Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Call4Change

Reply
Thread Tools

Call4Change

 
 
Mutley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2004
Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:

>In article <hnQVb.22803$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> Gordon wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:17:56 +1300, ufo_hk wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe this type of development explains why these guys can't put together
>> >> a alternative network?
>> >
>> > And perhaps why Telcom bought one

>>
>> For a tiny fraction of what it would have cost to build one...and WE have
>> been paying the price for Richard Prebble's mistake ever since.

>


Would it have been ant easier if the GVT had retained ownership of
Telecom.?? I doubt. It would still be a state own monopoly.

Anyone remember the efforts in the late 80s to get a 3rd TV channel
here.?? How many millions each applicant spent on it and how the
incumbent monopoly TVNZ was allowed to get all the programming
information the applicants and then use those ideas to beet them..
That's the reason TV3 went bankrupt so early. The application costs
and TVNZ using their ideas.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
colinco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) et.nz>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Telecom was broken up into 7 regional operating companies, 3 other
> companies and a holding company BEFORE being sold off, SPECIFICALLY to
> prevent it operating as a monopoly.
>

I thought that it was more a standard method of getting rid of
established work practices and staff. Chainsaw Harrison for one was good
at shedding staff.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mainlander
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) >, *@*.*
> says...
> > Prebble knows about accounting, even if you don't. Book value and
> > replacement value are not the same by any means.
> >

> So you're suggesting that his mates bought at book value and sold at
> market value?


What mates are these?

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mainlander
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) et.nz>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:42:57 +1300, Mainlander wrote:
>
> > Prebble knows about accounting, even if you don't. Book value and
> > replacement value are not the same by any means.

>
> Telecom was sold off for $3billion at the end of a $5 billion rebuilding
> project.
>
> The _scrap_ value of the copper in the ground alone at the time of the
> sale was more than $5 billion.


But that would be constrained by the cost of recovering it.

--
Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Uncle StoatWarbler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2004
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:31:15 +1300, Mainlander wrote:

>> The _scrap_ value of the copper in the ground alone at the time of the
>> sale was more than $5 billion.

>
> But that would be constrained by the cost of recovering it.


Scrap values usually include the cost of recovery.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mutley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2004
colinco <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed) et.nz>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> Telecom was broken up into 7 regional operating companies, 3 other
>> companies and a holding company BEFORE being sold off, SPECIFICALLY to
>> prevent it operating as a monopoly.
>>

>I thought that it was more a standard method of getting rid of
>established work practices and staff. Chainsaw Harrison for one was good
>at shedding staff.


He sure was..
 
Reply With Quote
 
Uncle StoatWarbler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2004
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:39:16 +1300, Mutley wrote:

>>I thought that it was more a standard method of getting rid of
>>established work practices and staff. Chainsaw Harrison for one was good
>>at shedding staff.

>
> He sure was..


Shedding staff was easy when there were 5 layers of middle management
whose sole function was to push paper.

The first couple of years of telecom's existance were a good thing. As a
SOE it was fast, cost-efficient and very customer focused.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments