Labour says Telecom man should stand aside

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Labour says Telecom man should stand aside

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#81934 20-Apr-2011 07:10

Serious conflicts of interest have been raised about the man who the government has appointed to oversee the $1.5 billion broadband rollout.

Bruce Parkes was the man at the centre of anti-competitive allegations against Telecom which saw the company fined $12 million in the High Court at Auckland yesterday.

Parkes is now in charge of rolling out the ultra fast broadband network.

Labour's Clare Curran says there's a serious conflict of interest and telcos vying for the broadband contract are worried about anti-competitive behaviour once the contract is let.

Once that's done, Curran says the Commerce Commission will not be able to investigate the successful bidder for eight-and-a-half years.

The Commerce Commission brought the anti-competitive charge against Telecom.

Curran said Parkes should immediately stand aside and even the Minister who appointed him should now be thinking about whether he should continue to oversee broadband.

Communications Minister Steven Joyce refused to be interviewed but did say Cabinet will make the final broadband decision and not officials.

Taken from:

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/labour-says-telecom-man-should-stand-aside-4134323

[Moderator edit (MF): moved to correct forum]

1 | 2

1819 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#460751 20-Apr-2011 07:34

Well that sure fills me with confidence. not

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

keewee01

1730 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#460752 20-Apr-2011 07:39

Oh YAY - here we go again!

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#460756 20-Apr-2011 07:51

I know right.

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#460759 20-Apr-2011 08:05

This is very bad.

This is like getting Mark Hotchin to overhaul the securities commission.

Effectively, Bruce Parkes has been found guilty of breaking competition law (as the named employee of Telecom), yet now they put him in charge of UFB .

New Zealand, the wild west.

keewee01

1730 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#460762 20-Apr-2011 08:12

Got to wonder how much "old boys club" and looking after our buddies is going on? I really, really, really hope that it is not this and just a stupid mistake by someone...

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#460767 20-Apr-2011 08:25

As a Telecom share holder I was very happy that as a business Telecom chose to look after their bottom line and keep competitors out of the market - isnt that what a private company is meant to do?

My view on this guy being appointed is "whats the big deal". At Telecom he would have had an agenda to maximise profit. I'm sure that is not his agenda in this new job.

If a company has a stratagy you work to that, doesnt mean that that is the way you work in every job you ever have.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#460793 20-Apr-2011 09:06

geekiegeek: As a Telecom share holder I was very happy that as a business Telecom chose to look after their bottom line and keep competitors out of the market - isnt that what a private company is meant to do?

My view on this guy being appointed is "whats the big deal". At Telecom he would have had an agenda to maximise profit. I'm sure that is not his agenda in this new job.

If a company has a stratagy you work to that, doesnt mean that that is the way you work in every job you ever have.

You're effectively saying that you're happy that Telecom broke the law :|

Not only that, you are happy they did this to benefit you financially.

There is healthy competition; good for everyone, and then there is abusing your position of monopoly and hurting others. That is wrong and they deserve that conviction.

You are correct, when you work for a company you work with their strategy and make suggestions on how to do things better. If you are asked to break the law then you refuse. Every time.

The lack of moral fibre displayed by these... makes me feel like I sound like my parents.

keewee01

1730 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#460802 20-Apr-2011 09:21

1080p:
geekiegeek: As a Telecom share holder I was very happy that as a business Telecom chose to look after their bottom line and keep competitors out of the market - isnt that what a private company is meant to do?

My view on this guy being appointed is "whats the big deal". At Telecom he would have had an agenda to maximise profit. I'm sure that is not his agenda in this new job.

If a company has a stratagy you work to that, doesnt mean that that is the way you work in every job you ever have.

You're effectively saying that you're happy that Telecom broke the law :|

Not only that, you are happy they did this to benefit you financially.

There is healthy competition; good for everyone, and then there is abusing your position of monopoly and hurting others. That is wrong and they deserve that conviction.

You are correct, when you work for a company you work with their strategy and make suggestions on how to do things better. If you are asked to break the law then you refuse. Every time.

The lack of moral fibre displayed by these... makes me feel like I sound like my parents.

+1

Maybe the CC should now go after all those shareholders who benefited financially from Telecom's law breaking. How would you feel about that? Bet you'd not be so happy with Telecom for putting you in that position, would you?

The actions of Telecom hurt our Knowledge economy, it hurt competition, it hurt the consumer. Back in those days Telecom were simply reckless and uncaring and were will to screw anyone and everyone. Those that made those decisions to flout the law should be taken to task, made to answer and made to pay for what they did. And that includes those authorities who let them do it.

Beccara

1467 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#460810 20-Apr-2011 09:35

It's business, every single business man out there would do the same if in that position, It's all risk vs reward,.

If the fine for breaking the law is less that the money you get from breaking it and the risk of being caught minimal then most would choose the path Telecom did, They didn't kill anyone they just moved to protect their income

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#460822 20-Apr-2011 09:49

Beccara: It's business, every single business man out there would do the same if in that position, It's all risk vs reward,.

If the fine for breaking the law is less that the money you get from breaking it and the risk of being caught minimal then most would choose the path Telecom did, They didn't kill anyone they just moved to protect their income

Couldnt have put it better.

I'm pretty sure (but I could be wrong) that all of the major telco's in NZ have been dragged before the CC at some point for breaking laws. Seems to me that it is just the way business is done in this industry.

I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying thats the way it is.

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#460830 20-Apr-2011 09:59

geekiegeek:
Beccara: It's business, every single business man out there would do the same if in that position, It's all risk vs reward,.

If the fine for breaking the law is less that the money you get from breaking it and the risk of being caught minimal then most would choose the path Telecom did, They didn't kill anyone they just moved to protect their income

Couldnt have put it better.

I'm pretty sure (but I could be wrong) that all of the major telco's in NZ have been dragged before the CC at some point for breaking laws. Seems to me that it is just the way business is done in this industry.

I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying thats the way it is.

So you advocate intentionally breaking the law so long as you end up richer for it.

Something is not quite right about your morals.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76398 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#460832 20-Apr-2011 10:01

Moved this topic to [ICT Policies and Regulation] because this is not a Telecom issue at all, rather a policy issue.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#460835 20-Apr-2011 10:03

wreck90:
geekiegeek:
Beccara: It's business, every single business man out there would do the same if in that position, It's all risk vs reward,.

If the fine for breaking the law is less that the money you get from breaking it and the risk of being caught minimal then most would choose the path Telecom did, They didn't kill anyone they just moved to protect their income

Couldnt have put it better.

I'm pretty sure (but I could be wrong) that all of the major telco's in NZ have been dragged before the CC at some point for breaking laws. Seems to me that it is just the way business is done in this industry.

I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying thats the way it is.

So you advocate intentionally breaking the law so long as you end up richer for it. ?

Something is not quite right about your morals. ?

+1 That argument is like saying it's ok to rob a bank as long as you don't get caught.

Beccara

1467 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#460854 20-Apr-2011 10:29

No it's business. Robbing a bank is taking something that's not yours, Telecom protected it's retail arm profits by giving them a cost advantage for using the Telecom network. Something that wasn't extended to non-Telecom ISP's. The only reason it broke the law was because Telecom was handed their network on a silver platter.

LAC

107 posts

Master Geek

#460856 20-Apr-2011 10:29

So Telecom would promote robbing a bank? Hmmmmm.

Beccara: No it's business. Robbing a bank is taking something that's not yours, Telecom protected it's retail arm profits by giving them a cost advantage for using the Telecom network. Something that wasn't extended to non-Telecom ISP's. The only reason it broke the law was because Telecom was handed their network on a silver platter.

And costing them 12M to do it? Nice.

1 | 2