Telecom - the result of privatisation

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Bruce Sinclair, Jul 17, 2005.

  1. In article <>, Steve Marshall <> wrote:
    >"When Telecom was privatised in 1990, the move was supported by an
    >anecdote that three-month waiting periods for new phones had become a
    >thing of the past. It is symbolic that I am now left waiting three
    >months for what is the telephone of my era."
    >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10336048


    People I know were waiting 18 months for a phone. Aint privatisation grand
    :)


    Bruce

    ----------------------------------------
    I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
    people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
    only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

    Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "When Telecom was privatised in 1990, the move was supported by an
    anecdote that three-month waiting periods for new phones had become a
    thing of the past. It is symbolic that I am now left waiting three
    months for what is the telephone of my era."
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10336048
    Steve Marshall, Jul 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:24:08 UTC, Steve Marshall <>
    wrote:

    > "When Telecom was privatised in 1990, the move was supported by an
    > anecdote that three-month waiting periods for new phones had become a
    > thing of the past. It is symbolic that I am now left waiting three
    > months for what is the telephone of my era."
    > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10336048


    My recollection of events is a bit different. Telecom was
    corporatised first, then privatised. The long waits for connections
    were when it was a Government department. They went away when it was
    corporatised and started to spend some money. It was only after that,
    when the problems were well on the way to being solved, that it was
    decided, on idealogical grounds, to privatise. At that point,
    significant amounts of public money had already been spent on fixing
    the problems.
    Stephen Worthington, Jul 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Stephen Worthington wrote:
    >>"When Telecom was privatised in 1990, the move was supported by an
    >>anecdote that three-month waiting periods for new phones had become a
    >>thing of the past. It is symbolic that I am now left waiting three
    >>months for what is the telephone of my era."
    >>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10336048


    > My recollection of events is a bit different. Telecom was
    > corporatised first, then privatised. The long waits for connections
    > were when it was a Government department. They went away when it was
    > corporatised and started to spend some money. It was only after that,
    > when the problems were well on the way to being solved, that it was
    > decided, on idealogical grounds, to privatise. At that point,
    > significant amounts of public money had already been spent on fixing
    > the problems.


    heh, like cars that get the clutch and gear fixed just prior to sale...
    the previous owner selling for fear of what else may die, and yet
    usually they'll then go on for another x000 kms.

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
    http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Bruce Sinclair

    Guest

    To be fair, most of the problems relating to rolling-out high-speed
    internet are largely due to the government and its bumbled regulatory
    pathway.

    Hugh
    , Jul 18, 2005
    #5
  6. In article <>, wrote:
    >To be fair, most of the problems relating to rolling-out high-speed
    >internet are largely due to the government and its bumbled regulatory
    >pathway.


    Really ? This is certainly not the impression telecom/telstra and the others
    give. More like petty infighting amongst themselves (mostly telecom trying
    to keep control).

    .. unless you think govt regulation would stop the petty infighting in some
    way ??


    Bruce

    ----------------------------------------
    I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
    people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
    only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

    Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Bruce Sinclair

    Rob J Guest

    On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 03:19:52 GMT,
    z (Bruce Sinclair)
    wrote:

    >In article <>, wrote:
    >>To be fair, most of the problems relating to rolling-out high-speed
    >>internet are largely due to the government and its bumbled regulatory
    >>pathway.

    >
    >Really ? This is certainly not the impression telecom/telstra and the others
    >give. More like petty infighting amongst themselves (mostly telecom trying
    >to keep control).
    >
    >. unless you think govt regulation would stop the petty infighting in some
    >way ??


    Telstra have their own cable network in parts of the country. THere
    doesn't seem to be any better Telecom service in those areas.
    Rob J, Jul 18, 2005
    #7
  8. wrote:
    > To be fair, most of the problems relating to rolling-out high-speed
    > internet are largely due to the government and its bumbled regulatory
    > pathway.
    >
    > Hugh
    >

    More a lack of interest from the involved parties to compete with each other.

    Take Kapiti, Saturn rolled there now its the pits low on the list for Telecom
    ADSL and others like Woosh are not even contemplating it as an area to be
    serviced. Any area that has been rolled out well by a competitor slips into
    the oblivion as far as the rest is concerned. Its only in the low distribution
    cost areas of high population density that they even show any attempt at
    competitions.

    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 38.2330S, 175.8670E |
    ======================================================================
    *Slow day Posts Blog*
    Pictorial Amusement from the web at http://nzcollector.blogspot.com
    Collector»NZ, Jul 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Bruce Sinclair

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:38 +0000, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > In article <>, Steve Marshall
    > <> wrote:
    >>"When Telecom was privatised in 1990, the move was supported by an
    >>anecdote that three-month waiting periods for new phones had become a
    >>thing of the past. It is symbolic that I am now left waiting three months
    >>for what is the telephone of my era."
    >>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10336048

    >
    > People I know were waiting 18 months for a phone. Aint privatisation grand
    > :)


    Back in the '70s, when we applied for our first telephone (prior to that
    if we needed to make a phone call we walked down to the local phone box
    and put in 3 x two cent coins or went into the local post office for long
    distance calls) it too was an 18 month wait before we could be connected.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Groklaw: "Seriously, the problem Microsoft has with its FUD is this: it waited
    too long. Too many solid, upstanding, capitalist corporations now believe in
    and depend on open source. They are making money, and they aren't going to
    allow the anti-FOSS FUD to stand unchallenged."
    Bling-Bling, Jul 18, 2005
    #9
  10. Bruce Sinclair

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:22:10 +1200, Stephen Worthington wrote:

    > My recollection of events is a bit different. Telecom was corporatised
    > first, then privatised. The long waits for connections were when it was a
    > Government department. They went away when it was corporatised and
    > started to spend some money. It was only after that, when the problems
    > were well on the way to being solved, that it was decided, on idealogical
    > grounds, to privatise. At that point, significant amounts of public money
    > had already been spent on fixing the problems.


    True - agreed, and agreed.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Groklaw: "Seriously, the problem Microsoft has with its FUD is this: it waited
    too long. Too many solid, upstanding, capitalist corporations now believe in
    and depend on open source. They are making money, and they aren't going to
    allow the anti-FOSS FUD to stand unchallenged."
    Bling-Bling, Jul 18, 2005
    #10
  11. Bruce Sinclair

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:03:49 -0700, hugh_je_cock wrote:

    > To be fair, most of the problems relating to rolling-out high-speed
    > internet are largely due to the government and its bumbled regulatory
    > pathway.


    True - still has not unbundled the local loop.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Groklaw: "Seriously, the problem Microsoft has with its FUD is this: it waited
    too long. Too many solid, upstanding, capitalist corporations now believe in
    and depend on open source. They are making money, and they aren't going to
    allow the anti-FOSS FUD to stand unchallenged."
    Bling-Bling, Jul 18, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <>, Rob J <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 03:19:52 GMT,
    > (Bruce Sinclair)
    >wrote:
    >>In article <>,

    > wrote:
    >>>To be fair, most of the problems relating to rolling-out high-speed
    >>>internet are largely due to the government and its bumbled regulatory
    >>>pathway.

    >>
    >>Really ? This is certainly not the impression telecom/telstra and the others
    >>give. More like petty infighting amongst themselves (mostly telecom trying
    >>to keep control).
    >>
    >>. unless you think govt regulation would stop the petty infighting in some
    >>way ??

    >
    >Telstra have their own cable network in parts of the country. THere
    >doesn't seem to be any better Telecom service in those areas.


    Don't know. Interconnection perhaps ?

    Anyone from one of these areas like to comment ?




    Bruce

    ----------------------------------------
    I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
    people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
    only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

    Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 18, 2005
    #12
  13. Bruce Sinclair

    ufo Guest

    Question: how much of their own network did they have in place in 2001 and
    how much "more" do they have in place now 2005 (4 years later?)
    My guess: None - why because they are not interested in building an
    alternative network, they want to ride on the back of the existing
    infrastructure and simply clip the ticket, without major investment.

    You say Telecoms service is no better in those areas where there is
    alternative? - well did you know it is cheaper than in those areas where
    there is no alternative network ..... this would seem a big plus for all
    users.

    You can't lay the blame only on the government, you have apportion the blame
    to both the government and the Telecos. I can see a government that is
    strongly influenced by some of it's biggest customers (read corporate TAX
    payers) and some big corporates who want to squeeze as much out of minimal
    investment possible.

    I think it is time the government looked facilating a view that Telcos need
    to change their view on how they want to generate their ROI, and that they
    provide real guidelines on what they expect the Telcos to provide to the end
    user what and by when. It's time they stopped believing everything the
    Telcos "tell" them.

    "Rob J" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 03:19:52 GMT,
    > z (Bruce Sinclair)
    > wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> wrote:
    >>>To be fair, most of the problems relating to rolling-out high-speed
    >>>internet are largely due to the government and its bumbled regulatory
    >>>pathway.

    >>
    >>Really ? This is certainly not the impression telecom/telstra and the
    >>others
    >>give. More like petty infighting amongst themselves (mostly telecom trying
    >>to keep control).
    >>
    >>. unless you think govt regulation would stop the petty infighting in some
    >>way ??

    >
    > Telstra have their own cable network in parts of the country. THere
    > doesn't seem to be any better Telecom service in those areas.
    >
    ufo, Jul 19, 2005
    #13
  14. ufo wrote:
    > Question: how much of their own network did they have in place in 2001 and
    > how much "more" do they have in place now 2005 (4 years later?)
    > My guess: None - why because they are not interested in building an
    > alternative network, they want to ride on the back of the existing
    > infrastructure and simply clip the ticket, without major investment.


    They have installed a heap of fibre around some of the cities, not sure
    how much, but suspect it must be fairly expensive to get the consent to
    do it, then to buy it, and lay it... it may not be lit at present, but
    it is there, they do have a next gen network for land lines aswell, have
    a read through their press releases, there is quite a bit there.

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
    http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 19, 2005
    #14
  15. Bruce Sinclair

    Pon Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:38 GMT,
    z (Bruce Sinclair)
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Steve Marshall <> wrote:
    >>"When Telecom was privatised in 1990, the move was supported by an
    >>anecdote that three-month waiting periods for new phones had become a
    >>thing of the past. It is symbolic that I am now left waiting three
    >>months for what is the telephone of my era."
    >>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10336048

    >
    >People I know were waiting 18 months for a phone. Aint privatisation grand
    >:)
    >
    >
    >Bruce

    What changed that ?
    Was it Corporatisation or Privatisation ?
    Pon, Jul 19, 2005
    #15
  16. Bruce Sinclair

    Rob J Guest

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:49:30 +1200, "ufo" <> wrote:

    >Question: how much of their own network did they have in place in 2001 and
    >how much "more" do they have in place now 2005 (4 years later?)
    >My guess: None - why because they are not interested in building an
    >alternative network, they want to ride on the back of the existing
    >infrastructure and simply clip the ticket, without major investment.
    >
    >You say Telecoms service is no better in those areas where there is
    >alternative? - well did you know it is cheaper than in those areas where
    >there is no alternative network ..... this would seem a big plus for all
    >users.


    That's about all it is. They don't offer ultra fast dirt cheap
    broadband.
    Rob J, Jul 19, 2005
    #16
  17. In article <>, wrote:
    >On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:28:38 GMT,
    > (Bruce Sinclair)
    >wrote:
    >>In article <>, Steve Marshall

    > <> wrote:
    >>>"When Telecom was privatised in 1990, the move was supported by an
    >>>anecdote that three-month waiting periods for new phones had become a
    >>>thing of the past. It is symbolic that I am now left waiting three
    >>>months for what is the telephone of my era."
    >>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10336048

    >>
    >>People I know were waiting 18 months for a phone. Aint privatisation grand
    >>:)


    >What changed that ?
    >Was it Corporatisation or Privatisation ?


    Good question. Privitisation IMO.
    Again IMO, telecom waas in a great place after corporatisation. Pity about
    the sell off. Really stupid to sell the floor of your house to someone else
    IMO :)


    Bruce

    ----------------------------------------
    I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
    people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
    only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

    Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 19, 2005
    #17
  18. Bruce Sinclair

    Mutlley Guest

    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:

    >ufo wrote:
    >> Question: how much of their own network did they have in place in 2001 and
    >> how much "more" do they have in place now 2005 (4 years later?)
    >> My guess: None - why because they are not interested in building an
    >> alternative network, they want to ride on the back of the existing
    >> infrastructure and simply clip the ticket, without major investment.

    >
    >They have installed a heap of fibre around some of the cities, not sure
    >how much, but suspect it must be fairly expensive to get the consent to
    >do it, then to buy it, and lay it... it may not be lit at present, but
    >it is there, they do have a next gen network for land lines aswell, have
    >a read through their press releases, there is quite a bit there.


    In some cities. Wellington and Christchurch. Outside those areas
    basically nothing or only in the CBD where they hope to catch the
    big corporate spender. Domestic customers need not apply..
    Mutlley, Jul 19, 2005
    #18
  19. Bruce Sinclair

    ufo Guest

    Sorry you might want to recheck that - They have in the last 4 years very
    limited physical network expansion, even in the main city centres. Their
    focus was on resale of Telecom residential services agreeement (and
    unbundling of the local looop) and implementation of IP network
    infrastructure. Remember the 3G network they wanted in place 2nd half 2004
    .......... nothing heard off anymore.

    Sorry can you show me in their press releases where they have show expansion
    of the physical network.
    http://www.telstraclear.co.nz/companyinfo/tcl_archives.cfm?startrow=1
    ............ good luck.

    My point is that Telstraclear like other Telcos don't want to invest in NZ
    .......... they just want to squeeze more out of you and me with the existing
    infrastructure (theirs or Telecoms or Vodaphones).

    We know we will only have real competition (in price or service) when they
    are willingly to invest in ther own infrastructure and demand a ROI from it.
    Shown by price options in those areas where alternative networks exist.
    Again this has only limited lasting impact, because after a while you get a
    nice duopoly where both competitors are happy with sharing the revenue.

    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ufo wrote:


    >
    > They have installed a heap of fibre around some of the cities, not sure
    > how much, but suspect it must be fairly expensive to get the consent to do
    > it, then to buy it, and lay it... it may not be lit at present, but it is
    > there, they do have a next gen network for land lines aswell, have a read
    > through their press releases, there is quite a bit there.
    >
    > --
    > http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
    > http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
    ufo, Jul 19, 2005
    #19
  20. Bruce Sinclair

    ufo Guest

    Off course ..... they don't need too they are getting these customers on
    price alone. However if a competitor were to offer fast dirt cheap
    broadband - what d think Telecom will do?.

    So if the government could facilitate this competition betwen Telcos in some
    way ......... maybe things will change.

    "Rob J" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:49:30 +1200, "ufo" <> wrote:
    >
    >>You say Telecoms service is no better in those areas where there is
    >>alternative? - well did you know it is cheaper than in those areas where
    >>there is no alternative network ..... this would seem a big plus for all
    >>users.

    >
    > That's about all it is. They don't offer ultra fast dirt cheap
    > broadband.
    >
    >
    ufo, Jul 19, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    PDP Gigabyte Memory Giveaway Contest Result

    Silverstrand, Jul 24, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    721
    unholy
    Jul 25, 2005
  2. Malke

    Re: Bulk Newsgroup Poster - amazing result

    Malke, Jan 17, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    540
    Malke
    Jan 17, 2005
  3. Splibbilla
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    615
    Splibbilla
    May 30, 2005
  4. =?Utf-8?B?bW9vbmV5KHJlbW92ZXRoaXMpQGh5cGVydXNhLmNv

    Should speakers fail as a result of cell phone ringing near them?

    =?Utf-8?B?bW9vbmV5KHJlbW92ZXRoaXMpQGh5cGVydXNhLmNv, Jul 25, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    541
  5. Knowing About
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    667
    Knowing About
    Oct 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page