Telecom's Cabinetisation Plans

Forums › Spark New Zealand › Telecom's Cabinetisation Plans

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

9 posts

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 96605 23-Nov-2007 18:10

freitasm:
uncmil: LLU never was going to be something all that good for the market - Telecom always was going to switch to cabinets and kill that POTS network and the exchanges. LLU is just a way for companies that don't want to or can't afford to invest in their own network (which, let's face it, would be better for the country) to piggyback off Telecom's pile of dung.

If anyone other than TelstraClear actually put some effort and money into building their own network, then I think it is legitimate for them to look down upon Telecom from their high horse. Until then, just stop it. At least Telecom is trying to move forward, albeit in a roundabout, kind of strange way.

I agree and what I said before I repeat: LLU is not good because instead of investing in new technologies companies will simply want the cheap path of using old technology - and then complain - when in fact they are doing no good for the country's infrastructure.

What. As opposed to non-LLU, where ISPs were free to install their equipment in the network.

If instead of using Telecom's stuff they had put the money into new networks then we would be better served - and there would be real competition in providing infrastructure that we so much need.

It looks like the MSM just wants to show the crying ISPs but do not really look at the problem - no surprise there...

Ding ding, we have found the ultimate answer to all the problems. Get the man a beer.

Oh by the way, don't complain about traffic problems. You should just build your own road network if you don't like it

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
63019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13597

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 96606 23-Nov-2007 18:12

Telecom draft separation plan disappoints -
InternetNZ Media Release – November 23, 2007

InternetNZ (the Internet Society of New Zealand Inc) today responded to Telecom’s draft operational separation plan, filing a detailed submission that exposes serious deficiencies in Telecom’s proposed approach.

InternetNZ Executive Director Keith Davidson says Telecom’s draft plan has the potential to severely compromise the intent and viability of a robust operational separation because it fails to live up to requirements prescribed in the Government’s Operational Separation determination.

The determination calls for robust Chinese walls, transparency and behavioural changes regarding the operation of Telecom’s network access, wholesale and retail divisions. Telecom’s draft plan however dilutes a wide range of provisions designed to bring about the desired behavioural changes set out in the determination.

Davidson describes Telecom’s draft undertakings as “death by a thousand cuts,” saying they lack detail and subtly dilute specific requirements of the Government’s determination in numerous ways. “This is a matter of great concern to the industry. The combination of the multiple departures from the Minister’s requirements have such a damaging effect that they make the operational separation quite weak. We call on the Government to review and seek major changes and additions to Telecom’s implementation plan,” says Davidson.

Perhaps the biggest concern for InternetNZ is reserved for those sections of the plan that will govern the rollout of future NGN services, including fibre rollout.

“The determination states that Telecom must include its detailed commercial policy and plans on access to Fibre-to-the-Premises yet Telecom’s draft plan contains very little such information.” InternetNZ urges the Government to consider the formation of an industry forum similar to NGN UK that provides a mechanism for industry to develop joint technical and commercial arrangements for NGN development; and provide an early warning system that would identify emerging NGN policy issues.

Other areas in which Telecom’s plan falls short are those relating to governance and the ability of the proposed Independent Oversight Board to carry out its role effectively.

In another example, the determination forbids wholesale unit employees from having short term incentives for performance unrelated to wholesale; yet in Telecom’s draft undertaking up to 80 percent of the wholesale manager’s incentive can reflect the performance of Telecom as a Group.

InternetNZ’s submission, including a detailed Appendix, is available on the InternetNZ website: http://www.internetnz.net.nz/issues/submissions/2007/

Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) |

My technology disclosure | Business Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management | Sharesies investment fund

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
63019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13597

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 96607 23-Nov-2007 18:16

Lazoo: Ding ding, we have found the ultimate answer to all the problems. Get the man a beer.

Oh by the way, don't complain about traffic problems. You should just build your own road network if you don't like it

Didn't add much to start with did you? Disagreement is fine, but at least I'd expect something else than just "I don't agree" and lots of sarcasm as a reply.

And welcome to Geekzone.

Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) |

My technology disclosure | Business Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management | Sharesies investment fund

Lazoo

9 posts

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 96612 23-Nov-2007 18:33

It's good to be here.

As you're not a fan of sarcasm, I will ask a question. Why do you effectively say that only some competition is good, and the only good kind of competition is one where no one entity has any realistic hope of getting off the ground (building a whole new network). True, Vodafone might have the resources to build a nationwide network. But then the mobile phone duopoly would be extended to broadband, and can you honestly say that mobile prices are decent by international standards?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
63019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13597

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 96613 23-Nov-2007 18:45

Nothing against sarcasm, fine with irony. You will find the moderators here have a fine sense of humour... I just thought that a shot on a first post was a bit too strange.

I am all for competition and actually for less government intervention. My points are that

a) this move has been announced years ago and players in the sector should know better and plan for contigencies, instead of crying foul. Or do you think Vodafone, CallPlus or Orcon would play their hand in a different way if the were in this position? It's what corporations do, trying to maximise their return while minimising risk and competition. There's no good corporation in my books, by definition.

c) As I posted before that's why there are partnerships to be made. And as someone commented in my blog, if the companies don't have enough capital to play the game, they either change line of business or find a partner who can help make it happen.

As far as I understand some companies are treating the goverment as "partner". And that's what I think is fundamentally wrong.

Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) |

My technology disclosure | Business Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management | Sharesies investment fund

Lazoo

9 posts

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 96616 23-Nov-2007 19:02

I am all for competition and actually for less government intervention. My points are that

a) this move has been announced years ago and players in the sector should know better and plan for contigencies, instead of crying foul. Or do you think Vodafone, CallPlus or Orcon would play their hand in a different way if the were in this position? It's what corporations do, trying to maximise their return while minimising risk and competition. There's no good corporation in my books, by definition.

I'm not entirely sure "what if"s are of any merit in this decision. What if Orcon were in charge? What if it were a full duopoly? What if New Zealand pulled a Sweden? But what's happening now is what's important. I have no idea whether another corporation would do it differently, but it's not relevant.

Yes, they should very well have planned for this to happen, but on the flipside, how much did they know? Was it a case of hearing but not listening to what telecom was saying? Or were they simply playing each day as it came, not sure when telecom would revamp their network, if at all? I don't have sufficient information to answer, perhaps someone else will.

c) As I posted before that's why there are partnerships to be made. And as someone commented in my blog, if the companies don't have enough capital to play the game, they either change line of business or find a partner who can help make it happen.

Well, that's been the regime up until now, where if companies wanted to invest they just should have. It goes without saying that just maybe it's very slightly not being working.

As far as I understand some companies are treating the goverment as "partner". And that's what I think is fundamentally wrong.

I won't get into a discussion about why libertarianism is a fundamentally flawed and ultimately stupid idea. However I will say this. The government has the money, and is more accountable than any private company. Excluding the government just because it's the government makes about as much sense as bashing telecom just because it is telecom

TinyTim

913 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

Reply # 96619 23-Nov-2007 19:54

freitasm:
I am all for competition and actually for less government intervention. My points are that...

But we tried non-regulation for nearly 15 years, and it put us near the bottom of nearly every OECD telecommunications ranking. The government is now doing what nearly every other jurisdiction in the world has already done: regulating the dominant fixed operator.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
63019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13597

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 96620 23-Nov-2007 20:00

I didn't write "no government intervertion" but "less government intervention".

It seems the LLU rules we set with the wrong view of the upcoming technology, and market players didn't consider alternatives could be adopted by the incumbent.

Bad planning? Too much reliance on regulator?

I am curious to know if it would ever be possible to all the smaller players (and the biggest player of them all) to band together to create their own alternative infrastructure, which is what Telecom is going to start doing - so everyone would be on the same level playing now.

Perhaps something like "Hey, Telecom you can roll out this in Auckland plus three less profitable regions" and "Hey, band together you can roll out yours in Wellington plus one less profitable region" and so on.

Why not implement in the landline area what's been done in the wireless sector and auction "spectrum", er, "regions", with a builtin "tax" being the requirement to invest in a certain number of less profitable areas, depending on how large is the area being bought?

Oh yes... "Interconnection fees"...

Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) |

My technology disclosure | Business Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management | Sharesies investment fund

KiwiOverseas66

173 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 96621 23-Nov-2007 20:04

Lazoo:

I won't get into a discussion about why libertarianism is a fundamentally flawed and ultimately stupid idea. However I will say this. The government has the money, and is more accountable than any private company. Excluding the government just because it's the government makes about as much sense as bashing telecom just because it is telecom

can't quite see the link myself between the writings of John Stuart Mills, Locke, or any other libertarian philosopher and the NZ Telecommunications industry - but an interesting theory! I presume what you are saying is that the government can't be excluded from the industry entirely because it has a role to play as the voters representative - and ultimately leaving the industry to purely private sector machinations will be bad for people and society in general.

I agree with you to a point - in that government has a role to play in terms of setting strategy, devising and enforcing laws, etc. These are tools needed to ensure the sector runs efficiently, fairly. Ultimately all companies have the same strategy - to make as much money as possible (if they don't then their a charity, govt department, NGO, whatever - but not a business) - and in terms of social development that makes for a very singular strategy. So yes - government involvement is essential.

Should they run the sector? Not sure about that one. The last time an NZ govt ran telecommunications - it took 4-6 months to get a phone line installed, you had to book to make a phone call overseas at christmas - and all that was done with 25,000 people on the payroll (am I showing my age or what).

Is the government more accountable than a private company, and does it have the money to invest! Ummm - sorry, don't believe it for a second. Aside from the fact that consumers vote with their wallets everyday, and shareholders vote every year - joe average gets to vote for their politicians once every three years - and even then I wouldn't say political accountability is high on the priority list for politicians (not just ours - around the world). Secondly - even if the govt put all its surplus into telecommunications it would soon run out - not that it looks like its going to let go of its money any time soon. This is one of the problems for the government - it doesn't work in the industry and really has no idea on a daily/ yearly basis just exactly what it cots to be a modern day telco. Even if it did - I don't believe the government has the money to invest in large scale infrastructure of any kind (rail, road, power) - let alone telecommunications. Private sector need government - but the government needs private sector as well.

cokemaster

Nate wants an iphone
3906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 33

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 96622 23-Nov-2007 20:07

To add what was discussed above, its not the governments role to prop up private companies that are either too short sighted or inept at planning.

Where are these investments that these ISPs promise? Are they doing a Econet/NZ communications on us?

webhosting |New Zealand connections | geekzone IRC chat
Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

KiwiOverseas66

173 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 96624 23-Nov-2007 20:16

TinyTim:
But we tried non-regulation for nearly 15 years, and it put us near the bottom of nearly every OECD telecommunications ranking. The government is now doing what nearly every other jurisdiction in the world has already done: regulating the dominant fixed operator.

Actually we're at the bottom of most OECD stats for all economic indicators - not just telecommunications. We are 50th when it comes to GDP, and 28th when it comes to per capita GDP. I've never really understood where the belief comes from that our broadband stats should be near the top of the OECD when our national economic indicators put us near the bottom? And when did the OECD start writing our policy? Understand that almost all countries in the world have already gone down the same track - but really, lets wait for the results before giving ourselves a collective pat on the back.

cokemaster

Nate wants an iphone
3906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 33

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 96626 23-Nov-2007 20:22

I've got the answer for why we always compare the OECD rating for broadband only:

Lies, damned lies, and statistics*

* Does not apply if you've got a vested interest in misinformation and Telecomunications.

webhosting |New Zealand connections | geekzone IRC chat
Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

JonC

425 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 96627 23-Nov-2007 20:23

Looks to me that a few ISPs were caught with their trousers down here. As far as I'm concerned, as long as ISPs have fair access to the final run of copper (between house and these new-fangled cabinets), then they can go ahead and install their own cabinets and all is fair (is that what they mean by sub-local-loop unbundling???). Let the ISPs invest in their own network and compete with Telecom if they wish - that would be great for broadband in NZ.

However, I think the reality of the situation is that NZ is a small company and I really don't think anyone's going to want to make such a huge investment when there's a big gorilla sitting in the corner that will offer serious competition. It comes down to the fact that it's only profitable to make such a huge investment if you're the only player in town and can monolopolise it. I don't see anyone building alternative electricity lines to compete with the encumbant lines companies - it just doesn't make financial sense.

Here's hoping that Telstra expand their cable network or someone decides to invest in decent high-speed wireless technology that can compete with copper.

At least the NGN will prod TCL into upping their cable broadband speeds - that'll be good.

TinyTim

913 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

Reply # 96629 23-Nov-2007 20:38

KiwiOverseas66:
TinyTim:
But we tried non-regulation for nearly 15 years, and it put us near the bottom of nearly every OECD telecommunications ranking. The government is now doing what nearly every other jurisdiction in the world has already done: regulating the dominant fixed operator.

Actually we're at the bottom of most OECD stats for all economic indicators - not just telecommunications. We are 50th when it comes to GDP, and 28th when it comes to per capita GDP. I've never really understood where the belief comes from that our broadband stats should be near the top of the OECD when our national economic indicators put us near the bottom?

There is some theory that says if we raise our broadband ranking it will help raise our GDP ranking.

However it wasn't just broadband stats I was referring to - it was also things like pricing.

And when did the OECD start writing our policy?

They're just surveys. (Which normally only consider its member countries so we shouldn't be worse than 30th.) It's the MED/Minister of Telecommunications that write the policy. There are loads of stuff on their website discussing all this stuff.

cokemaster

Nate wants an iphone
3906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 33

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 96630 23-Nov-2007 20:47

TinyTim:
There is some theory that says if we raise our broadband ranking it will help raise our GDP ranking.

There is also some theory that the state of broadband might be linked to the other factors - so if we are performing poorly in those, we might be poorly performing in others.

Its time that people stopped making this 'who has a bigger penis' the only point of discussion and started evaluating how they can meet their customers NEEDS. Clearly some providers need to.

webhosting |New Zealand connections | geekzone IRC chat
Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12