Significant error in Telco review

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Significant error in Telco review

1 | 2

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#873945 8-Aug-2013 15:39

freitasm:
Lias:
freitasm: "Human right" in some countries. Not sure this is established in New Zealand doctrine though.

It's not a specific law in NZ that I am aware of, but in 2011 the UN Human Rights Council declared it a basic human right, and we generally acknowledge UN declared rights as rights here.

Citation needed.

The only references I find to this claim are articles in blogs and small publications. There's a report but its common trend is to declare the right of expression on the Internet and that cutting access based on censorship may be a violation of civil rights. There's no reference that I can find at all about this being actually added to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You appear to be right, it's only a recommendation from the UN special rapporteur at this stage. According to Wikipedia, several countries do now have laws enshrining it as a basic right. Hopefully in a few years it will be be in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#873957 8-Aug-2013 15:48

I think you'll find "internet as a human right" is covered by having free internet at public libraries and such. So I don't see it making a lick of difference in the context of what we're discussing here.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#873964 8-Aug-2013 15:58

Not in some of those countries.

In Finland everyone has a legal right to a 1Mb/s broadband, and in 2015 that becomes 100Mb/s
In Spain, under the spanish equivalent of the TSO, they have a legal right to 1Mb/s broadband at a reasonable price.

Ragnor

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#873990 8-Aug-2013 16:32

sbiddle:

Fibre isn't a sound investment. There is absolutely no business case for fibre that will deliver a ROI - that's why the government had to fund the expansion. Right now it's over $6k to run fibre past a house and connect that. Ultimately somebody has to pay that cost.

The problem is commercial entities have a hard time justifying investment in long term plans when shareholders are interested in short term gains.

Look at the copper network or the power lines, we are still using them 50+ years later... they paid for themselves many times over and generated pretty fat profits along with loads of positive externalities.

As you say getting the ball rolling is where the government comes in for large scale infrastructure like fibre to the home/business.

giollarnat

138 posts

Master Geek

#873994 8-Aug-2013 16:39

myfullflavour:
Sounddude:
myfullflavour:
Copper wholesale pricing should be regulated to the same approx price as entry level UFB.

It's in New Zealand's best interests to move onto fibre as soon as possible and a cheap as chips copper product potentially stands in the way.

No, copper pricing should be regulated at a fair price based on simular overseas markets.

Making copper expensive to boost fibre is just hurting customer choice. They shouldn't have fibre rammed down them when their DSL speeds fit their needs.

There is plenty of customer choice - it's called pick & choose one of many ISPs.

You're hopefully being wilfully disingenuous - the ISPs costs are in part set by the cost of copper/fibre charged by Chorus.

So "Customer Choice" means that customers are not overcharged for copper to subsidise Chorus' UFB rollout.

Currently customers are being screwed by the National party executive who are bypassing NZ's pricing structure (CommComm) to subsidise Chorus shareholders.

If Chorus was national property it would be a moot point but in this case - cui bono? - follow the money trail.

mercutio

1392 posts

Uber Geek

#874032 8-Aug-2013 17:39

myfullflavour:
Lias: Given that broadband Internet access is now considered a basic human right, the government should be doing everything in it's power to ensure that prices are as low as possible, even if that causes Chorus execs to cry in their weetbix and jump off tall buildings.

Copper wholesale pricing should be regulated to the same approx price as entry level UFB.

It's in New Zealand's best interests to move onto fibre as soon as possible and a cheap as chips copper product potentially stands in the way.

fibre is a premium service and should not be holding back basic internet access otherwise we are going backwards.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#874170 8-Aug-2013 20:07

Ragnor: Look at the copper network or the power lines, we are still using them 50+ years later... they paid for themselves many times over and generated pretty fat profits along with loads of positive externalities.

Seems to me like a pretty good reason why the industry should be paying for it. Some of those profits should have been going back into future technologies, not just lining someone's pocket.

Wasn't telecom originally state owned? If it still was then those profits would go directly to the government, and come straight back out again to pay for fibre. Since that isn't happening with privately owned infrastructure, perhaps there should be a regulated minimum amount of a companies gross product set aside/invested for future technologies and upgrades, and/or a regulation to create and maintain a long term plan for the future with a ballpark figure of costings.

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.

Ragnor

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#874179 8-Aug-2013 20:21

Well that's history

The government was in massive financial trouble in the 80's and needed to sell assets. At the time they got a record price for what became Telecom. Old Roger Douglas actually wanted to separate the "lines" from the retail business at the time but cabinet went for the sell the whole shebag for big money option.

Lets not forget when the government ran the phone network it was a monopoly and horror stories of 6 months for a phone line to be connected were common.

The ideal situation imo would be an SOE owning a multi purpose duct network nationwide and charging smalls rental fees for providers to put whatever stuff in the network they desire but this isn't practical because it doesn't exist and what if everyone decides certain regionals aren't economic to bother deploying too.

Crown Fibre and the UFB project is a pretty practical compromise which doesn't cost the taxpayer much.

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#874291 8-Aug-2013 22:58

sbiddle:

P.S. Just read another good point from a blog predecision, keeping the coppers prices artifically high also means people may be pushed over to wireless.

Wireless is not, and never will be a replacement for any fixed services whether that be in the home or workplace as a replacement for Ethernet, or as a last mile physical layer. It's a complimentary solution.

Obviously wireless can't replace a metro fixed line network, but mobile networks have reasonably ubiquitous coverage and some users already use it for things they once needed a phone line for. There will be a certain amount of demand that switches to wireless if fibre prices don't make sense to individual customers. If Chorus start pulling out phone lines then wireless will be the main competitive restraint on fibre prices, as opposed to government restraints. I do think CFH could have been given more power to get fibre to rear sections and multi-tenanted dwellings...

Time to find a new industry!

1 | 2