was implying that Telstra was not geared to handle the Internet boom, in part due to its early belief that the Internet would subside to commercial offerings such as OnAustralia/MSN and Compuserve (update: the two articles linked both suggest that was their commercial position in 1995 and 1996). That an informed reader took a different conclusion from my comments suggests to me it needs rewording.

Adelaide branch. Need vfn/sources

In 1996, iiNet successfully expanded into the Adelaide market under the name light.iinet.net.au (named after Colonel Light) ...

• Reference? iiNet's naming scheme at the time was to call their servers after types of music. light was fitting in with this, however it may have a double meaning,

iiNet advised the initial Adelaide customers at the start that this was the reason for the name. The naming scheme comment is correct as they had reggae, tango, jazz etc (as anyone who used IRC at the time would know) as server names. I looked on groups.google to see if there was any reference to this or any other info about light.iinet but couldn't.

... in partnership with locals John Lindsay and Leigh Hart. The SA arm moved quickly to become the number three ISP in the state, before being acquired by Auslink in 1998.

• Reference for being #3 in South Australia?

Given the paucity of the information, and my own personal doubts as to its accuracy (Ozemail, Bigpond and Chariot were all bigger to my knowledge) I think the size comment should be removed (update: the source is iinet itself - [11]), but the reference to the subsequently-failed Auslink (which a friend of mine worked for at the time) is indeed correct and should stay.

WAIA formed WAIX.

Early growth

A growing demand on infrastructure and a rapidly increasing number of staff saw the company relocate again in 1997 to the central QV.1 building. Shortly after, it was instrumental in forming the Western Australian Internet Exchange (WAIX) in the same premises in conjunction with other Perth providers.

• The Western Australian Internet Association was the organisation that formed WAIX (www.waia.asn.au). Along with several other ISPs, iiNet was one of the first members of WAIX (www.waia.asn.au/waix).

A combination of the above and the original wording would present the most accurate picture of the situation.

Replaced with "Also in early 1997, the Western Australian Internet Association, formed in 1995 to represent the Internet community in Western Australia [www.waia.asn.au], created a peering and interconnection arrangement known as WAIX (Western Australian Internet eXchange [12]) between its members, which included iiNet and several other Perth-based ISPs."

While I can see what you're getting at, iiNet *was* instrumental in the setup of WAIX. WAIA was, at the time, chaired by Michael Malone.

I was responsible for WAIX from Day 1 until 2001, and I worked at iiNet at the time. It was founded by iiNet and what were to be two of its subsidiaries (Wantree and Omen) under the banner of WAIX. It was clearly a WAIA initiative, but I doubt would have happened without iiNet. It was in space initially leased by iiNet, using iiNet's connectivity etc. Therefore it is fair to say they were instrumental. --kjd 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

the Western Australian Internet Association created a peering exchange to interconnect its members, which included iiNet and several other Perth ISPs, known as WAIX (Western Australian Internet Exchange).

Conversion to 56k in late 1997

In late 1997, the Internet market was moving towards 56K technology [1]. As one end of a 56k connection must be digital, the racks of modems found in every ISP became redundant overnight and expensive CBD-hosted equipment offered by Cisco, Ascend and Livingston became a requirement in order to survive in the marketplace.

• It is incorrect to say that rackmounted analog modems were redundant overnight. For years after the marketplace acceptance of 56k modems many ISPs, including iiNet, kept their racks of analog modems. They offered a path not dependent on ISDN connections, and a large amount of customers still had 28.8k or 33.6k modems, serviceable by analog rack modems.

In practice, though, most ISPs completely switched from entirely one system to entirely the other, with only a small number of analogue modems kept for emergency backup or admin remote access. I remember the string of announcements from Perth ISPs in late 1997 and early 1998 from one ISP after another changing their dialin number, phasing out the old one over a few months, etc. It became an issue of competitive pressure. I had a 33.6k modem right up until 2000 and was dialling into two such ISPs. The only two that I can remember that were late into the conversion game, apart from the micro-operations, were upnaway and Netway.

• The price per port (or price per incoming line with modem) for 56k access servers connected via ISDN was comparable to the cost of the same number of analog modems and PSTN lines. It is misleading to call them expensive, especially when comparing them to the price of the pre-existing modems and lines.

A Livingston Portmaster at the time was costing $30,000 for 60 lines ($500 per line) compared to $180 or less for a modem, and it was usually necessary to buy some kind of support contract, and the cost of failure on a per-day basis was significantly greater. Engaging staff with Cisco etc experience/knowhow also became quite a part of this - that was certainly an issue where I worked.

• It is incorrect to say that the 56k equipment needed to be hosted in the CBD. The terminating ISDN PRI connections were deliverable to much of the Perth metro area. Within 10km from the Perth CBD, pricing was identical to pricing in the CBD itself. Delivery of services over ISDN PRIs was actually more sustainable in the long term, with Telstra able to terminate PRI connections using less line 'pairs' per modem port, or over a fibre-optic connection for larger ISPs.

This is correct - although in practice I can't think of one major ISP that wasn't under Bankwest, Central Park, QV1, AMP or Exchange Plaza at the time. I could be wrong on this, however.

• The above paragraph provides a distorted view of the internet industry at the time, which portrays iiNet's competitors at the time in a poorer light if not located in the CBD.

Not necessarily - my additions above came primarily from my experience working for iiNet's competitors.

Was national competition a factor in 98?

Also, in 1998, competitive pressure from budget national providers, led by One.Tel, started to reach the Perth market.

• There is the implication here that ISPs faced tough competition from interstate and national providers, and that only the tough would survive through this competition.

Which is correct, and is what happened. I remember two companies I worked for mounting specific strategies to deal with attrition to One.Tel and iPrimus in particular, and to a lesser extent TPG.

• Although this may have changed in the long term, in 1998 the competition from national providers was diminished by the idfferent pricing structures in place in the Western Australian ISP marketplace. In NSW and Victoria, the marketplace was dominated by services that charged by the hour for connectivity. In Western Australia, the marketplace was dominated by flat rate charging schemes which did not encourage 'clock watching' of using the internet. National providers offered the same pricing schemes as they were charging elsewhere, which were not palitable to many WA consumers. As such, national providers had minimal competitive impact on the WA market.

100% correct - if you change 1998 to 1997. In late 1997 in a report I read at the time, the average price of Net per month in Perth was $33 while it was $63 in the E/S because of exactly what you have described. In 1998, however, One.Tel was a real factor - I remember friends with long term associations with iiNet and other ISPs changing to attractive $22 a month plans from OneTel in April and May of 1998, and the company's aggressive advertising. iPrimus, fresh with funding from the 1/7/97 deregulation of the telephone market, entered the market as did AAPT in late 1998. (It's interesting to note that the WA market factors noted in 1997 are now in place once again, but with ADSL instead of dialup.)

Post-consolidation of WA market

This was perceived by most observers as a rationalisation of an unsustainable services market, and allowed not only iiNet, but also other providers such as Westnet, EFTel (itself an agglomeration of several ISPs formed in 2000), ArachNet and Global Dial among others to grow in the local market and to expand into fully-fledged national providers.

• "most observers" comes under the WeaselWords guidelines for WikiPedia. This paragraph is not overall biased towards iiNet. It would be incorrect however to suggest that the above ISPs were 'fully-fledged national providers' in 1998, or until several years afterwards.

First point - totally agreed (and my fault, too.)

Second point - I really should stop making Wiki edits after midnight :) I would believe the above sentence suggested they expanded in that direction *after* the rationalisation, which occurred in 1999-2000. Perhaps "and ultimately to expand... providers by around 2003-04" would work better? The original version suggested that iiNet pretty much *was* the WA industry, so I wanted to convey a sense that there was still strong and healthy competition in its home market, and they too had benefitted from the consolidation (if only in most cases by attrition from the ISP customers being acquired by iiNet).

Share price in 2000-01 - need sources

After the dot-com bubble burst in mid-2000, iiNet fared poorly on the markets - with shares at one stage falling to A$0.20 from a A$1.00 issue price - however its share price recovered as time progressed.

• This should probably be referenced, both with the share price and with the implied causal link between the decline of the US based dot-com boom, and the IIN share price rather than due to any other factors.

The share price info should be available, although I'm not sure where it would be available in a place for free. I was working for a competitor at the time and we were monitoring the price daily.

First to ADSL? Need vfn/sources

In September 2000, iiNet became the first Western Australian provider to offer ADSL technology [2].

• The reference given does not state or support the statement above. The link is to an iiNet press release in September 2000, which implies ADSL competition in the Western Australian market-place.

Yeah it's a difficult one. I do know they were the first, as we were trying to get our own offering up and they beat us to it, and at that stage even Telstra hadn't launched. But how to prove that with references? Good question.

Possible advertising copy

Growth through acquisition

The company created a new registered telecommunications provider iiTel, later renamed Chime, that sought to improve Internet access prices by making wholesale telephone access much cheaper. This was possible through new interconnection agreements mandated by the Australian Government's deregulation of the telecommunications industry, and provided the foundation for iiNet's later move into telephony (via its iiPhone and iiNetPhone products).

• This reads like advertising copy for iiNet. Rather than stating the technology used, or generic industry terms, iiNet specific branding is used.

• It is stated that iiNet 'sought to improve Internet access prices', without any references to support the intent of iiNet. It is implied that iiNet acted altruistically to change prices across the market.

Totally in agreement. This was the lone refugee from a one or two page section in the pre-9 May version.

Vague and unsubstantiated reference

Based on its new abilities, and after consolidating its local position, iiNet focused on expanding to national coverage in the early 2000s through strategic acquisitions and natural growth. The acquisitions were:

• This paragraph states 'new abilities', without stating what they are. The previous paragraph focuses only on a 'later move to telephony'. Vague references to non-specific positive attributes draw strong parallels with advertising copy.

Agreed.

"Primary" providers?

In 2003, iiNet made its biggest acquisition to date, purchasing key New Zealand provider ihug. The move cemented its position as one of the primary providers in the Australia/New Zealand Internet market.

• 'one of the primary providers in the Australia/New Zealand Internet market' needs to be justified. Without anything cited to back this up, it could easily be seen as just biased opinion.

Agreed. The wording needs work - it is a case where the comment is true, but worded by a marketer. I don't think there's any disputing that one of Australia and NZ's biggest providers would be one of the prime providers. I would simply have said "largest" as it is not a wholesaler (I would understand primary to imply a hierarchy which in this case doesn't exist). Also the words "to date" would now be incorrect due to the acquisition of Ozemail (which if I recall was at the time it occurred a case of the snake swallowing the horse).

Rewrote as "In 2003, iiNet made what was then its biggest acquisition, purchasing key New Zealand provider ihug. The acquisition significantly increased iiNet's share of the Australia/New Zealand Internet market." Various sources suggest it moved from no.6 to either no.4 or no.5, which was a big increase but at 390,000 it was still way behind several others, hence "largest" would have been factually incorrect. Orderinchaos78 13:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

better intro?

The introduction doesn't really tell a reader much. I'm thinking it should be something that summarises all the important details in something short and easy to read.... I'd suggest something like:

---

iiNet is Australia & New Zealand's 3rd largest ISP (2005/2006). Their focus is primarily on ADSL-based Internet access, and they have the largest rollout of their own ADSL2+ infrastructure in Australia.

iiNet provides services including:

• high speed ADSL2+ (between 1.5 & 24Mbps, depending on line conditions) in a substantial number of suburbs in all capital cities
• standard ADSL nationwide (resold from Telstra)
• a full telephony service (bundled with their ADSL products)
• a Voice-over-IP telephone service (providing very cheap phone calls over their own network to assure Quality-of-Service)
• dial-up internet

iiNet has acquired (or merged with) many smaller ISPs in its growth. It built a substantial customer base in Western Australia, and then expanded significantly into the eastern states by acquiring Ozemail, and New Zealand through acquiring iHug.

The company trades as iiNet in Australia and as ihug in New Zealand, and is listed as iiNet Limited (ASX: IIN)

---

What do you think? Greg 03:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on SimonLyall... how about discussing things here? What do you mean too long for an intro? The intro should be enough that someone can work out at a glance who or what iiNet is and decide if they want to find out more. It used to say almost nothing. Greg 13:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Greg didn't see your talk bit here.

1. I removed you big list since that is what all ISPs do. It also looks weird in a NZ context which would required additional wording to make it obvious some of it is Australian only. And you would have to speel out the difference between the two ADSL products and the difference between the two voice products.

2. I played around with the wording of the last paragraph(s) since the purchase of ihug resulted in a big jump in east coast customers as wells as ones in NZ. - SimonLyall 14:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)