Commitment to Broadband
While of course there is much of what Labour does I disagree with, I was delighted to see Helen Clark make a more competitive broadband environment a major aspect of her speech setting out priorities for the year.
There is a big difference between a portfolio Minister talking about reviews and the Prime Minister commiting the Government to action as a matter of “urgency”. This means that something significant will be done, and in months not years.
As someone who has been heavily involved in this area for some time, who has lobbied on the issue, attended and advocted at commerce commission hearings etc I’m especially pleased to see the commitment. Makes all the work worthwhile. Well not quite as it will depend on details which are a few monthstor off but a good step forward.
UPDATE: Further stories this morning in NZ Herald and Dominion Post. Also a Dom Post editorial welcoming the undertakings from the Govt.
Oh and also Fran O’Sullivan welcomes that “the Government has finally woken up to the fact that Telecom’s failure to deliver broadband and internet services at an internationally competitive rate is a major economic roadblock”.
February 15th, 2006 at 5:28 am
Labour do not have the balls to take on Telecom.Last review Labour came out and said all things where going to change but where successfully bullied by Telecom and what happened for the next two years Nothing except Telecom stuffing its pockets with money ripping its customers off for a third world service
Whats the bet Telecom is going to weasel its way out of this
February 15th, 2006 at 5:52 am
Labour do not have the balls to take on Telecom.Last review Labour came out and said all things where going to change but where successfully bullied by telecoms and what happened for the next two years Nothing except Telecom stuffing its pockets with money for a third world service
Whats the bet Telecom is going to weasel its way out of this
February 15th, 2006 at 6:19 am
Wouldn’t surprised if all if you were right Terry, that’s what you get for giving away democracy to private money and power.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Terry, we’ll see. Telecom has really become a whipping boy recently from their own actions. I can’t see many votes lost from Labour for squeezing a little bit of greed out of those fatcats. Quite the opposite, they will finally have done what neither they *nor National* have had the balls to do. The only roadblock is the slavish belief in the property rights of the owners of Telecom. I think that’s been rattled by those very owners, in the minds of the bulk of NZers.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Best thing is to buy shares in Telecom and other utilities you use That way you get a dividend to offset the user costs and hopefully a tax free capital gain from the shares.
In the meantime what do you say when a PLC CEO can blackmail a government over prices and services.Sound like the stuff outta 3rd world African banana republics.But no folks Closer to home Much closer to home.Yet another example of the bullshit spouted about how great our governance and corporate governance standards are The truth is they are ratshit
February 15th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Remind me again … to whom does the local loop belong? Last I checked, it was Telecom.
Go on David, I dare you to reply “it belongs to the People” … because that is the substance of your position on this issue.
February 15th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
The local loop does indeed belong to Telecom. Just as Transpower owns the national grid, yet they have restrictions on how much they can charge power companies for accessing it.
February 15th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
David, enough with the weasel words. It isn’t really Telecom’s property, because you & others assert control over how they use it, beyond simply protecting the rights of others.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Well Duncan by your definition there is no private property at all in NZ. I mean there are restrictions on your currency, your bank accounts, your house, your business etc.
And I am still waiting to hear that you support Ford owning SH1 as much as you support Telecom having total control of the local loop.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Duncan you are right when you say that the local loop does belong to Telecom.But figure this, does it have the right to use it monopoly position to only allow a third world service.This slows our creative future and denies the citizens of opportunities.If Telecom had used its position to offer its customers a world beating product for a reasonable price it would not have the problems it seems to have now.If I was a cynic I might say that maybe they profit gouged from the Xtra division to pay for their brilliant stratagey in Australia.I will leave with a quote which might be appropriate when we do see the day when we have fast internet
The world is changing very fast.
Big will not beat small anymore.
It will be the fast beating the slow
February 15th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
David,
I think we’ve reached our fundamental difference: I consider that rights are absolute – of course, one doesn’t have the right to violate the rights of others. You don’t.
With respect to property rights not being respected by the Government of N.Z. – of course they’re not. But then neither are any other rights – free speech (Cigar Afficionado, anyone?), self defense (don’t get me started on that one) … why do you want to make it worse?
And out of curiosity … if Ford did buy SH1, do you really think it’d be in it’s best interest to prevent non-Ford vehicles from using it? (I presume that is what you were insinuating). Ever heard of a consumer boycott?
February 15th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Yes that is a fundemtal difference. I am not an absolutist.
And yes it would in Ford’s interest to stop non Fords using it as 90% of the population would have to buy Fords even if they resent Ford for forcing them.
One can’t boycott a monopoly very easily. Try converting your house to an energy source which won’t involve trasnpower or the local lines company.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Well I agree with Duncan, but the Ford buying SH1 example doesn’t make economic sense for Ford.
For starters, why diversify from automotives into infrastructure. The more diverse firms become the more at risk they are from cost escalation, being unresponsive and uncompetitive – but I digress. This would be like Sony buying TV channels or Motorola buying into mobile phone networks.
The reason Ford would not ban other vehicles is because it would have an enormous asset sitting with very few paying to use it. Capital lying idle basically. It would cost a fair bit to buy SH1, it is a very profitable stretch of road (based on government revenue from it), but also costly to maintain due to the heavy volumes of traffic and the terrain. Restricting your customers to 20% of the potential makes no sense. If I owned roads I would want to maximise my returns by encouraging use, and charging a lot when it is busy so I maintain service standards and happy customers.
You put up a straw man David – now if you said Air New Zealand owning the major airports you might be on stronger ground, but again the best return for the airport is not the same as the airline – and the airline has been good at pointing out how it thinks airports screw it.
February 16th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Good God this is the best defence you can come up with to my example of why the owner of a monopoly should not also be a competitor for its use. You claim you don’t think it is likely Ford would want to buy a road. Oh my God such penetrating analysis.
As for the loss of traffic on the road well that is easily overcome – you grandfather existing cars. That way Ford just bans any non Ford cars produced after it buys SH1.
Yes the airport can be another example. WOuld one allow Air NZ to own all the major airports and only allow other airlines to land on terms and conditions unilaterally determined by Air NZ.
February 16th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Yup the rebuttals are getting lamer. Duncan says Ford wouldn’t rort it’s monopoly, and libertyscott says it wouldn’t happen in the first place. Both are utterly false, and Telecom is our case in point. They DO rort their monopoly, and they do have a monopoly.
Haven’t any of you ever played the game called Monopoly, and noticed how it usually ends? It was a critique of capitalism, showing how fuxored it is that when people compete for ownership of capital, usually one of them gets it all, and bankrupts the rest. It doesn’t end up with everyone having a nice even share, and everyone happily living ever after in Mayfair.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
> Yup the rebuttals are getting lamer. … Haven’t
> any of you ever played the game called Monopoly
Heh – you’re claiming our rebuttals are lame, & you’re citing a children’s game?
Seriously though, you’re misrepresenting our arguments. We’re saying that it wouldn’t be in Ford’s interests to restrict traffic on SH1 to Fords only, and I added that even if they did, the likely boycott wouldn’t be worth the short term gain.
Might I suggest having a read of Liberalism, by Ludwig von Mises? You’d find it informative, esp. w.r.t. monopolies in business.