Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 53280	2005-01-13 00:47:00	Are you happy with the Telecom situation?	hamstar (4)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
313441	2005-01-13 08:16:00	Okay, so I was wrong on both counts... :o Anyhow, I don't make many phonecalls and neither do other people in my family, so the loss of free local calling wouldn't bother me. And do bear in mind please, Telecom do still have a grossly huge revenue - what enables them to give iPods and lavish hampers to corporate customers with complicated requirements, hand out USB thumbdrives at product launches, and give their shareholders good returns.	agent (30)
313442	2005-01-13 08:23:00	Another way to look at it is: Suppose i was seling a Beach front Bach. What would give me the highest price? 1) no conditions to the Title of the property? 2) that when you die it is passed to the Crown, no matter what your will says? :)	MartynC (5610)
313443	2005-01-13 08:39:00	I see no reason why Telecom should not be made to open up the local loop . As hinted at previously, the sale price reflected the public good restrictions that were put in place at the time (although there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the sale price was still a steal anyway) . Unfortunately . the public good restrictions have been somewhat eroded by successive government/regulators and Telecom themselves finding ways around it and, technology advances that have left many of the concepts and restrictions of the day in the dust and therfore the playing field has changed significantly . You should also remember (assuming you knew it) that other industry players contribute handsomely to Telecom's "losses" in the public good area (uneconomic lines), ask yourself why Telecom will not give up the public good aspects of it's charter, in my opinion it's because it's too damn lucrative to do so . It matters not now, what political party or politician did the deed, it's done now and the major participants of the time are well gone . There have been benefits too, albeit to commerce/investors more than to consumers in my opinion . Utitlity and infrastucture providers work best as monopolies, especially in smaller markets where the ecomomies of scale are harder to achieve, so that they can have the certainty of the expensive long term capital investment these types of operation require to be halfway good at providing the service . In NZ, with it's long shape, mountaineous topography and relatively sparce, spread out, population, a certain amount of price padding, "ripping off", of the consumer has to be undertaken to ensure the future viability of the company and it's technology . It's when the infrastructure and technology investment does not reflect that premium that things get a bit iffy, which is where I believe we are at now . Personaly, I don't think a pure competition or even privatised infrastructure model works well in NZ, not that I would want to see the clock turned back (although, isn't it funny that a private company like Telecom with associations to pillars of private enterprise and market economics like Rod Dean haven't embraced competition, ie; their money isn't where their mouths are) . The power utility model could be used, but that's a complete balls up with NZ's power costs rising and short term expediancy the planning model of choice for our future needs (ie, bugger all), our effiency in that area has also gone down the river or up in hydrocarbon smoke . I don't think Telecom could be turned into a lines and exchange company only without more "pubic good" investment, which brings me to the model I would like to see: Investment in Telecom as a lines and exchange (hardware) business by government or by all industry players that want to remain players, that is, they will invest based on usage (a levy in other words), this wouldn't preclude Telecom being a Telco provider but that part would need to be seperate as per Xtra's current status . Each contributor would have board representation commensurate with it's contribution which should encourage those willing to grow there market and offer good service and product (competition, yay!) . Independant representatives would be needed to ensure that any one entity does not capture control and to discourage block voting, some of these could be drawn from large Telco users or industry groups while smaller Telcos or ISP's would have joint representation to keep the board as trim as possible . So, you see, it can all be solved quite simply without too much fuss and the need for inane polls on the subject would die of natural causes, as all such should do and, I wouldn't need to bore you witless with long windy dissertations and the world would be a far better place for it . There's no need to thank me now, but if you would like to contribute to my chilled beverages fund you are most welcome :thumbs: PS . If you were unable to drag your eyeballs over this lot, I'm sure you can get the assistance you require from remedial reading classes :D	Murray P (44)
313444	2005-01-13 08:52:00	I see no reason why Telecom should not be made to open up the local loop . As hinted at previously, the sale price reflected the public good restrictions that were put in place at the time (although there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the sale price was still a steal anyway) . Unfortunately . the public good restrictions have been somewhat eroded by successive government/regulators and Telecom themselves finding ways around it and, technology advances that have left many of the concepts and restrictions of the day in the dust and therfore the playing field has changed significantly . You should also remember (assuming you knew it) that other industry players contribute handsomely to Telecom's "losses" in the public good area (uneconomic lines), ask yourself why Telecom will not give up the public good aspects of it's charter, in my opinion it's because it's too damn lucrative to do so . It matters not now, what political party or politician did the deed, it's done now and the major participants of the time are well gone . There have been benefits too, albeit to commerce/investors more than to consumers in my opinion . Utitlity and infrastucture providers work best as monopolies, especially in smaller markets where the ecomomies of scale are harder to achieve, so that they can have the certainty of the expensive long term capital investment these types of operation require to be halfway good at providing the service . In NZ, with it's long shape, mountaineous topography and relatively sparce, spread out, population, a certain amount of price padding, "ripping off", of the consumer has to be undertaken to ensure the future viability of the company and it's technology . It's when the infrastructure and technology investment does not reflect that premium that things get a bit iffy, which is where I believe we are at now . Personaly, I don't think a pure competition or even privatised infrastructure model works well in NZ, not that I would want to see the clock turned back (although, isn't it funny that a private company like Telecom with associations to pillars of private enterprise and market economics like Rod Dean haven't embraced competition, ie; their money isn't where their mouths are) . The power utility model could be used, but that's a complete balls up with NZ's power costs rising and short term expediancy the planning model of choice for our future needs (ie, bugger all), our effiency in that area has also gone down the river or up in hydrocarbon smoke . I don't think Telecom could be turned into a lines and exchange company only without more "pubic good" investment, which brings me to the model I would like to see: Investment in Telecom as a lines and exchange (hardware) business by government or by all industry players that want to remain players, that is, they will invest based on usage (a levy in other words), this wouldn't preclude Telecom being a Telco provider but that part would need to be seperate as per Xtra's current status . Each contributor would have board representation commensurate with it's contribution which should encourage those willing to grow there market and offer good service and product (competition, yay!) . Independant representatives would be needed to ensure that any one entity does not capture control and to discourage block voting, some of these could be drawn from large Telco users or industry groups while smaller Telcos or ISP's would have joint representation to keep the board as trim as possible . So, you see, it can all be solved quite simply without too much fuss and the need for inane polls on the subject would die of natural causes, as all such should do and, I wouldn't need to bore you witless with long windy dissertations and the world would be a far better place for it . There's no need to thank me now, but if you would like to contribute to my chilled beverages fund you are most welcome :thumbs: PS . If you were unable to drag your eyeballs over this lot, I'm sure you can get the assistance you require from remedial reading classes :D Wonder if you could précis your point old boy?	Cicero (40)
313445	2005-01-13 11:02:00	I'm not happy about it at all, I hate the amount of money i feed into their silver lined pockets every month . If there was an alternative i would take it in a heartbeat, Of course the reality is that the most usefull feature of being a monopily is that no competion can gain any ground before being kneecapped . I point the finger at the govenment of the day, But there are greater sins in this world then gross incompetence of members of Parliment or the money raping practices of suits in Bmw's . But they are still ****bags . *note that they are indeed astrix's typed above,and not a word blanked out by the filter .	Metla (12)
313446	2005-01-13 11:03:00	Wonder if you could précis your point old boy? Wellllll, as there is actually no point, a precis would be a bit redundant, kind of tells the lie that the above mentioned was a dissertation, which it certainly is not, but I'll give it a crack anyway as I'm following no hard and fast rules and have no intention of changing, read on dear correspondent: Telecom are between a rock and a hard place, some of the rock and the hard place are of their own making (they bought the freakin thing afterall ;) ) . Most of Telecom's customers (consumers actually) should and, if conditions allowed, could get a better deal without killing Telecom off . My proposal is that, if the rug was yanked out from under Telecom's lines business and purchased by a group of entities (including Telecom in some form) then both competition and reasonable services and service could exist . Isn't freedom to compete what every free market advocate strives for . Ok, I let the air out, is that better :thumbs: / :rolleyes:	Murray P (44)
313447	2005-01-13 11:04:00	I see no reason why Telecom should not be made to open up the local loop . As hinted at previously, the sale price reflected the public good restrictions that were put in place at the time (although there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the sale price was still a steal anyway) . Unfortunately . the public good restrictions have been somewhat eroded by successive government/regulators and Telecom themselves finding ways around it and, technology advances that have left many of the concepts and restrictions of the day in the dust and therfore the playing field has changed significantly . You should also remember (assuming you knew it) that other industry players contribute handsomely to Telecom's "losses" in the public good area (uneconomic lines), ask yourself why Telecom will not give up the public good aspects of it's charter, in my opinion it's because it's too damn lucrative to do so . It matters not now, what political party or politician did the deed, it's done now and the major participants of the time are well gone . There have been benefits too, albeit to commerce/investors more than to consumers in my opinion . Utitlity and infrastucture providers work best as monopolies, especially in smaller markets where the ecomomies of scale are harder to achieve, so that they can have the certainty of the expensive long term capital investment these types of operation require to be halfway good at providing the service . In NZ, with it's long shape, mountaineous topography and relatively sparce, spread out, population, a certain amount of price padding, "ripping off", of the consumer has to be undertaken to ensure the future viability of the company and it's technology . It's when the infrastructure and technology investment does not reflect that premium that things get a bit iffy, which is where I believe we are at now . Personaly, I don't think a pure competition or even privatised infrastructure model works well in NZ, not that I would want to see the clock turned back (although, isn't it funny that a private company like Telecom with associations to pillars of private enterprise and market economics like Rod Dean haven't embraced competition, ie; their money isn't where their mouths are) . The power utility model could be used, but that's a complete balls up with NZ's power costs rising and short term expediancy the planning model of choice for our future needs (ie, bugger all), our effiency in that area has also gone down the river or up in hydrocarbon smoke . I don't think Telecom could be turned into a lines and exchange company only without more "pubic good" investment, which brings me to the model I would like to see: Investment in Telecom as a lines and exchange (hardware) business by government or by all industry players that want to remain players, that is, they will invest based on usage (a levy in other words), this wouldn't preclude Telecom being a Telco provider but that part would need to be seperate as per Xtra's current status . Each contributor would have board representation commensurate with it's contribution which should encourage those willing to grow there market and offer good service and product (competition, yay!) . Independant representatives would be needed to ensure that any one entity does not capture control and to discourage block voting, some of these could be drawn from large Telco users or industry groups while smaller Telcos or ISP's would have joint representation to keep the board as trim as possible . So, you see, it can all be solved quite simply without too much fuss and the need for inane polls on the subject would die of natural causes, as all such should do and, I wouldn't need to bore you witless with long windy dissertations and the world would be a far better place for it . There's no need to thank me now, but if you would like to contribute to my chilled beverages fund you are most welcome :thumbs: PS . If you were unable to drag your eyeballs over this lot, I'm sure you can get the assistance you require from remedial reading classes :D I'm going to see if i can use that entire post as a sig . . . . . :thumbs:	Metla (12)
313448	2005-01-13 11:06:00	I'm going to see if i can use that entire post as a sig..... :thumbs: Oooh wow, what a jolly idea! Can the admins please remove the 250 character limit on signatures...	agent (30)
313449	2005-01-13 11:11:00	Didn't work I'm afraid, Anyhow,Now i need 250 "characters" for my sig,so far i have Homer simpson,Colonol Klink,Billy connolly,Spike Mulligan, and Bert and Ernie.	Metla (12)
313450	2005-01-13 11:13:00	I'm going to see if i can use that entire post as a sig . . . . . :thumbs: OHH NOooooo! My Giddy Aunt!! WHat have I done :eek: PS . Hey Met's, I could expand on it a bit if you like . I could chunder out a thousand or so more words no problem and you could never be accussed of offending anyone with your sig, for obvious reasons .	Murray P (44)
1 2 3 4