Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 51408	2004-11-20 00:50:00	Low budget rural internet	Barnzy (6015)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
294119	2004-11-21 02:50:00	> If I understand you (Godfather) correctly you are saying > that even if you have a pole at the end of your > driveway, that has an existing connection to your > neighbour, Telecon will charge you the afforesaid > limbs and parts thereof so some poor lackey working > for Downer engineering to spend five minutes of his, > no doubt underpaid, day to do something that we all > already pay for and is supposed to be covered by the > Kiwi Share understanding? Possibly, hence I suggest you ask the questions before assuming anything . The basis of the cost is (apparently) that with every new connection the cost of having to replace/upgrade/create a new exchange gets closer . Unless the actual capital costs are reflected on those users, relative to that class of asset, then we all have to pay a higher cost . This is now happening with all services, not just Telecom . Councils recover infrastructure costs in a similar manner when land is subdivided (an extra $10,000 per section in this area) and the subdivider pays the full cost of installing power (and presumably phone), plus any contribution towards the power system . The costing is usually based on recovery of "uneconomic costs" where the ongoing rentals will not be sufficient in themselves to pay for the capital works (exchanges etc) required . This is probably a result of the competition in the market, why would Telecom want to spend $400,000 on a small telephone exchange when they have no guarantee of a return apart from the line rentals, which will be insufficient (not enough connections) to finance the original expenditure . When toll calls were a monopoly, the returns were probably better? This should not be taken as supporting or arguing against the policy . I only report it as I understand it . Its just that it is absolutely nothing to do with how long it takes somebody to connect it, but everything to do with something actually being able to be there to connect to, in a sustainable manner .	godfather (25)
294120	2004-11-21 05:55:00	Whilst all the above may be true as far apossible,the point I made originally was that while they have a monoply on the lines,how can know what would be charged if there was competition.	Thomas (1820)
294121	2004-11-21 06:06:00	> Whilst all the above may be true as far apossible,the > point I made originally was that while they have a > monoply on the lines,how can know what would be > charged if there was competition. Thats a good question but if you follow the logic, in a true competitive environment we would have 2 phone lines and 2 exchanges (one for Telecom and one for Clear). Unlikely that any of us could then afford a new phone line at all? No company will install equipment unless there is a return on it (or its base cost is recoverable). If we had "true competition", each party supplying the service would have their own network and infrastructure. The basic answer to the above issues, is that NZ was probably too small to economically support the privatisation of essential services. Private owners are not charities. Such things as the high cost of connection are driven by the "Kiwi Share" limitations to some degree.	godfather (25)
294122	2004-11-21 06:24:00	Again all true,I was thinking of unbundling as I believe has happened elsewhere. Must confess,no idea how things are done,just thought if the lines were owned communally then competition would arise somehow.	Thomas (1820)
294123	2004-11-21 20:46:00	Oddfather, I am stumped as to what you mean by " I suggest you ask the questions before assuming anything." For instance; a. what did you imagine I assumed. b. My first post was a question. c. The Kiwi share was supposed to ensure fairness in the market, including rural phones. The wire from the pole to your house in a city is covered by telecon but in rural areas the cost of the installation of the cable is the responsibility of the customer. Under the kiwi share aggreement the cost of connection at the exchange should be no different regardless of your location. Anyway this thread was supposed to be about low cost solutions for rural internet.	Barnzy (6015)
1 2