Why Telecom has problems

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jul 17, 2005.

  1. Found an interesting column in the Weekend Herald (page C7). It's
    primarily a rant about how the columnist is unable to get broadband in
    his upmarket West Auckland neighbourhood. And of course the fact that
    he's hardly alone in having broadband problems. In the middle of it is
    the following:

    When asked whether Telecom is investing enough in its New Zealand
    network, a respect financial analyst responds with a flat "no".
    When asked why , the analyst responds investors would not agree
    to Telecom spending anything but conservative sums in New Zealand
    because the company has struggled to make a return on the $1.6
    billion it invested in Australia's AAPT.

    So basically we're being dragged down by an Australian albatross around
    Telecom's neck.
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jul 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:19:18 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    <_zealand> spoke these fine words:

    >Found an interesting column in the Weekend Herald (page C7). It's
    >primarily a rant about how the columnist is unable to get broadband in
    >his upmarket West Auckland neighbourhood. And of course the fact that
    >he's hardly alone in having broadband problems. In the middle of it is
    >the following:
    >
    > When asked whether Telecom is investing enough in its New Zealand
    > network, a respect financial analyst responds with a flat "no".
    > When asked why , the analyst responds investors would not agree
    > to Telecom spending anything but conservative sums in New Zealand
    > because the company has struggled to make a return on the $1.6
    > billion it invested in Australia's AAPT.
    >
    >So basically we're being dragged down by an Australian albatross around
    >Telecom's neck.


    This happens time and time again. For some reason, NZ companies really
    struggle in Aussie, and it ends up costing them piles.

    Why do you think Air NZ had to be bailed out?
    H.O.G, Jul 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Peter Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > Found an interesting column in the Weekend Herald (page C7). It's
    > primarily a rant about how the columnist is unable to get broadband in
    > his upmarket West Auckland neighbourhood.


    Telecom's jetstream coverage is lousy.
    Most of the country simply can't get it, including many upmarket residential
    areas.
    Telecom is simply living off the infrastructure installed decades ago by the
    old Post Office government department. Newer suburbs (ie not near an old
    phone exchange) are out of reach of jetstream (aka "broadband").


    Peter
    Peter, Jul 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    H.O.G wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:19:18 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> spoke these fine words:
    >
    >> Found an interesting column in the Weekend Herald (page C7). It's
    >> primarily a rant about how the columnist is unable to get broadband
    >> in his upmarket West Auckland neighbourhood. And of course the fact
    >> that he's hardly alone in having broadband problems. In the middle
    >> of it is the following:
    >>
    >> When asked whether Telecom is investing enough in its New
    >> Zealand network, a respect financial analyst responds with a flat
    >> "no". When asked why , the analyst responds investors would not
    >> agree to Telecom spending anything but conservative sums in New
    >> Zealand because the company has struggled to make a return on the
    >> $1.6 billion it invested in Australia's AAPT.
    >>
    >> So basically we're being dragged down by an Australian albatross
    >> around Telecom's neck.

    >
    > This happens time and time again. For some reason, NZ companies really
    > struggle in Aussie, and it ends up costing them piles.
    >
    > Why do you think Air NZ had to be bailed out?


    And The Warehouse getting rid of it's Aussie presence.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Jul 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    BTMO Guest

    "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <> wrote

    > So basically we're being dragged down by an Australian albatross around
    > Telecom's neck.


    Empire building.

    It is an old, old story...
    BTMO, Jul 17, 2005
    #5
  6. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Crash Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > H.O.G wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:19:18 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    >><_zealand> spoke these fine words:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Found an interesting column in the Weekend Herald (page C7). It's
    >>>primarily a rant about how the columnist is unable to get broadband
    >>>in his upmarket West Auckland neighbourhood. And of course the fact
    >>>that he's hardly alone in having broadband problems. In the middle
    >>>of it is the following:
    >>>
    >>> When asked whether Telecom is investing enough in its New
    >>> Zealand network, a respect financial analyst responds with a flat
    >>> "no". When asked why , the analyst responds investors would not
    >>> agree to Telecom spending anything but conservative sums in New
    >>> Zealand because the company has struggled to make a return on the
    >>> $1.6 billion it invested in Australia's AAPT.
    >>>
    >>>So basically we're being dragged down by an Australian albatross
    >>>around Telecom's neck.

    >>
    >>This happens time and time again. For some reason, NZ companies really
    >>struggle in Aussie, and it ends up costing them piles.
    >>
    >>Why do you think Air NZ had to be bailed out?

    >
    >
    > And The Warehouse getting rid of it's Aussie presence.


    Eh? Where did you see that? I recall seeing recent announcements that TWL Oz
    was coming right.

    Crash.
    Crash, Jul 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    H.O.G Guest

    On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:29:08 +1200, Crash
    <> spoke these fine words:

    >~misfit~ wrote:
    >> H.O.G wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:19:18 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    >>><_zealand> spoke these fine words:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Found an interesting column in the Weekend Herald (page C7). It's
    >>>>primarily a rant about how the columnist is unable to get broadband
    >>>>in his upmarket West Auckland neighbourhood. And of course the fact
    >>>>that he's hardly alone in having broadband problems. In the middle
    >>>>of it is the following:
    >>>>
    >>>> When asked whether Telecom is investing enough in its New
    >>>> Zealand network, a respect financial analyst responds with a flat
    >>>> "no". When asked why , the analyst responds investors would not
    >>>> agree to Telecom spending anything but conservative sums in New
    >>>> Zealand because the company has struggled to make a return on the
    >>>> $1.6 billion it invested in Australia's AAPT.
    >>>>
    >>>>So basically we're being dragged down by an Australian albatross
    >>>>around Telecom's neck.
    >>>
    >>>This happens time and time again. For some reason, NZ companies really
    >>>struggle in Aussie, and it ends up costing them piles.
    >>>
    >>>Why do you think Air NZ had to be bailed out?

    >>
    >>
    >> And The Warehouse getting rid of it's Aussie presence.

    >
    >Eh? Where did you see that? I recall seeing recent announcements that TWL Oz
    >was coming right.
    >
    >Crash.


    Nope - they have got rid of / are getting rid of it - been losing
    money since day 1.
    H.O.G, Jul 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Harry Guest

    H.O.G wrote:

    > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:19:18 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> spoke these fine words:
    >
    >>Found an interesting column in the Weekend Herald (page C7). It's
    >>primarily a rant about how the columnist is unable to get broadband in
    >>his upmarket West Auckland neighbourhood. And of course the fact that
    >>he's hardly alone in having broadband problems. In the middle of it is
    >>the following:
    >>
    >> When asked whether Telecom is investing enough in its New Zealand
    >> network, a respect financial analyst responds with a flat "no".
    >> When asked why , the analyst responds investors would not agree
    >> to Telecom spending anything but conservative sums in New Zealand
    >> because the company has struggled to make a return on the $1.6
    >> billion it invested in Australia's AAPT.
    >>
    >>So basically we're being dragged down by an Australian albatross around
    >>Telecom's neck.

    >
    > This happens time and time again. For some reason, NZ companies really
    > struggle in Aussie, and it ends up costing them piles.
    >
    > Why do you think Air NZ had to be bailed out?


    That is because most NZ companies are miniscule in comparison to
    Australian companies. They don't have enough capital to compete
    on an adequate scale.

    For example, The Warehouse made the mistake of trying to reproduce
    the way it evolved in NZ. Instead they should have gone straight in the deep
    end and set up mega-Warehouse outlets. Basically nobody in
    Australia has heard of The Warehouse and are happy with the bargains
    they can get in K-Mart, or Target which have well established branches
    everywhere.
    Harry, Jul 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Crash Guest

    Harry wrote:
    > H.O.G wrote:

    [snip]

    >>
    >>Why do you think Air NZ had to be bailed out?

    >
    >
    > That is because most NZ companies are miniscule in comparison to
    > Australian companies. They don't have enough capital to compete
    > on an adequate scale.
    >
    > For example, The Warehouse made the mistake of trying to reproduce
    > the way it evolved in NZ. Instead they should have gone straight in the deep
    > end and set up mega-Warehouse outlets. Basically nobody in
    > Australia has heard of The Warehouse and are happy with the bargains
    > they can get in K-Mart, or Target which have well established branches
    > everywhere.


    The Warehouse was very wary of going to Australia but at the time (1998) it
    boasted a strong ever-upward profit and ROI year-on-year results. Up to then
    this was driven by expansion within NZ but the end of this was in sight - there
    was a big red shed just about everywhere worth putting one in NZ. Expansion
    into Oz was the next logical step.

    They bought two smallish chains in Oz - one was Silly Sollies and the other
    Clints Bargain House IIRC. Both run shops about the same size as a Repco - far
    smaller than most red sheds. I think the thinking here was to buy into existing
    operations with an Oz presence that could easily be controlled from NZ, get to
    grips with the Oz market, establish the red shed brand then move to the
    traditional red-shed operation by opening new premises then closing existing
    premises as the lease expired. It looks like this might be about to happen now
    but the whole Oz thing has been far more painful than they thought and probably
    cost Greg Muir his job (as TWL CEO).

    Crash.
    Crash, Jul 19, 2005
    #9
  10. In article <Ge3De.1663$>,
    Crash <> wrote:

    >The Warehouse was very wary of going to Australia but at the time (1998) it
    >boasted a strong ever-upward profit and ROI year-on-year results. Up to then
    >this was driven by expansion within NZ but the end of this was in sight -
    >there
    >was a big red shed just about everywhere worth putting one in NZ. Expansion
    >into Oz was the next logical step.


    Bit ironic, really, with all the Aussie problems, when their NZ
    expansion still continues at a brisk pace. They've just opened the first
    two-storey Warehouse, and the biggest one in NZ, both within the last
    couple of months, and both in Hamilton.
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jul 19, 2005
    #10
  11. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Harry Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:

    > In article <Ge3De.1663$>,
    > Crash <> wrote:
    >
    >>The Warehouse was very wary of going to Australia but at the time (1998)
    >>it
    >>boasted a strong ever-upward profit and ROI year-on-year results. Up to
    >>then this was driven by expansion within NZ but the end of this was in
    >>sight - there
    >>was a big red shed just about everywhere worth putting one in NZ.
    >>Expansion into Oz was the next logical step.

    >
    > Bit ironic, really, with all the Aussie problems, when their NZ
    > expansion still continues at a brisk pace. They've just opened the first
    > two-storey Warehouse, and the biggest one in NZ, both within the last
    > couple of months, and both in Hamilton.


    That is probably because NZ is a free market whereas Australia
    isn't very free.
    Harry, Jul 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Mr Scebe Guest

    "Harry" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > That is because most NZ companies are miniscule in comparison to
    > Australian companies. They don't have enough capital to compete
    > on an adequate scale.


    I disagree. There is plenty enough capital (for instance Telecom has a total
    investment in AAPT equivalent to 3 years of capital expenditure here in NZ -
    that isn't much). The real problem is that the environment is considerably
    different and Australians don't like being told how to do things by NZers.

    There are a couple of instances that i could use as an example, but to
    protect the innocent i will refer to Company A, which is an NZ subsidary of
    a global organisation. Their NZ operation has been so successful that their
    business model has been applied to the Australian subsidiary, with limited
    success. Complaints are constant and along the lines of "what the **** do
    you know about running a business?" - at the same time that this company in
    NZ is more profitable than the Australian operation.

    The staff (in Australia) are difficult to deal with, and resentful of the NZ
    operations success. They are obstructive at every turn, and refuse to
    implement even basic business best practice. And this is in a company where
    they are supposed to be peer level equals, so you can imagine what it would
    be like when the NZ company is the "master".

    --
    Mr Scebe
    Losersh always whine about their 'besht'.
    Winnersh go home and **** the prom queen".
    ~Sean Connery in "The Rock"
    Mr Scebe, Jul 20, 2005
    #12
  13. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro

    Harry Guest

    Mr Scebe wrote:

    >
    > "Harry" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> That is because most NZ companies are miniscule in comparison to
    >> Australian companies. They don't have enough capital to compete
    >> on an adequate scale.

    >
    > I disagree. There is plenty enough capital (for instance Telecom has a
    > total investment in AAPT equivalent to 3 years of capital expenditure here
    > in NZ - that isn't much). The real problem is that the environment is
    > considerably different and Australians don't like being told how to do
    > things by NZers.


    Given that AAPT is a small player in the Australian market, Telecoms
    investment doesn't amount to much at all.

    >
    > There are a couple of instances that i could use as an example, but to
    > protect the innocent i will refer to Company A, which is an NZ subsidary
    > of a global organisation. Their NZ operation has been so successful that
    > their business model has been applied to the Australian subsidiary, with
    > limited success. Complaints are constant and along the lines of "what the
    > **** do you know about running a business?" - at the same time that this
    > company in NZ is more profitable than the Australian operation.


    But if A is a subsidiary of a global organization then it is a bit
    trite to regard it as a case of NZ investment in Australia.

    >
    > The staff (in Australia) are difficult to deal with, and resentful of the
    > NZ operations success. They are obstructive at every turn, and refuse to
    > implement even basic business best practice. And this is in a company
    > where they are supposed to be peer level equals, so you can imagine what
    > it would be like when the NZ company is the "master".
    >


    Given that the company is a subsidiary of a global company I
    don't understand why you are so coy about naming names.
    But coyness is a distinctive NZ attribute I suppose ...
    Harry, Jul 20, 2005
    #13
    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. Knowing About
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    611
    Knowing About
    Oct 13, 2006
  2. Acid
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    647
    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz
    Mar 7, 2004
  3. Alan Howard
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    647
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Oct 21, 2005
  4. Peter Huebner

    OT: has Telecom scammed me?

    Peter Huebner, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    471
    krazy Bob
    Feb 14, 2006
  5. Philip

    Has anyone ever asked Telecom..

    Philip, Apr 3, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    434
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Apr 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page