Legal basis for telco levy contribution?

Forums › One New Zealand (including Vodafone, WxC, Farmside) › Legal basis for telco levy contribution?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1466850 10-Jan-2016 07:29

ajw:
Rikkitic: All the more reason to increase our efficiency and effectiveness.

There has been a huge downturn in the dairy industry for quite a while, why bother when you are getting less on the global market.

I think you need to do some study on what the primary sector means to New Zealand.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1466857 10-Jan-2016 07:55

ajw:
Rikkitic: All the more reason to increase our efficiency and effectiveness.

There has been a huge downturn in the dairy industry for quite a while, why bother when you are getting less on the global market.

When times get tough you can roll over and die or look for ways to improve your performance through modernisation and innovation. Part of this process includes infrastructure improvements to facilitate the establishment and expansion of alternatives to the industry that is in trouble. In other words, making investments that benefit the economy as a whole. Your thinking seems to say why bother to leave the cave and invent fire, it's a dangerous world out there.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

quickymart

13924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1466885 10-Jan-2016 09:46

MikeB4:
ajw:
Rikkitic: All the more reason to increase our efficiency and effectiveness.

There has been a huge downturn in the dairy industry for quite a while, why bother when you are getting less on the global market.

I think you need to do some study on what the primary sector means to New Zealand.

I get the feeling he's more interested in what the primary sector means to him.

ajw

1932 posts

Uber Geek

#1466898 10-Jan-2016 09:56

Rikkitic:
ajw:
Rikkitic: All the more reason to increase our efficiency and effectiveness.

There has been a huge downturn in the dairy industry for quite a while, why bother when you are getting less on the global market.

When times get tough you can roll over and die or look for ways to improve your performance through modernisation and innovation. Part of this process includes infrastructure improvements to facilitate the establishment and expansion of alternatives to the industry that is in trouble. In other words, making investments that benefit the economy as a whole. Your thinking seems to say why bother to leave the cave and invent fire, it's a dangerous world out there.

You and try and talk it up and much as you want but the days of the one trick pony are truly well past there use by date.

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#1466901 10-Jan-2016 10:01

I'd be keen if they made chorus stop repairing and connecteding all the rural copper where RBI is available, and required all rural connections (where RBI is available) to use RBI and then somehow unbundle RBI

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1466906 10-Jan-2016 10:11

macuser: I'd be keen if they made chorus stop repairing and connecteding all the rural copper where RBI is available, and required all rural connections (where RBI is available) to use RBI and then somehow unbundle RBI

Given that RBI utilises copper/fibre/wireless, I;d say Chorus's revenue drops steeply compared to using their copper only. You make a great point, but Chorus has no motivation. Same with Voda only allowing their cable when the customer is in a fibre area. Can't really blame the business.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1466907 10-Jan-2016 10:19

ajw:

You and try and talk it up and much as you want but the days of the one trick pony are truly well past there use by date.

I think we are talking about two different things here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1466914 10-Jan-2016 11:06

Seems to be a lot of troll occurring on this thread.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1466915 10-Jan-2016 11:12

Dratsab: Seems to be a lot of troll occurring on this thread.

time to turn the food supply off

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1467129 10-Jan-2016 17:53

Geektastic:
tdgeek:
MikeB4: Isn't this just a few dollars? Small charge to improve our infrastructure in our most important revenue generating regions

$11.88 per year.

Not worth a thread or a news article IMHO

I've decided to underpay my VF bill by that amount exactly....I do not accept that they have any right to simply pass on a cost imposed on them by the regulator/government in that way. They do not, for example, have line items for my share of their salary bill or transport costs.

If the cost increase requires them to make a business decision to increase their prices to cover it, then that is part of business in the same way that they might do that to reflect increased petrol costs or electricity costs. Passing the taxation charge on directly is not.

So do you also underpay your house and contents insurance, because of the fire service levy?

What about the ACC levy taken out of your pay?

If you want to blame anyone, blame the government. They're the ones who created the situation that this levy possible after all.

lucky015

743 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1467166 10-Jan-2016 19:04

Geektastic:
tdgeek:
MikeB4: Isn't this just a few dollars? Small charge to improve our infrastructure in our most important revenue generating regions

$11.88 per year.

Not worth a thread or a news article IMHO

I've decided to underpay my VF bill by that amount exactly....I do not accept that they have any right to simply pass on a cost imposed on them by the regulator/government in that way. They do not, for example, have line items for my share of their salary bill or transport costs.

If the cost increase requires them to make a business decision to increase their prices to cover it, then that is part of business in the same way that they might do that to reflect increased petrol costs or electricity costs. Passing the taxation charge on directly is not.

While I do not agree with underpaying the bill I do agree that they way providers are charging it is not acceptable.

The levy is being charged to providers not individuals, To pass it on as part of the initial plan cost is probably to be expected but to pass it on as an additional charge on top of this which they are not mandated to actually charge the customer then I suspect a number of providers may be in breach of their own terms and conditions (Changing price vs adding on an additional charge outside of the plan)

Personally I think its easier just to take the simple option of choosing a provider who are not big enough to require this being charged, I think its along the lines of $10m revenue which means a lot of new providers will not be required to charge for a considerable amount of time.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1467249 10-Jan-2016 21:22

lucky015:
Geektastic:
tdgeek:
MikeB4: Isn't this just a few dollars? Small charge to improve our infrastructure in our most important revenue generating regions

$11.88 per year.

Not worth a thread or a news article IMHO

I've decided to underpay my VF bill by that amount exactly....I do not accept that they have any right to simply pass on a cost imposed on them by the regulator/government in that way. They do not, for example, have line items for my share of their salary bill or transport costs.

If the cost increase requires them to make a business decision to increase their prices to cover it, then that is part of business in the same way that they might do that to reflect increased petrol costs or electricity costs. Passing the taxation charge on directly is not.

While I do not agree with underpaying the bill I do agree that they way providers are charging it is not acceptable.

The levy is being charged to providers not individuals, To pass it on as part of the initial plan cost is probably to be expected but to pass it on as an additional charge on top of this which they are not mandated to actually charge the customer then I suspect a number of providers may be in breach of their own terms and conditions (Changing price vs adding on an additional charge outside of the plan)

Personally I think its easier just to take the simple option of choosing a provider who are not big enough to require this being charged, I think its along the lines of $10m revenue which means a lot of new providers will not be required to charge for a considerable amount of time.

Are you serious?

So the extra cost is ok. But you prefer it added to a plan, rather than added as an extra? Either way its the same cost to you. And you expect a smaller provider to just absorb it?
The smaller provider is least capable of absorbing it. And BTW, the RSP industry is not cash cow heaven. If it was they would just absorb it as tea money.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1467257 10-Jan-2016 21:31

tdgeek: And you expect a smaller provider to just absorb it? The smaller provider is least capable of absorbing it. And BTW, the RSP industry is not cash cow heaven. If it was they would just absorb it as tea money.

The smaller ISPs are not required to pay the Levy - 2014-15 TDL Liability Allocation. As per this document, the levy total is $50 million, split as such:

raytaylor

4014 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1467269 10-Jan-2016 22:58

Geektastic:

I've decided to underpay my VF bill by that amount exactly....I do not accept that they have any right to simply pass on a cost imposed on them by the regulator/government in that way. They do not, for example, have line items for my share of their salary bill or transport costs.

I agree with you 100%
The levy is a percentage of turnover. Its not actually a set fee per customer.

However I disagree with your reaction.

Vodafone could have raised prices to make the levy hidden to you as a consumer.
Instead they decided to make it completely transparent. This is called an american below-the-line levy and tax.

In the USA, if you see an advert for broadband or phone services, the price excludes taxes and levies. It might be $43+tax&levies.

In NZ we have very few taxes and levies by comparison - the one that affects us mostly is GST and petrol. Because its the same everywhere, prices are advertised to consumers "including taxes like GST and levies"

Walk into some supermarkets in the states and the shelf sticker is not what you pay at the checkout. You get asked where you live if the supermarket is in a tax border zone and your sales tax (gst) and levies are calculated at the checkout.

So back to my point...

Vodafone could have started advertising their pricing "including" the levy. But instead they decided to turn all their customers into a lobby group by showing their customers exactly what the cause of the price increase is, by showing it as a separate line item on the invoice.

My opinion is its rather stupid because vodafone recieved back most of the levy last time when the funding was handed out (RBI) and will probably get it again next time round.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

quickymart

13924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1467307 11-Jan-2016 07:48

I know what you're talking about Ray and I noticed that when I was over there too. Major pain how they do that eh!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6