if so why would any company spend one red cent on thier network untill they knew that wern't just spending money on competitors who instead of getting out and putting thier own fast network in have consistantly relied on winning consessions from government and industry watchdogs?

TinyTim: ...or Telecom, realising it's actually going to have to spend some of that remuneration on its network, rather than handing it to shareholders.

lugh: I find David Cunliffe's rote response to investment a bit irritating.  Sure I can understand (to an extent) his point of view that competitors will invest in the network but is that really going to happen in the real world?  Competitors will certainly invest in installing and upgrading equipment in the exchanges but I can't see the major investment required in upgrading the copper line network happening.  Instead, we may end up with a hodge-podge of cable types in urban areas (Auckland benefiting the most of course) and little change in rural.

freitasm:

lugh: I find David Cunliffe's rote response to investment a bit irritating. Sure I can understand (to an extent) his point of view that competitors will invest in the network but is that really going to happen in the real world? Competitors will certainly invest in installing and upgrading equipment in the exchanges but I can't see the major investment required in upgrading the copper line network happening. Instead, we may end up with a hodge-podge of cable typesin urban areas (Auckland benefiting the most of course) and little change in rural.

See, this is exactly what I wrote when the LLU bill passed last year. I think it's appaling the Minister believing that companies will put any cent on expanding the current network. They will all wait for Telecom to do it, and then will simply try to use it. If Telecom doesn't see going to rural areas as strategic, I don't think any other company will put their money where their mouth is...

TinyTim:It's part of the Amendment Bill that unbundling is part of a "ladder of investment", rather than a long term solution for a competitor. That is, competitors are expected to eventually go out and build their own access network. I don't know how they'll achieve that in reality though.

TinyTim:
It's part of the Amendment Bill that unbundling is part of a "ladder of investment", rather than a long term solution for a competitor. That is, competitors are expected to eventually go out and build their own access network. I don't know how they'll achieve that in reality though.

I guess the question here is why would build their own nation wide network? Very few companies or organisations will be able to afford to roll out nation wide, last mile wireless or fixed network.


nzbnw

nzbnw:

TinyTim:
It's part of the Amendment Bill that unbundling is part of a "ladder of investment", rather than a long term solution for a competitor. That is, competitors are expected to eventually go out and build their own access network. I don't know how they'll achieve that in reality though.

I guess the question here is why would build their own nation wide network? Very few companies or organisations will be able to afford to roll out nation wide, last mile wireless or fixed network.


nzbnw