Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 62850	2005-10-21 19:54:00	New Zealand still way down in rankings for broadband usage	manicminer (4219)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
398221	2005-10-24 23:36:00	Does anyone know if we as a country still have significant shares in telecom? Yes. Telecom shares are held by thousands of Mum and Dad investors. Large parcels are also owned by fund managers like ANZ/Westpac/ABN Amro on behalf of Mum and Dad investors. ACC is the 11th largest holder. Other parcels are owned by overseas fund managers - it is the sort of stock that is attractive internationally and is traded on NYSE. See - www.telecom.co.nz There is no overseas company which owns any influencial or controlling shares in Telecom. Additionally the Government owns one Kiwi share which compels Telecom to provide free local calls.	Winston001 (3612)
398222	2005-10-25 00:15:00	The fact remains that we don't know how much effort that Telecom is putting into improving the lot of their customers . We do know that the bottom line comes first with all big business . Precisely Cici . It's why some stiffer competition will do us a world of good . Met's great post . The differential charges for businesses for essentially the same product, but generally linked to a larger centre, is a rort . It was out fearless Telecoms Commissioner, Douglas Webb, who gave Telecom a rap ove rthe knuckles for what was stated as unjustified pricing . As Cici alludes to, a bit of competition would bring about a fairly swift reappraisal by Telecom, but don't hold your breathe for Webb to deregulate rather than fiddle with the regulations in a pretence of market deregulation . The single most successful move by (de)regulater the world over, has been unbundling the local loop . The cry that NZ, because of geography and population density, doesn't compare, is absolute bollocks . Similar countries to NZ in both respects (good examples in Scandanavia/Baltics & individual US states), have seen huge benefits in uptake, pricing and usability . I'm a firm believer that, in the long term, NZ including Telecom, will be better off if the market is opened up . No doubt Telecoms majority American owners will just as firmly disagree with that viewpoint . Even with the push to sign up new "broadband" users, Telecom is fudging the figures, if it's accepted that what Telecom categorises as broadband 128kb > is way below where other countries start at (512kb) . I regularly need to send large files (5-30MB) and receive a fair few . On 128kb or even (the new standard) 256kb, that's just murder . I'm fortunate that I have a viable alternative in Telstra cable, I feel sorry for the majority of NZ'ers who don't have that option .	Murray P (44)
398223	2005-10-25 00:44:00	The single most successful move by (de)regulater the world over, has been unbundling the local loop . In the Telecom scheme of things the local loop is going to change fairly soon . Instead of copper cable back to many local exchanges it will be DSL over copper to the end of the street, then Fibre to one of very few exchanges . Where will the other operators put their equipment?	PaulD (232)
398224	2005-10-25 01:22:00	Precisely Cici . It's why some stiffer competition will do us a world of good . The cry that NZ, because of geography and population density, doesn't compare, is absolute bollocks . I'm a firm believer that, in the long term, NZ including Telecom, will be better off if the market is opened up . No doubt Telecoms majority American owners will just as firmly disagree with that viewpoint . I regularly need to send large files (5-30MB) and receive a fair few . On 128kb or even (the new standard) 256kb, that's just murder . Oh goody . :D Competition - if it is so good and so easy, why haven't Telstra, British Telecom etc dived in? Telecom is actually a small company compared to them . Why don't Telstra etc jump into new subdivisions with their own cables? Why have only Christchurch and Wellington got the Saturn cabling? I acknowledge about other mountainous countries but don't know enough to comment . However you cannot go past one fundamental point - someone somewhere has to pay for it all . Whether that is the shareholders watching years of losses in the hope of eventual profits (as happened with Sky TV) or taxpayer subsidy - you cannot physically connect a nation of 4 million people with modern technology for nothing . And Murray - what American owners are these? Have a look at my earlier link which shows Telecom's largest shareholders . ;) I sympathise regarding speed . I've only ever used dialup and full speed jetstream . I suppose it is a matter of biting the bullet and paying for full speed . I notice there seem to be some good alternative plans now .	Winston001 (3612)
398225	2005-10-25 01:44:00	Competition - if it is so good and so easy, why haven't Telstra, British Telecom etc dived in? Why don't Telstra etc jump into new subdivisions with their own cables? Why have only Christchurch and Wellington got the Saturn cabling? I appreciate Metlas point too . Business broadband is super expensive . Never could figure out why they have to be charged more . . . And yes, certain scientists were commenting a while back about how they can't send video overseas as it would take several weeks to get there . But again - note the above questions: While I'm not a Telecom fan, none of the others impress me too much either . They're only their to grab as much profit as they can with as little effort as possible . And its quite easy for them to bleat about Telecom being the big bad wolf when half the country is doing it too .	pctek (84)
398226	2005-10-25 01:44:00	In the Telecom scheme of things the local loop is going to change fairly soon. Instead of copper cable back to many local exchanges it will be DSL over copper to the end of the street, then Fibre to one of very few exchanges. Where will the other operators put their equipment?With Telecom about to catch up with Telstas way of doing things, it will make things interesting. But in essence, what difference will it make weather it be a few exchanges, or many local? At the moment we see telstra and telecom sending cables up a building and the buildings ocupants having cables run or diverted to the appropriate box. Perhaps in the future we will see the same princible applied at the end of the street? I'll be very curious to see if Telstra are keen to let Telecom plonk a MUX box next to theirs and use Telstra laid copper cable to connect to the consumer, or if either Telco are happy to allow others to patch in at some other demarcation point!	personthingy (1670)
398227	2005-10-25 02:24:00	Oh goody . :D Competition - if it is so good and so easy, why haven't Telstra, British Telecom etc dived in? Telecom is actually a small company compared to them . Why don't Telstra etc jump into new subdivisions with their own cables? Why have only Christchurch and Wellington got the Saturn cabling? I acknowledge about other mountainous countries but don't know enough to comment . However you cannot go past one fundamental point - someone somewhere has to pay for it all . Whether that is the shareholders watching years of losses in the hope of eventual profits (as happened with Sky TV) or taxpayer subsidy - you cannot physically connect a nation of 4 million people with modern technology for nothing . And Murray - what American owners are these? Have a look at my earlier link which shows Telecom's largest shareholders . ;) I sympathise regarding speed . I've only ever used dialup and full speed jetstream . I suppose it is a matter of biting the bullet and paying for full speed . I notice there seem to be some good alternative plans now . Lol Winnie, no encumbent ever has voluntarily opened themselves up to true competition . They are businesses after all, it is their bottom line they are looking after, not yours, not mine and by extension, not the countries unless, it suits their bottom line of course . BTW, are you suggesting that competition is an inherently bad thing? :eek: As far as Telstra goes . They are good for NZ up to a point With the home company facing it's own battles however, they weren't prepared to continue sinking money into NZ without regulatory changes, one of the biggies for them is number portability, without it they cannot see enough people, particulalry business subcribers crossing over . Telstra is viewed in Aussie, much as Telecom is in NZ (suprise surprise!) . However, they are now in the process of being deregalted there, and Telstra is not happy, but business and private consumers are . Apart from the NZ Central Securities Repository with a 57 . 2% holding, Bell Atlantic has 24 . 94% holding with Chase Manahattan being the next with 1 . 01% . Ok, I concede, they're and outright not majority shareholder but the have by far and away the biggest chunk of privately held shares . BTW, you shouldn't link to out of date info, unless you're happy with 1998-99 figures . I'm happy with my speed at the mo, I use Telstra cable for a 2MB connection . It's worthwhile because I get my TV (123, Sky, et al) and home phone via the same method, although I have retained Telecom for my office phone with the Saturn cable running right next to it (see number portability) . I'm not unhappy with the Telecom phone service, in fact I believe they do a pretty good job in respect to this aspect of their business, it would just make economic and practical sense to have all our needs catered for within the same outfit, but it doesn't make short term marketing sense (mind you, I'm in negative marketing mode at the mo, too many naughty people in the construction industry means I have to turm most enquiry away) .	Murray P (44)
398228	2005-10-25 02:32:00	With Telecom about to catch up with Telstas way of doing things, it will make things interesting. But in essence, what difference will it make weather it be a few exchanges, or many local? At the moment we see telstra and telecom sending cables up a building and the buildings ocupants having cables run or diverted to the appropriate box. Perhaps in the future we will see the same princible applied at the end of the street? I'll be very curious to see if Telstra are keen to let Telecom plonk a MUX box next to theirs and use Telstra laid copper cable to connect to the consumer, or if either Telco are happy to allow others to patch in at some other demarcation point! Well there shouldn't be any problem plonking the cabinets next to Telstra/Saturns, there are designated locations and ways of doing this under TA's District Plans, funnily enough, they're called designations under the RMA. I think another of Teltra's issues with Telecom, was that they required Telecoms cooperation or unbundling, to get their network up and running to a meaningful point. Otherwise they had to leap in boots and all with all new infrastructure in one wollop, and without number portability and a couple of other niggles (one possibly being exchange sites), they weren't going to do it. It was even a leap of faith to an extent to take over Saturns local networks.	Murray P (44)
398229	2005-10-25 20:39:00	. BTW, you shouldn't link to out of date info, unless you're happy with 1998-99 figures . . Good comments Murray . However that link was to the 2005 data and I guess you went further down the page to earlier reports . My fault really, the info is within the Disclosures PDF at the top: Twenty Largest Registered Shareholders as at 5 August 2005 RANK HOLDER NAME HOLDING % 1 National Nominees New Zealand Limited 403,403,896 20 . 604 2 ANZ Nominees Limited 363,746,309 18 . 579 3 Westpac Banking Corporation – Client Assets No 2 150,299,106 7 . 677 4 Citibank Nominees (New Zealand) Limited 115,883,929 5 . 919 5 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 69,264,460 3 . 538 6 RBC Global Services Australia Nominees Pty Limited 67,131,368 3 . 429 7 National Nominees Limited 61,397,700 3 . 136 8 Premier Nominees Limited – Armstrong Jones Cash Fund 56,433,857 2 . 882 9 HSBC Nominees (NZ) Limited 49,345,990 2 . 520 10 Westpac Custodian Nominees Limited 42,233,257 2 . 157 11 Accident Compensation Corporation 31,694,095 1 . 619 12 Cogent Nominees Pty Limited 19,425,151 0 . 992 13 ABN AMRO New Zealand Limited 18,709,008 0 . 956 14 Custody and Investment Nominees Limited 18,581,355 0 . 949 15 Queensland Investment Corporation 16,269,790 0 . 831 16 ANZ Nominees Limited 12,940,476 0 . 661 17 RBC Global Services Australia Nominees Pty Limited – BKCUST Account 12,865,633 0 . 657 18 NZ Superannuation Fund Nominees Limited 11,301,214 0 . 577 19 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 10,589,864 0 . 541 20 RBC Global Services Australia Nominees Pty Limited – PIIC Account 9,425,004 0 . 481 Not too readable here but you can see that there are no American companies at all . The final figure in each line is the %age of shares held . There are American superannuation funds and plenty of NZ and Australian funds - but no big bad corporates anywhere . :D	Winston001 (3612)
398230	2005-10-26 00:21:00	Very strange Winnie, I'm sure I hit the top most link to the pdf files. Be a bit strange to scroll down to 1999 would it not :illogical Ah well, so why the change, is it to take advantage of NZ & Aus tax law?	Murray P (44)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8