New Zealand's three biggest broadband providers are questioning the economic benefit of Government plans to spend up large on super high speed internet access for all.
In a report released publicly today, Telecom, Vodafone and TelstraClear - who between them control the majority of the telecommunications market - say their long-term network improvements will deliver broadband speeds adequate for the needs of everyday internet users without the need for a boost from the Government.
An announcement on how the Government is expected to spend $1.5 billion earmarked for fibre-optic networks delivering high-speed broadband to 75 per cent of New Zealanders is expected this month.
With a global squeeze on investment cash, the telcos recommend the Government look seriously at the economic benefits of an extensive fibre optic network running to the nation's doorsteps.
The report, written by public policy advisers Castalia, challenges the belief that high broadband speeds for households - up to 50 times faster than what is currently available - would deliver significant economic benefits.
With the economy under strain, the report raises questions about how appropriate it is to spend taxpayer money enhancing broadband to speed the download of high-definition movies.
Report author Alex Sundakov said there is proven value in the Government putting money into high-speed broadband where the market is not delivering, such as rural areas, schools and hospitals, but suggests fibre stretching out to households is not prudent use of taxpayer money.
The telcos cautioned the Government to consider the enhancements their own infrastructure investment plans will deliver to consumers over the next five years - expected to at least double broadband speeds for 80 per cent of the country - before plundering the public purse for a nationwide fibre roll-out.
"Basically what we've found ... is if you look at the committed investment programmes from the three telcos in five years time there are no applications that we currently know or are forthcoming that would not be able to be used given existing technology that would require the additional fibre," Sundakov said.
National made an election promise to roll out a fibre network delivering "download and upload speeds many, many times faster than most Kiwis have ever experienced", a cornerstone of its plan to improve everyone's lot.
In a pre-election speech, Prime Minister John Key said the country was missing out on the real promise of "this century's leading technology" due to the slow deployment of fibre networks.
Castalia were brought on board by the telco giants to present their world view to Communications Minister Steven Joyce and Infrastructure Minister Bill English in the lead-up to a decision on broadband spending.
Sundakov said it was important to get an understanding of what problems exist with broadband before pouring public money into it.
"When you ask what a government should be doing you are really asking 'what is it that the private sector isn't providing?'," said Sundakov.
"The reason why the Government should be spending money or doing anything is because the market outcomes are not what we want."
Castalia identified an unwillingness for consumers to pay for high-speed broadband; the age of wiring and computer equipment in homes; the high cost of international bandwidth; and the slow speeds experienced by rural users as critical barriers to high-speed internet which aren't being addressed by the market.
"No matter what the private sector is doing there will be parts of New Zealand that are sufficiently isolated and very difficult to get to that we'll never get the kind of services we want without Government support," he said.
"But our point is you've got to think really long and hard to decide what the problem is and the problem right now seems to be not that there is not enough fibre being strung to the homes."
Vodafone head of industry affairs David Stone dismissed any suggestion of a secret agenda behind the strange bedfellows.
"Why did we do this particular piece of work? [The $1.5 billion] represents probably the major government investment commitment that was made pre-election - certainly that was made before the world was stood on its head - and there was a strong concern from our chief executives that the decision making around this be made on an informed basis, not in a vacuum.
"There had been other pieces of research work that had been published that had made certain assumptions around the benefit and uptake. This is probably the best fact-based piece of work that exists around that because it's the only one that had access to the real data and what our markets tell us."
Sundakov said the competing companies had two options - to either lobby the government individually to gain an advantage over the others, or to band together to make competition as clean as possible.
"For each individual market participant you either want a well functioning market or you think you can outsmart the other participants and get something special from the Government," said Sundakov.
In a rare move, the big three clubbed together to give Castalia confidential market and investment information to create a comprehensive picture of the broadband market.
"Normally we're busy competing like crazy in the marketplace and beating each other up, but the importance to New Zealand of the Government's broadband plan prompted our CEOs to see there was some considerable benefit in putting some fact-based information on the table ," said Stone.
The latest figures available from industry analysts IDC show the three players have a firm hold over the broadband market capturing more 80 per cent between them - Telecom with a 60 per cent share, TelstraClear on 13 per cent and 9 per cent with Vodafone. Lines company Vector has also expressed strong interest in expanding its own network in partnership with the Government, saying this week it would be prepared to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to fibre infrastructure.
The idea of utilities companies developing networks has the support of industry lobby group internetNZ.
In its own report, prepared last year by Network Strategies, it said the Government would get more bang for its buck by partnering up with local lines companies, utilising their network expertise and acceptance of steady, low returns over a long term.
However, Sundakov said Vector still faced the problem of a market only willing to pay $29.95 to fund an investment that requires $70 or $80 a month to provide a return.
THE BIG SPEND-UP
Public policy consultants Castalia gained a rare insight into the New Zealand broadband market as the big three players tabled confidential market and investment information.
Care was taken to conceal company secrets from the public and each other but the report provides an overview of the telcos' networks and plans.
TELECOM * $1.4 billion on fibre to the cabinet. * Deliver download speeds of more than 10 Megabits per second (Mbit/s) and upload speeds of 1 Mbit/s. * Improvements available to 80 per cent of New Zealanders by 2011. * $574 million invested into a new mobile network due for launch this June.
VODAFONE * $500 million upgrade to its 3G mobile broadband network. * Expects to eventually offer download speeds of up to 28 Mbit/s and upload speeds of 11 Mbit/s. * Installing high-speed broadband technology - ADSL2 and VDSL2 - in exchanges in the main metropolitan areas. * Promises speeds of up to 50 Mbit/s to some customers.
TELSTRACLEAR * An existing fibre network in Wellington, Kapiti and Christchurch with speeds of up to 10 Mbit/s. * Installing high-speed broadband equipment in metropolitan centres. * Speeds expected to be up to 30 Mbit/s for business customers.
Any time the three biggest industry players come into alignment on an issue - particularly players in the ultra-competitive world of telecommunications - you've got to ask: what's the agenda?
While the Castalia report - commissioned by TelstraClear, Telecom and Vodafone - doesn't put a figure on what it thinks the Government should be spending on broadband its conclusions clearly suggest that the $1.5 billion promised pre-election is too much.
The report raises the spectre of rushed "Think Big" style investment in a fast moving sector fraught with the risk of building a technological white elephant.
It also highlights the potential for a nationwide fibre optic network to be underused by New Zealanders who, en masse, say we want instant movie downloads but don't yet back that up by paying for the fastest broadband packages available.
And more seriously it highlights evidence from around the world that big state spend-ups on high speed internet have not delivered the gains in economic productivity that would justify the cost.
That the industry is wary of Government intervention is a reason the big players will be happy to promote this report's findings.
In an environment when all new spending is under the watchful eye of company CFOs they are quite reasonably concerned that government spending may undercut returns on their own investment plans.
That's a reasonable proposition for their shareholders anyway. Whether that is a reasonable proposition for the many small businesses outside of the Auckland and Wellington CBDs - still crying out for faster speeds is another matter.
The industry players argue they are already doing enough to meet business needs for the next five years. Others will disagree. But regardless of the interests of its funders the Castalia report is an important document and the Government will be taking it very seriously.
Bill English and John Key will already be having serious doubts about their ability to commit $1.5 billion.
The world has changed dramatically since Maurice Williamson - then opposition spokesman on telecommunications - made the $1.5 billion promise.
The constraints on what the nation can afford have changed in a few short months and the risks this report raises should be debated vigorously.
And cost-benefit debate needs to focus on jobs not, unfortunately, speed for the home user.
Last month a report by the Economist noted two studies which found some evidence of increased broadband spending equating to increased employment.
Washington-based Brookings Institution concluded that for every percentage point increase of broadband penetration, employment increases by 0.2 per cent to 0.3 per cent per year. But that is not huge growth.
In the European Union, greater availability of broadband internet connections could create more than 2 million jobs by 2015, according to a study by Micus and WIK-Consult, two German consulting firms.
But the Economist also argues that many stimulus plans are strong on the idea of promoting broadband but short on detail about how it will be used.
And there are other often cheaper ways a Government can help. A report for the British Government highlighted the acceleration of the release of radio spectrum, fostering competition and relaxing rules that prevent companies from stringing up overhead cables.
For the sake of the future it would be sensible for our Government to target the high-tech sector with a sizeable proportion of whatever it intends to spend on economic stimulation. But if we are borrowing to do that, we must aim to avoid wasting a single dollar. The Government should still look to subsidise in some areas. That could mean fibre optic cables into schools or in rural areas.
In theory that could still mean fibre optic to every home. But let's be brutally realistic. If what we are talking about is ability for New Zealanders to download movies on demand then now is not the time.
Screeb: I'm not expecting to pay $30/month for that. I would say $100 is a reasonable price.
Well, it seems you have a bit of bias here. You're needing around 100mbps or more and a very high cap or none at all for things that you are doing but only want to pay cheap residential prices for it. Sorry to inform you, but you are in the extreme minority. Just because you happen to need this doesn't mean the rest of the country is in the same position as seems to be backed up by the view of the telecomms companies in the article above.
Screeb: bla bla bla.
I just don't agree with all of your comments but I don't have the time to argue every little point like you do. You might do better on the CallPlus chat site --- moan about what is in place and want everything for nothing but won't put any money into it.
I think Telecom, Telstra and Vodafone are very scared the government will partner with electricity lines companies to build the next generation network rather than one of them.
The government can't afford to build a publicly owned FTH network alone. If it was 100% government funded then they would have to significantly increase debt levels to afford it, this would probably lead to NZ getting a downgraded in financial credit rating which could have some pretty bad knock on affects. It also means future generations are burdened with more government debt to pay off - something most people voted National into power to minimize after 9 years of (failed?) Labour fiscal policy.
So they need a private partner to pay for 50-60% of the cost and well no one's going to invest a couple of billion dollars for nothing, or for less return than they can get on something else.
Internet NZ commissioned Network Solutions to draw up an analysis of the options back in 2008, the report is an interesting read. It estimated FTH would cost 5 Billion assuming the government partners with a telecommunications company like Telecom, Telstra, Vodafone etc. The cost drops to 3 Billion if the government partners with electricity lines companies, apparently a lot of money can be saved by using power poles and ducting that already goes to peoples homes (already with resource consents).
One positive of partnering with electricity companies is that many of the lines companies (there's around 27 of them) are owned by consumer trusts, supposedly trusts are "more friendly" to lower rates of return over a long haul period of time. Vector and Counties Power already provide fibre to some homes and businesses so they potentially have enough experience to do the job.
Electricity companies are generally not in the business of providing isp and phone services, so the vertical integration you see with Chorus > Telecom Wholesale > Xtra would probably not occur.
In my opinion VDSL over our old copper lines to our homes and small businesss is a short term solution that minimizes investment cost for the telco's. On the other hand FTH is a forward looking long term solution but it's very expensive.
pjamieson: Well, it seems you have a bit of bias here. You're needing around 100mbps or more and a very high cap or none at all for things that you are doing but only want to pay cheap residential prices for it. Sorry to inform you, but you are in the extreme minority. Just because you happen to need this doesn't mean the rest of the country is in the same position as seems to be backed up by the view of the telecomms companies in the article above.
LOL. Nice way of ignoring my point that you are clearly biased by being in a well-served area (and hence can't relate to those who are not). I'm not biased because I hold an opinion different to you. The difference is you are in a town where Ferraris are cheap, and the rest of the country is not. Meanwhile, I can see that the rest of the country is paying too much and only getting Minis. It doesn't make me biased to say that the country would benefit from better, cheaper cars, much like you have access to. I'm not saying that just I want 100Mbps. I'm saying that it would be beneficial to many people (and businesses), many of whom don't know it yet (just like when people were on dialup, they didn't realise what broadband could offer).
Anyway, $100 for 100Mbps is a cheap residential price? For NZ currently, yes. For countries that have implemented FTTH, no. And no, I'm not in the extreme minority. Last I checked, the government decided to spend $1.5 billion on a FTTH network, due to years of complaints from the public about poor quality internet.
as seems to be backed up by the view of the telecomms companies in the article above.
Wait... you're telling me that the largest three telecommunications companies in NZ, with a large combined infrastructure that would have their values wiped due to the FTTH network, are arguing against it? My god! Who could have seen this coming? Oh, I'm they're just saying what's best for the consumer, not their profits!
(as Ragnor just said, "I think Telecom, Telstra and Vodafone are very scared the government will partner with electricity lines companies to build the next generation network rather than one of them.")
I just don't agree with all of your comments but I don't have the time to argue every little point like you do. You might do better on the CallPlus chat site --- moan about what is in place and want everything for nothing but won't put any money into it.
Great copout. I just read this as "I can't argue your points because I realise now that I'm wrong, but want to save face by ignoring them".
And "want everything for nothing but won't put any money into it"? Uh, you do realise that $1.5 billion of taxpayer money is going into the FTTH network right? In fact, I would like to see them put in more.
Tell me, what do YOU think is a reasonable price for a 100Mbps FTTH service?
Ragnor: I think Telecom, Telstra and Vodafone are very scared the government will partner with electricity lines companies to build the next generation network rather than one of them.
The government can't afford to build a publicly owned FTH network alone. If it was 100% government funded then they would have to significantly increase debt levels to afford it, this would probably lead to NZ getting a downgraded in financial credit rating which could have some pretty bad knock on affects. It also means future generations are burdened with more government debt to pay off - something most people voted National into power to minimize after 9 years of (failed?) Labour fiscal policy.
So they need a private partner to pay for 50-60% of the cost and well no one's going to invest a couple of billion dollars for nothing, or for less return than they can get on something else.
Internet NZ commissioned Network Solutions to draw up an analysis of the options back in 2008, the report is an interesting read. It estimated FTH would cost 5 Billion assuming the government partners with a telecommunications company like Telecom, Telstra, Vodafone etc. The cost drops to 3 Billion if the government partners with electricity lines companies, apparently a lot of money can be saved by using power poles and ducting that already goes to peoples homes (already with resource consents).
One positive of partnering with electricity companies is that many of the lines companies (there's around 27 of them) are owned by consumer trusts, supposedly trusts are "more friendly" to lower rates of return over a long haul period of time. Vector and Counties Power already provide fibre to some homes and businesses so they potentially have enough experience to do the job.
Electricity companies are generally not in the business of providing isp and phone services, so the vertical integration you see with Chorus > Telecom Wholesale > Xtra would probably not occur.
In my opinion VDSL over our old copper lines to our homes and small businesss is a short term solution that minimizes investment cost for the telco's. On the other hand FTH is a forward looking long term solution but it's very expensive.
For once, Ragnor provides a well-informed, troll-free post (no offense intended). I agree with everything here.
I suppose at least Castalia report does say that rural isn't that well provided for - would be nice for National to deal with the utility companies in laying/hanging fibre on the rural power grid!
I think though that they are a bit shortsighted in looking at future applications and bandwith needed, and also if the consumer wants super fast broadband then why the hell can't they? I think the big three like to act like mother country and telling us what we want and need.
Teletek - I think you miss the point in providing fast broadband. If consumers want it for downloading movies and porn then they have that right. Just because you don't approve of this use doesn't mean its wrong?!
I think at the end of the day I would rather trust the Internet NZ report and not one paid for by the big 3.
Teletek - I think you miss the point in providing fast broadband. If consumers want it for downloading movies and porn then they have that right. Just because you don't approve of this use doesn't mean its wrong?!
I understand where you are coming from and have no objection to customers doing whatever they wish on the Internet, as long as it does no harm to anyone else.
The point I was making is that Porn has always and will always be the first use of any new media.
I have asked for an example of an application that can justify the investment required by the FTTH concept.
All applications submitted so far can be handled with ease by xDSL speeds.
Sure Fibre is cool, hip, whiz and knarly, but so what, if the common household has no reason to have it other than the wow factor.
Do you guys honestly believe that the rest of NZ are prepared to have their monthly Internet bills jump from $30-40 a month to $70-100 for no other reason than its "cool", or "one day you might need it" arguement?
What speed do you guys think you are going to get on a Fibre connection?
If you really want a Fibre connection, then move to where one is available, now.
Most NZ citys have Fibre in the CBDs, so rent or buy where there is fibre access, get to grips with your bandwidth hungry application or concepts and develop them. That way you'll be experienced and ready to delivered a tried and tested product to market over xDSL or FTTH when it eventually happens.
Bits are bits. They don't care whether it's over copper, fibre or the ether.
Why are you gusy so hung up on the carrier medium?
Lastly, "If consumers want it" where is your evidence?
Give me links.
Give me evidence to consider.
Where is the data to support your view that the majoritys of NZ'ers would be happy to pay $70-100 per month on top of their existing phone or power bill?
Excuse me. For all those people who say we do not need fast internet at reasonable quantities (unlimited/unshaped national) for a reasonable price you need to go lear economics. Things like New Zealands low power generation and our high price low quality telecomunications services drasticly decrease our GDP, employment, economy's size which is reason enough to justify it.
Now you may not need it but you would probably use it. And there are many people who do need it. And there are many companies that urgently need it. If we where to slash communications expenses (e.g. remove national data caps/fees and reduce calling charges as well as offering unlimited plans) then many companies would benefit.
Anyway things like cheaper and better cellphone services, electricity, gas, water, roads, freight, internet connections and land lines would all benefit our economy and increase GDP.
At the moment our economy is being limited by our expensive and poor quality internet, landline, cellphone services along with expensive power and land. It does matter and if you understood economics you would see why. The government can not be to blame for your poor understanding and lack of intrest in how the world (through economies and buisneses) works. Perhaps if you where to learn economics you would be able to say something meaningfull.
Now telecoms VDSL2 is pathetic. VDSL2 provides little more than current services at substantially higher cost. Unless they remove national data usage fees and do not throttle my service I will not go onto VDSL2 as I would be paying more for things I would like to do but can not as the costs are rediculously high.
---------------------------- Examples of the use to FTTH could include but are not limited to: *Small buisneses cutting their I.T costs significantly or just being able to offer a better service by hosting their website/services from their office or home. *Buisneses running things like video conferences. *The land line that comes free with the FTTH connection will most likely have free national calling and cheap international calling. If national calling is not free they will most likely have a unlimited calling plan. Reducing costs for buisnesses and consumers. The consumers then have more money to spend in our shops. *Lowering the otherall "Cost Of Production" for small-to-medium buisneses. *Increasing producticity for small-to-medium buisneses. *Making new zealand into a better environment for companies to operate and thrive in. *Can be used by households to host home grown or cultural/other content which enriches our lifes/communitys and creates an ideal place for local content makers to get exposure and start a carrer. *Makes it easier for small buisnesses. *Makes it easier for us to access content such as websites. *Creates opportunitys. *Will bring our standards of living back into line with places like sweeden. *Telecomunications is a major bottleneck in our economy. *Can be used by the government to obtain more money for them to spend on the economy as the profit goes to them. *Can be used by the government to retain money in new zealand that would otehrwise go to telecom if the network didn't exist, which would then pay dividends to foreighners. This is important as we import more money worth of products than we export. *Can be used by the government to say "we are a developed country. We have roads, power, water, school systems, decent infastructure and high speed internet". *Increases our standards of living. *Does something about us getting more and more behind in our standards of living than other countrys. *Increases the availibility of information. *Allows houses to connect to a national HDTV network and provides means for people to broadcast stations (through the internet instead of constructing towers) like tv and radio stations which we can enjoy and can be used as an advertising medium. *Provides a way for people and companies to offer new services over the internet which create jobs and turn money over. *Can be used by the government to bypass telecoms network and kill their monopoly. *Removes the power of telecom which is a foreighn owned profit motivated monopoly who cares only for themselfs. *Tells New Zealanders that the government cares and tells buisneses that the government wants to help. *Improves company profitability. *Enables us to do what we want on the internet and gain experience doing so. This is essentiall because experience is what enables us to do even the most simple tasks. This makes us better at working etc.
Oh and teletak your understanding of banks is laughable. Banks are not desighned to plumet the world into non-existense. And our banks are fine. It is the American banking system and the american reserve bank that are to blame for the recession. But most of all it is the reserve bank of america that is to blame and anyone who know economics will know this. Their debt based, fake non-existent money does not help. They whent through growth that was unsastainable and caused by people borrowing to buy things.
GM motors is to blame for selling cars at cheap interest to those that can not afford it to boost sales. This caused people who where going to buy a new car soon to go and buy it that year. That obviously means theyre not going to buy a second new one the next year. And then the people who couldnt afford their cars sold them and this created an excess of near new cheap cars to buy which decreased new sales more. Couple that together with the reccesion and GM motors is feeling the pinch but still has no right to complain about self-inflicted damage.
Teletek said: "The first application for any new media is always the porn industry. Was for Video Tape, DVD, Broadband, Mobile 3G. So given the historic trend FFTH will be little more than the National Governments legacy of bringing smut to your screen faster, if it ever eventuates."
Now be reasonable here. I doubt it is the porn industry. Why the porn industry when their are other industrys that opperate (and have the ability to operate) other the same types of format as porn. You think porn isn't important. Porn creates jobs which gives money to people who buy stuff which creates jobs and gives money to people who....and so on.... And if the porn industry is the first to react and get a product in the market so what. Other industrys get in to.
To teletek: You forgot to say anything about live streaming video+audio feeds with 2+ people which are in a resoloution high enough that it covers at least 1/4 of my screen in at least reasonable quality. Oh and teletek incase you do not know (given your lack of understanding of economics) the price of infastructure influences the price of everything. The price, quality, level of service available also impact the price of everything and what is available to buy and sell. Without roads we would be miles behind the rest of the world. Without High speed internet (upload and download) at reasonable prices, widely available, to both comercial and non comercial customers, free from content blocking and censorship, not shaped with free national (or national data charges with reasonably priced unlimited plans) we will be left behind as the buisnesses that need this vital infastructure will at best do very poorly. I like to see you host a company webpage with video feeds in on your home connection or for a reasonable price in new zealand. And I doubt any consumers will want to watch a video that is going to cost them $10 in data.
pistolpower: Excuse me. For all those people who say we do not need fast internet at reasonable quantities (unlimited/unshaped national) for a reasonable price you need to go lear economics. Things like New Zealands low power generation and our high price low quality telecomunications services drasticly decrease our GDP, employment, economy's size which is reason enough to justify it.
Now you may not need it but you would probably use it. And there are many people who do need it. And there are many companies that urgently need it. If we where to slash communications expenses (e.g. remove national data caps/fees and reduce calling charges as well as offering unlimited plans) then many companies would benefit.
Anyway things like cheaper and better cellphone services, electricity, gas, water, roads, freight, internet connections and land lines would all benefit our economy and increase GDP.
At the moment our economy is being limited by our expensive and poor quality internet, landline, cellphone services along with expensive power and land. It does matter and if you understood economics you would see why. The government can not be to blame for your poor understanding and lack of intrest in how the world (through economies and buisneses) works. Perhaps if you where to learn economics you would be able to say something meaningfull.
Now telecoms VDSL2 is pathetic. VDSL2 provides little more than current services at substantially higher cost. Unless they remove national data usage fees and do not throttle my service I will not go onto VDSL2 as I would be paying more for things I would like to do but can not as the costs are rediculously high.
BS!
If you truely understood economics you would know that the Fractional Reserve Banking system which allows Chartered banks to conjure money out of thin air by decree of the Government aka the Crown via the Reserve Bank is whatis screwing this economy up.
Beneath that are the Petrochemical companies that are tasked with controlling the worlds energy resouces and hence dependancy on an outdated, polluting and dangerous energy source.
But of course you know all this being a whiz of business and economics.
Now where is your research to back up your claims about NZ Telecommunications?
- "our economy is being limited by our expensive and poor quality internet, landline, cellphone services"
- "New Zealands low power generation and our high price low quality telecomunications services drasticly decrease our GDP"
teletek: Do you guys honestly believe that the rest of NZ are prepared to have their monthly Internet bills jump from $30-40 a month to $70-100 for no other reason than its "cool", or "one day you might need it" arguement?
Who is suggesting that "the rest of NZ" are going to pay $70-100 instead of $30-40? No one. Stop making stuff up. It's about getting the infrastructure in place. They could keep their existing ADSL connection (which will no doubt be cheaper due to competing with fibre), or if they wanted, move to a low-tier fibre connection (say 10Mbps). Or, if they WANTED to, buy a $70-100 plan.
What speed do you guys think you are going to get on a Fibre connection?
100Mbps at first.
If you really want a Fibre connection, then move to where one is available, now.
Like, overseas? Should we move overseas whenever there's a deficiency in NZ, instead of attempting to fix the problem?
Most NZ citys have Fibre in the CBDs, so rent or buy where there is fibre access, get to grips with your bandwidth hungry application or concepts and develop them. That way you'll be experienced and ready to delivered a tried and tested product to market over xDSL or FTTH when it eventually happens.
Current fibre plans are extremely expensive, especially if you want speeds that even rival xDSL. Completely unsuitable for a small business or entrepreneur.
Bits are bits. They don't care whether it's over copper, fibre or the ether.
Why are you gusy so hung up on the carrier medium?
Because fibre is widely considered as the most future proof medium currently available. And no, don't ask for a "source" for that, because if you don't agree with that statement, then you're just trolling as far as I'm concerned.
Lastly, "If consumers want it" where is your evidence?
Again, you miss the point that most consumers don't yet know they want it. In 1995 when everyone was using dialup to send emails, they didn't know they wanted ADSL to view clips on Youtube, because it wasn't possible (for a variety of reasons) back then.
Give me links.
Give me evidence to consider.
Have you been living under a rock for the last 8 years? Did you miss where the country called for LLU multiple times (and eventually got it), then structural separation of Telecom (and eventually got it)? Did you miss where the Government has stated repeatedly that NZ has a poor broadband network? I'm not going to trawl the internet to find the hundreds of links to these facts that would no doubt be dismissed by you anyway.
Where is the data to support your view that the majoritys of NZ'ers would be happy to pay $70-100 per month on top of their existing phone or power bill?
Where is your research?
Again, no one is saying that a the majority of NZers are going to want to pay "$70-100" extra. I guarantee though, that you would be saying the same thing if it was 1985, and you were talking about dialup.
"Where is the data to support your view that the majority of NZ'ers going to pay $50-100 per month on top of their existing phone or power bill for access to the internet?"
Yes I know how the Federal Reserve Bank Of America works. And how they are a private comapany chartered to print money however they like. They controll the ability to print money and minipulate the currency however they like for their own benefit. It would have required only a few small loans to a few banks to stop the domino collapse effect resulting from their lack to pay debt in the short term. Infact it was probably the reserve bank who didn't renew the loans. And the people who own the reserve bank along with their friends are very rich and we know that the "rothschild" got rich through banking.
-Congressional Record, 1923: Federal Reserve, p.5337
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
-Robert Hemphill, Federal Reserve Bank. Atlanta.
As quoted in the foreword of 100% Money, by Irving Fisher
"It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than 8 Millions than the stock of this bank are held by foreigners...Is there no daner to our liberty and independence in a bank that in it's nature has so little to bond it to our country? Controlling our currencies, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence...would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heavan does it's rains s
-Anselm Rothschild
"Those few who can understand the system (check book money and credit) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on it favors, that there will be little opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear it burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."
-Rothschilds Bros. of London
"Banking was conceived in iniquity, and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen, they will create enough deposits, to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."
-Sir Joseph Stamp, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain)
"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market.... The One World Government leadeers and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."
-John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787
"If all bank loans were paid, there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation. We are absolutely without a permanent money system."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802) 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution... An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?
-President Harry Truman
"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
-Henry Ford
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
-Secrets of the Temple, by William Greider
"Every Congressman, every Senator knows precisely what causes inflation... but can't, [won't] support the drastic reform to stop it [repeal of the Federal Reserve Act] because it could cost him his job."
-Robert A Heinlein, Expanded Universe
"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies, ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And it is reasons like this why infastructure must be owned by the state. State (state as in the people which means not private) ownership of infastructure like the reserve bank, telecomunictation, power, transport etc. prevents haveing these people controling it. And in relation to VDSL2 that is why we can not trust what tyrants like telecomunication cartels say about removing their monopolys and changes that hurt their profits. That is why VDSL2 won't change much. VDSL2 will have data usage costs and be priced more expensive than VDSL2. Anyone who supports taking money from the pockets of the state and power are anti-state (anti-people and pro "rich man owns all"). Which is beneficial for only the fewest people. Even better their laughing right now because they know people like you support them, juast as the reserve bank of america laughs at america.
Teletek: Where is the data to support your view that the majoritys of NZ'ers would be happy to pay $70-100 per month on top of their existing phone or power bill?
Where is your research?
Screeb: Again, no one is saying that a the majority of NZers are going to want to pay "$70-100" extra. I guarantee though, that you would be saying the same thing if it was 1985, and you were talking about dialup.
Your guarantee is worthless!
In 1994 I built my own privately funded ISP network from the ground up to provide Dial Up and ISDN access to the Internet, those where the only technologies available at the time.
No Telco or Government or anyone else was interested in providing Internet to commercial/home users at that time, because they couldn't see it and didn't know what is was. I remember comments such as, "Inter what?" "I'm never going to need that", "thats for nerds"
There was no funding from any Government agency. Just milked by the IRD for taxes instead. No credits for R&D... nothing, zero!
Over the following years I spent considerable time educating business, schools and anyone who wanted to know what the Internet was, while the media in this country made out that Internet was only useb by people wanting to know how to make a Bomb or for finding Child Porn. Once the media woke up to the Internet even my family had doubts about what I was doing.
So don't you tell me that I don't know what people want or that I don't know anything about Internet.
FU!
Now listen up Mr Guaranteed Know It All....
Internet access is moving to ADSL2+ then on to VDSL2 giving 10-50Mbps and then on to Fibre as a natural progression and that is what is suitable for the majority of users, manageble in the way of resources and possible with the few remaining techs that are left who can actually install and manage this.
If you want 100Mbps before then I suggest you move to AK CBD for Clear, Vector fibre or Wellington Citylink. All three are alternatives to Telecom BTW!!!!
If that don't suit you then set up as a Provider yourself and get a fibre pulled you your house and offer "Ultra Fast Broadband" to the others in your area to help share the costs.
But stop ramming your Fibre to everyone tomorrow BS and shooting down anyone who doesn't tow your anti Telco line on this thread. It aint going to happen kiddo no matter how much you screem and rant about future proofing or any other parrotted terms you repeat over and over again.
Thats the way it is and thats the way it's going to be and no amount of whimpering by you or anyone else on this thread, which is about VDSL2 by the way, is going to change that, so live with it or FOFF!
pistolpower: Yes I know how the Federal Reserve Bank Of America works. And how they are a private comapany chartered to print money however they like. They controll the ability to print money and minipulate the currency however they like for their own benefit. It would have required only a few small loans to a few banks to stop the domino collapse effect resulting from their lack to pay debt in the short term. Infact it was probably the reserve bank who didn't renew the loans. And the people who own the reserve bank along with their friends are very rich and we know that the "rothschild" got rich through banking.
-Congressional Record, 1923: Federal Reserve, p.5337
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
-Robert Hemphill, Federal Reserve Bank. Atlanta.
As quoted in the foreword of 100% Money, by Irving Fisher
"It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than 8 Millions than the stock of this bank are held by foreigners...Is there no daner to our liberty and independence in a bank that in it's nature has so little to bond it to our country? Controlling our currencies, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence...would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heavan does it's rains s
-Anselm Rothschild
"Those few who can understand the system (check book money and credit) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on it favors, that there will be little opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear it burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."
-Rothschilds Bros. of London
"Banking was conceived in iniquity, and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen, they will create enough deposits, to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."
-Sir Joseph Stamp, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain)
"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market.... The One World Government leadeers and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."
-John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787
"If all bank loans were paid, there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation. We are absolutely without a permanent money system."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802) 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution... An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?
-President Harry Truman
"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
-Henry Ford
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
-Secrets of the Temple, by William Greider
"Every Congressman, every Senator knows precisely what causes inflation... but can't, [won't] support the drastic reform to stop it [repeal of the Federal Reserve Act] because it could cost him his job."
-Robert A Heinlein, Expanded Universe
"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies, ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And it is reasons like this why infastructure must be owned by the state. State (state as in the people which means not private) ownership of infastructure like the reserve bank, telecomunictation, power, transport etc. prevents haveing these people controling it. And in relation to VDSL2 that is why we can not trust what tyrants like telecomunication cartels say about removing their monopolys and changes that hurt their profits. That is why VDSL2 won't change much. VDSL2 will have data usage costs and be priced more expensive than VDSL2. Anyone who supports taking money from the pockets of the state and power are anti-state (anti-people and pro "rich man owns all"). Which is beneficial for only the fewest people. Even better their laughing right now because they know people like you support them, juast as the reserve bank of america laughs at america.
Hey good stuff, you do know something about the Fractional Reserve System of Banking.
However I was talking about the Crown ownership of the Reserve Bank of NZ, though of course its the same prinicipal as the Federal Reserve just like the Reserve Bank of Australia, Canada and the Bank of England which are all linked to the BIS in Basel, Switzerland. In fact the only countrys that are not in the International Bankers Cartel, AKA Central and Reserve Banks are Iran, Cuba, Venezuala... see the trend there.
What do you think the OCR is here in NZ?
Simply put, The Crown owns this country.
We are the property of The Crown.
We are the servants of her Majesty allowed to live by her grace.
Only America was Independant from The Crown until about 1913 when the Bankers created the Federal Reserve and regained control of the US money supply, leading to World War I, The Great Depression, World War II and on to today.
Everyone is in debt to banks, Countrys, Business, People.
Yet you state that:
- "our economy is being limited by our expensive and poor quality internet, landline, cellphone services"
- "New Zealands low power generation and our high price low quality telecomunications services drasticly decrease our GDP"
Excuse me but I would have though that in all honesty a more accurate statement would be
- "our economy is being limited by our expensive and poor quality Government, Banking and Media services"
- "New Zealands low IQ generation and our high price low quality Government, Banking, Educational and Media drasticly decrease our GDP"
Thank your for sharing the stuff about the Federal Reserve. There might be a few readers here who don't realise the depth of deception that has been played upon the world for the last 300 years care of the Bankers.
Of course it's all coming out now.
The bankers house of cards is falling.
Strange though isn't it they they get the bail out money while the common people get to lose their homes, jobs, families, etc.
History repeating?
;-)
My favorite quote from the list you provided.
-Sir Joseph Stamp, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's)
"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market.... The One World Government leadeers and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."
They already owned all the other Central Banks of the World so there was no need to take over what you already have possession of, it there? Only US needed to be reigned in at that time.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
Chorus
