Seems like some of us were right in our rejection of NZ Telecom's lame
argument that the availability of free local calls explained the poor
take-up of broadband in NZ.
In today's NZ Herald, Peter Nowak writes, under the headline "OECD Takes
Shot at Telecom":
The OECD has shot down Telecom's excuse that free local calling is
behind New Zealand's poor uptake of high-speed internet, saying the
company is abusing its market position.
You can see the rest of the article at
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10352757
What's interesting is that OECD is now taking aim at the whole bullshit
& blather of the crippled Telecom broadband offer. The data caps and
high charges come in for special criticism.
OECD's expert Dimitri Ypsilanti says, in the same report:
"That's a disincentive for people to sign up - there aren't many
countries with data caps. This is the outcome of lack of competition,"
he said. "Telecom has a bottleneck and it is abusing its bottleneck."
I suggest that government now has to move to create a fairer market:
Impose Local Loop Unbundling, despite the howls and screams of Telecom
that it can't be done/is technically too difficult/ will slow down
services/will cause David Cunliffe's terrier to get rabies.
It can be done, just like it has been done in other countries, and no
canines need to be hurt.
Impose separation of the wholesale and retail parts of Telecom NZ's
broadband business. A "Chinese wall" might be trialled - with the public
threat that if Telecom is found to be manipulating the market, the
company will be forced to split into two completely separate entities.
There is no longer a case for allowing Telecom NZ to make the running
here. This company is demonstrably harming New Zealand's economy.
And that's official!
Philip
* I have no idea if David Cunliffe has a dog of any kind, and even less
of an idea what breed the dog would be if it existed. On past
performance, I would imagine a chihuahua wearing a pretty pink bow. Or
bow-wow. In any event, this being NZ, it probably won't have rabies. Not
even one raby.