Mobile Termination Rates

February 23rd, 2010 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

I stole this graphic from the Dim-Post who stole it from the Economist.

I think this is the perfect illustration of the impact the artificially high mobile termination rates have had on New Zealanders. We use mobile phones only one quarter as much as Canada and one tenth of the US. In fact we are around the level of Kenya.

The Herald reports:

Mobile phone customers will end up paying the price if the telecommunications industry is not regulated, an industry lobby group says. …

After six years of consultation, even the three commissioners considering the complex subject do not agree.

In the report, Telecommunications Commissioner Dr Ross Patterson recommends the industry regulate itself voluntarily.

Associate commissioner Gowan Pickering agreed but commissioner Anita Mazzoleni was in favour of regulation.

Their report will be considered by Mr Joyce, who is calling for submissions on the topic by March 8.

Consumer NZ chief executive Sue Chetwin said it was disappointing that two of the commissioners had backtracked from their views that termination fees were too high.

“I don’t think they’re coming down far enough or fast enough … [but] it’s not the end of the game yet.”

Sharing her view was Ernie Newman, chief executive of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand (TUANZ), who said the recommendations were “anti-competitive”.

“It very much favours the big established operators and is hugely detrimental to any small player or new entrant,” he said.

“If the minister accepts these recommendations then long term it’s a bad outcome for consumers.

It will be a tough call for Steven Joyce – does he go with the advice of the two Commissioners or the advice of the other Commissioner.

I was rather surprised that two of the Commissioners changed their mind from the draft (no doubt partly due to better undertakings from Vodafone and Telecom), because the last time this happened it was over local loop unbundling, and almost everyone one today says that in hindsight it was a mistake not to do LLU at the earlier opportunity.

I’m also bear in mind that Trevor Mallard went for undertakings over regulation when he was the (Acting) Minister. I’m not sure he is of the view that with hindsight that was the right decision – I note Labour have reserved their position on the issue for now.

I’m just glad I’m not the Minister who has to make the decision!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010 at 11:00 am and is filed under NZ Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

48 Responses to “Mobile Termination Rates”

Danyl Mclauchlan (1,040) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:08 am
The graph seems to have been popular with female readers. I guess they have a keen interest in telecommunication regulation.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
george (398) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:15 am
Steven Joyce’s job as comms minister is to promote intense competition in the market, to lower prices and raise quality (XT anyone???) His only option is to put the regulations in place that Mazzoleni recommends so that we get the competition we need. Monopolies and duopolies must be smashed.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Chris2 (621) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:20 am
Are there figures for texting in each country? That would be a more meaningful figure as texting is only really astronomicaly high in those countries where voice calls are expensive (eg New Zealand).

Another point to consider is that it is much cheaper to bung up a cell phone tower than it is to lay (or string) cables to everyone’s home. So in countries where the landline network was never fully developed (say China) or countries where the landline infrastructure was destroyed by war (eg Afghanistan, Irag and much of Arica), well in those countries the ONLY phone choice is quite often a cellphone anyway, and this will skew the results when comparing cellphone talk time between countries that have a well-developed landline service (eg New Zealand) and those countries that do not.

So comparing texting against voice calls is a more accurate way to measure cellphone use penetration, rather comparing cellphone talk time with landline talk time. in fact the graph is incomplete without including landline use alongside each country’s cell phone use.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Fletch (4,314) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:48 am
I see that one of Telecom’s top executives has quit over the XT fiasco.
As far as mobiles and talking rates, I guess the only upside is less brain cancer from cellphone radiation?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
berend (1,387) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:49 am
DPF, it would have been helpful if you had read the comments at dimpost as well. And stealing from Danyl’s link, here the GPD growth of NZ and Kenya. Pretty similar….

And here the GDP of NZ, Kenya and Uzbekistan. Clearly we face a far more complex structure here than some stupid graph with only lists 1 dimension and calls for more government interference in our economy.

Maybe National can focus first on not borrowing $240 million a week. Brownlee giving back his credit card was a good first step.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Offshore_Kiwi (557) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Of course, reducing (either by regulation or agreement) of MTRs may well be a great big red herring. I don’t think anybody really cares about the MTRs. What people are more concerned about is the unbelievable rort the overall cost represents. The companies could easily agree to reduce MTRs, but does this necessarily automatically translate to a reduction of the price consumers will pay for their mobile phone service?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MikeNZ (3,234) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
George is correct.
Steven Joyce’s job as comms minister is to promote intense competition in the market, to lower prices and raise quality

But so is OffKiwi
My mate’s family in Washington’s never txt each other as it’s cheaper to phone.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
brucehoult (167) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:37 pm
I’ve found that many young people (and I include myself in this, at 47 ) now absolutely hate talking on a phone, of any kind. Most don’t have landlines, and usually they txt rather than make voice calls on a cell phone. But they do a *lot* of voice and video calling on MSN/Yahoo!/Skype.

Skype voice chatting uses I think around 50 MB/hour. At $1.50/GB on my cable modem, that’s 7.5c/hour. Or 5c/hour on xNet DSL.

That would be low as a per minute rate on a phone call. But it’s per HOUR on the internet.

Internet video chatting can use several hundred MB per hour. That’s still less cost per hour than cell phone providers want per minute.

If you just want to quickly exchange information, txt is the way to go in NZ, especially with 2000 for $10 deals. If you want a long yarn … wait until you’re at home and use the internet. It’s as simple as that.

Also NZers don’t have the huge down time each day that americans do, commuting for hours. I bet that’s a big influence.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:21 pm
A straight comparison of MTRs or indeed any price involving mobile phones ignores the fact that it likely costs a weeny bit more to run a mobile network in a country as mountainous and sparsely populated as New Zealand than it does in many other countries, which are most often flatter and/or more densely populated.

If network costs are higher, mobile phone-related prices will be higher (at least in a free market) and the quantity consumed will be lower. Simplistic conclusions applied to NZ that are based on the nice graphic from the Economist, but that ignore this idea, are laughable. If indeed higher costs are the root-cause of NZ’s low mobile phone usage, regulation will likely lead to under-investment, which, in the long term, won’t help the usage that our regulators are trying to improve.

Welcome to the world of unintended consequences!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Ed Snack (948) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
We’re not really comparing similar circumstances. NZ, I assert, has a relatively low mobile rate for several reasons, amongst them an almost universal low cost landline system (free local calling doesn’t exist in many countries), and that system is a unified one. In the US there are numerous competing lan-line systems, and calls are always (I believe) charged by the minute. In Kenya the situation is quite different, but again instructive. There (and in most of Africa), there is very little land-line infrastructure, and what there is is typically badly run, hard to connect to, and unreliable. Local entrepreneurs have setup mobile networks that work and are very easy to join. Hence their relative popularity even given the much higher relative cost to the users.

So NZ’s position is not just down to cost, however I would have no doubt that cost is a factor in almost all decisions and is bound to have some influence here.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Sorry, Ed, you and I have approached the same issue in slightly different ways. With the word, cost, can I assume you mean the cost consumers face, or the price charged by the network owner, rather than the cost faced by that owner?

I think what we are both heading to is, a rejection of simplistic comparisons that ignore differences in each country’s infrastructure. Would you agree?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Oh FFS, XT data net down in Hawkes Bay, again as at approx. 14.40.

Now using Vodafone on the blackberry.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:57 pm
And its back up at approx. 14.55

The old 15 minute reboot.

FAIL.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:02 pm
And its back down, again 14.56
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:06 pm
On topic, Joyce needs to tell the Telco spin machine to fuckoff and regulate the termination rates.

Paul Reynolds must be close to “resigning”.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:14 pm
and its back up again now. 15.14
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Alcatel Lucent on a 3 year probation in the US due to massive bribery.

TC selects Alcatel without an open tender process, or so I gather.

The guy at TC who selected Alcatel resigns.

Who can join the dots.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:25 pm
And no data service, again.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
HK expat (2) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
As a NZer living in Hong Kong, I am stunned that there is so little regulation in NZ’s mobile market.

Although there are very few effective competition or consumer protection laws in Hong Kong, for whatever reason the Telco market is heavily regulated by OFTA out here. My wife’s cellphone account had services added to it that she hadn’t ordered and couldn’t even access on the handset she used. When she complained, the response was pathetic until she mentioned complaining to OFTA – suddenly the charges were dropped and her bill was magically adjusted.

In terms of the cost of mobile phone services – the contrast is amazing. When I explain to people that NZ has “peak” and ‘non peak” cellular minutes, I am always greeted with looks of confusion. Trying to explain that you can’t take your number from one provider to the other is greeted with laughter (and sometimes a “You’re kidding, right?”

For NZ$25 out here, I get 1100 talking minutes (any time of the day – no such thing as peak / off peak), 500MB of data (can upgrade to 1GB for about another NZ$4), more text messages than I could ever type out on my fat fingers… and my phone can take any SIM card should I choose to wander overseas. My wife’s plan is even better – same price, same minutes, but unlimited 3G data. Granted, from a geographical perspective, covering HK is a much easier proposition than covering the whole of NZ – but the amount of competition combined with good regulation means that the consumers out here are the winners. And don’t worry about the providers – they make plenty of money…
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:22 pm
The NZ’s ‘unique’ geography argument is bollox too, look at the Phillipines etc etc. Quite simply NZ’rs have been taken to the cleaners like a bunch of doe eyed hicks by the wide boys of the Telco space.

Joyce, feel those round things down your pants and sort out the debacle that is NZ telco.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
kiwi in america (1,895) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
When I left NZ in 2005 I had a Vodafone group corporate discount rate with the maximum minutes. My phone bill was usually at least $350 per month. Here in the US I run an Iphone 3G with AT&T. I have unlimited minutes, unlimited domestic text and 5c international text (up to 500 per mth) AND unlimited 3G broadband data all for just over $120 per month.

I coach a high school age rugby team here. All the boys have cell phones. I would say that about half the time they ring me rather than text because many of their parents have cheap family minute plans. When they text, they all use predictive text with a distinct absence of the contorted text language used in NZ to stay under 140 characters. The reason:almost all plans have unlimited or very cheap text.

When I coached a youth touch team in NZ whilst most boys had cell phones, they never rung me only text. I have a separate SIM card phone that I have a Vodafone SIM card in for use in NZ when I travel there and to send/receive texts from people back home wanting to limit themselves to a .20c text rather than the rip off .80c text charged for international texts. When I show people here the extent of text abbreviated language on my kiwi phone even by adults in NZ they are surprised. Likewise teenagers in NZ cant believe it when I show them the proper English texts I get from their counterparts in the US.

One final rort worth mentioning. The US networks are unbundled and so your cell ph prefix is the same as the landline prefix. This means no rapacious landline to cell phone charges that NZ phone companies charge which used to be as high as .70c a minute when I left (I believe these have dropped to .40c).

Oh and Ed Snack, landlines in US are as cheap as $15 per month unlimited local calls.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
The geography argument is bollocks, huh expat? According to Wikipedia, the population density of the Phillipines is 295 per sqm, while in New Zealand it’s just 15! I’m no technology expert, but I think it’d be a fair guess that the ‘argument’ is far from bollocks!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:26 pm
what about the amount of philipinos who can afford a cell phone, what about he number of phillpinos who have a home line, what about the number of networks in the philipines.

NZ has been raped by Telco’s for decades.

And lied to be Telco PR gimps for decades.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Now you’re thinking, expat! I don’t know about the amount of Filipinos that can afford a cellphone. Since Kenya’s cellphone usage is just as high as NZ’s, though, I would suggest that that’s not a major issue, but, if you produce the data, you can convince me otherwise.

Not too sure why you think we’ve been raped by Telcos. As a cellphone and landline customer, I don’t feel raped by anyone. Perhaps you mean I should feel raped compared to Telco customers, overseas. Wouldn’t that just lead us straight back into the discussion of geography and comparative network costs, though? If you don’t think so, please enlighten me.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:47 pm
You produce the data mate. My point is that a bald 295 sqm number doesnt tell you jack.

NZ Telco users *are* raped on data and mobile. The only reason landline is competitive is because of the kiwishare, or whatever its called, regulation introduced at the IPO of postoffice/telecom.

If Joyce doesn’t regulate the telco’s on termination rates he is a gullible fool.

Or you could rest on the history of post privitisation NZ telco’s rolling out price improvement without regulation..oh, hang on its all been due to regulation.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Come on, mate. You’re trying to make the point that pop. density doesn’t tell us jack; if you want it to hold any water, it’s up to you to back the point up with some data! Otherwise you’re risking me walking away thinking I won the argument. And we wouldn’t want that, would we?

In New Zealand, pre-Roger Douglas, people were writing to their Ministers, pleading for the Post Office to connect them with a landline. It wasn’t regulation that fixed that unresponsive state monopoly; it was exposing the bugger to some competition. Of course, there is an argument that competition might not always be sufficient for the best outcomes, but there is also the argument that regulations cost too much to provide them, either.

If you wanna make the argument for regulation, you’ve gotta do a better job of arguing what it’ll do that competition won’t. Otherwise, it’ll just look like you’re calling for the country to spend more and more money on jolly lawyers who’s sole job is to implement and monitor regulations and, assuming you’re not a lawyer, yourself, why would you want that?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:38 pm
PR spin.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:51 pm
PR spin? Nice comeback!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Anthony (622) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 12:00 am
The geography argument is mostly bollocks because people don’t live in the mountains and cell phone coverage is not provided there. Currently Telecom and Vodafone provide coverage to 42 percent of NZ’s land area at most!

Population densities are also not that relevant – Aussie’s is bugger all yet they are one of the most urbanised countries on earth with scarely a person living in around 80 percent of their land area!

You need to look at the number of people served per cell site. The average in NZ is pretty much the same as the UK for example.

I can’t believe the ignorance of some people who comment on here who believe the propaganda of the likes of Vodafone! NZ has been the most profitable operations of Vodafone anywhere in the world!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
voice of reason (491) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 1:41 am
“We use mobile phones only one quarter as much as Canada and one tenth of the US. In fact we are around the level of Kenya.”
Presume the data is pre the ban on in car cell-phone use , so maybe current levels of use are even lower!!
Then again so what!! Why would anyone think increasing our levels of use would be a good thing.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 7:34 am
Anthony, if I am ignorant, please show me the errors of my ways, preferably without describing my argument as “mostly bollocks”. As I said, I know little of cellphone technology, but I like to think I have an inquiring mind. I also don’t think I have an inbuilt dislike for telcos or PR.

I’m having trouble understanding your comments on the geography thing. While it’s true not many people live near mountains in NZ, heaps live around hills and, as I understand it, cellphone coverage that can penetrate either mountains or hills has yet to be developed. Furthermore, cellphone companies need to build reception not just where people live, but also where they work, drive and generally live. I don’t think there are many trampers who expect coverage everywhere they tramp so maybe that’s one activity that much coverage doesn’t have to be built for. Any others?

While I agree average users per cell site is one factor, it does nothing to describe how much it costs to build and maintain that cellsite. A site in the middle of a town’s going to be a lot cheaper than one at the top of some hill that you need a helicopter to reach.

You describe pop. densities as “not that relevant” with reference to Australia. Then you go on to say that Australia does have pop. density in its cities. So are you admitting that pop. density is relevant, but local densities are most relevant and national densities less so?

I look forward to hearing your thoughtful replies to these questions.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 7:59 am
Dear Telco PR person,

Termination rates need to be regulated in NZ because the Telco’s have shown again and again since privatisation of Telecom and the entry of Vodafone in the local market that they will not roll out price improvement without regulation.

This tardy approach to termination rate price improvement has sustained a barrier to entry of additional players into the mobile space particularly prepaid text players (which makes up a large chuck of easy cash for both players). We have recently seen the introduction of 2Degrees *despite* the best efforts of the incumbents to prevent this from happening and indeed the only reason this has occurred is because the incumbents have conceded on termination rates and roaming agreements to keep the regulator at bay. Although one could argue that taking about 2 years to get to the point of agreement was in itself not encouraging a competitive market place however I would hate to be misconstrued.

Also, you seem to imply that Lawyers are less desirable than Mobile Phone Company Execs. I submit that Lawyers, Mobile Phone Company Execs and Real Estate Agents all share a similar standing in society and that one could quite easily argue that as most Real Estate Agents and Lawyers don’t market their wares in a predatory fashion to children that they are more trustworthy.

Almost every other argument is non-central to the discussion on termination rate regulation and are intended by the incumbents to draw the Regulator and Minister into deeply technical & legal (see para above) discussions in order to delay or prevent regulatory intervention and protect incumbent profit and market share, and to prevent the development of a competitive market.

I look forward to your thoughtful replies to these particular points and perhaps a coffee at a cafe near Vodafone HQ/TelecomHQ/PR HQ (delete as applicable) the next time I am in Auckland/Wellington (delete as applicable).

Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Come on, Expat! Relax, tackle the argument, not the man! To start with, I am certainly no PR person and have no association with either Telecom or Vodafone. I am just a Kiwi and want to see NZ do well as I presume you do, too! Where we disagree is whether or not regulation will help NZ do well. Are you willing to debate out that disagreement without just dismissing me as a “Telco PR person”? I hope so.

You seem to assume that competition should mean prices will just keep falling and falling. Presumably that would end up with the Telcos paying you and I to use their cellphones! While that would be good, I would suggest that it’s a little unrealistic. Instead, I would suggest that competition encourages prices to reflect costs. If prices are higher than comparable countries overseas, then the first thing I believe should be questioned is costs rather than competition. In NZ, there is a good argument that networks cost more, so, there is a good argument that prices will be more, whatever the level of competition.

You equate Company Execs with Lawyers, fair enough. However, won’t a greater amount of regulation will create more of both sorts of people? If you have more lawyers and bureaucrats implementing regulations, won’t you need more company execs to respond to them?

At the end of the day, Expat, I believe you want the best service at the best price, as do I. You believe these can be gained by regulation. However, I believe regulation costs the country a lot and, where it does lower final prices to consumers, will result in under-investment, thereby failing to get NZ ahead.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:04 am
It was the argument.

I believe your argument is “look, adhom attack, bad man, his arguments must be bad also”
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Yeah? Be careful, though expst. What you risk it looking like is you’re tackling the man ’cause you’re not up to tackling the argument. In effect, you’re saying, let’s just dismiss him as a telco HR person, that’ll be way easier than actually listening to what he has to say and responding to it.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:29 am
It was an argument without prejudice notwithstanding I still contend you are involved in the “mobile space” in some fashion.

Regulation is needed as there is no real competition driving termination rates down naturally. Amazing that termination rates have only come down under regulatory scrutiny but not before.

Of course costs don’t continually fall however mobile *prices* in NZ have not been driven by a competitive market place and have been held artificially high by constructs such as termination rates. Costs therefore have not been under any market pressures, unless you consider the pressure to extract the maximum ARPU per $ spent as market pressure.

The days for talk about the need for regulation are over, it has been nearly a decade and still we have bullshit termination rates, lack of competition and cartel like behaviour.

The industry as a whole must be concerned about the latest TC mobile debacle focusing attention and will be frantically pushing the message that regulation now would be just ‘kicking a man while he’s down’ whereas I would counter that if you want to send the right message to a recalcitrant industry now is the time to be firm.

I don’t believe in regulation as the only way to achieve ‘best service’ (lol, another stalking horse to divert attention away from the issue of artificial price protection constructs) & ‘best price’. Regulation costs the telco’s profits derived from an uncompetitive market, and does not reduce the competitiveness of a nation state. By not regulating the government is reducing the disposable spend that consumers can invest or spend in other industries thereby reducing the stimulation of the domestic economy. However when an industry has for the best part of a decade resisted polite requests to get with the program now is the time for regulatory action, not words.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Well, Expat, I’m not sure what it will take to convince you. I have never received any payment from Telecom, Vodafone or any other firm offering telecommunications services. As I said, I am just a concerned citizen who wants good service at good prices and who doesn’t believe regulation will provide them. Feel free to keep “contending” though. It’ll make your arguments look weaker and more prejudice than my replies ever could.

I’m glad you mentioned ARPU. If regulations force MTRs down, won’t those evil capitalist telecommunications companies just increase other prices, for things like handsets, to try and keep their ARPUs up? If that happens, regulation of MTRs won’t serve to do anything much, other than just change the place where telcos get their “uncompetitive” profits from. Next you’ll be complaining about those increased prices, calling for more bureaucrats, lawyers and company executives. The result of that would be still other increased prices and calls for even more regulations. Oh no, another of those jolly vicious cycles, don’t you think? Other than lawyers, bureaucrats and (some) company execs, who wins?

With your incredible desire to regulate now, you look a bit like some say George W. is: shoot first, ask questions later! Unless people like you and me have these discussions first, how can we have any certainty that regulation will actually improve matters?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Firstly, you didn’t answer the question, I asserted that “you are involved in the “mobile space” in some fashion”, how does that make me prejudiced? Bizarre smearette #1.

Secondly, I have no problem with capitalism, bizarre smearette #2, what I do have a problem with is profiteering, cartels and duopolies.

Thirdly, as I summed up, after a decade of talking, now is the time for action – how do you compare this with your bizarre smearette #3 that I am like George W Bush and have a desire to shoot first and ask questions later? Isn’t a decade long enough?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Ok, help me out here, expat. How do I convince you I have nothing to do with anything in mobile space? I thought you were implying that I was on someone’s payroll so I said I wasn’t. If I’m not on a payroll, how else might I be involved in a way that might discredit my arguments? And in regard to me suggesting you’re prejudiced, do you have anything good to say about any incumbent telco in NZ? If so, what?

I’m not sure what definitions you’re using, but, as I understand it, capitalism is about making profits, which implies it’s about profiteering. In that sense, please convince me it’s not actually capitalism that you have a problem with.

I’m not sure who was talking regulation ten years ago. It was slightly before my time. However, since presumably reasonable people like you and I aren’t even close to agreeing, I would suggest that, no, ten years isn’t long enough.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Anthony (622) Says:
February 25th, 2010 at 12:23 am
Most other western countries regulate mobile rates so its hardly radical. Fixed interconnection is already regulated although the Commission has not had to set a rate for years because everyone is happy with 1 cent a minute.

The biggest cost of building a mobile network is constructing the towers so really hilly terrain like Wellington is more expensive when you need more towers but most of NZ where coverage is warranted is not that bad as you even on the flat cell towers are situated quite close together. As I said before the main cost driver is the number of customers per cell tower and NZ little different to other comparable countries. Cell towers never need to be serviced by helicopter!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 25th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Possibly, you might know more about the technology and its use than me, Anthony. Perhaps you don’t need helicopters to get to sites, but I think it would be a brave man to argue that it doesn’t cost more to service sites in rolling, rural terrain than it does in flat, urban areas. I’m not sure if you’re living in NZ, but there are a few more hills around it than those just in jolly ol’ Wellington. Besides Canterbury and some parts of the Waikato, the place is full of ‘em, really.

As you and I have been discussing, there are reasons that maybe, just maybe, NZ’s mobile networks are different to those in many other western countries. If indeed they are different, it won’t it make it likely that NZ will experience different results from the same policies. So please fill me in about why we should do the same thing many other countries are doing when it’s quite possible the conditions in which our mobile networks operate aren’t the same as in those other places?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 25th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Profiteering: The act of making an unreasonable profit not justified by the corresponding assumption of risk.

i.e. using MTR’s to hold prices artificially high.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 25th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
From Wikipedia: “There is no consensus on the definition of capitalism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category.” You may offer an alternative definition, if you wish, but here’s the Mirriam-Webster Online dictionary’s version: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

Seeing as making a profit, reasonable or otherwise (who really defines that, anyway?), goes hand-in-hand with the private ownership of capital, I just can’t get my head ’round where you’re coming from, Expat. Right now, you’re sounding a little inconsistent.

Thanks for filling me in on ARPUs and explaining how else you think I’m involved in “mobile space”. As well as inconsistent, your arguing is looking a bit shaky, sorry.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Anthony (622) Says:
February 25th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Rolling hills don’t tend to block cell site transmission when you put the towers on top of those hills so not really a problem!

If New Zealand is uniquely expensive then the mobile companies have had plenty of opportunity to prove that point and to my knowledge they haven’t.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 26th, 2010 at 7:26 am
You’re a thinking man, aren’t you Anthony? If you put a tower on one hill, how are you meant to get coverage behind the next hill across (without putting a tower atop that hill, too)?

If you think a cheaper network can be made, why don’t you start your own mobile company, undercut Telecom and Vodafone and make good money attracting all these customers who have been ripped off for years?

Given our discussions these last few days, I’d suggest that mobile companies could have tried to prove all they want, but it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference to your views, your mind already seems made up, as do those of under commenters here.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 27th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
You’re a clever boy aren’t you son.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mjwilknz (606) Says:
February 27th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
I wish, Expat! I just enjoy the argument and you and others on here leave yourselves wide open to fairly obvious questions.

I certainly don’t propose that I know everything, but I definitely care about New Zealand and like to think of myself as having an inquiring mind. If people aren’t up to answering my inquiries then they best not present their arguments so conclusively.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
expat (3,980) Says:
February 27th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Yes, of course.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote