Joyce and corporate handouts

Written By: - Date published: 11:38 am, July 28th, 2011 - 105 comments
Categories: capitalism, Steven Joyce - Tags:

Telecom realised some time ago that home phone lines & cell phones companies will become a thing of the past before long.

We will all be communicating over the internet using the likes of Skype, wireless internet etc in the very near future.

So instead of trying to set up a competitive market, National and Steven Joyce hand their old mates at Telecom 70% of the Ultra Fast Broadband contract, a virtual monopoly.

Also don’t forget just to tidy things up National are about to repeal our free calling under the Kiwi share.

So who is running Our Government? And how long will it take for Telecom to take control of the other 30% of the UFB? Not long suckers!

It’s becoming clear now Joyce had done a deal with Telecom from the start surprise, surprise.

Telecom is the best example of why we should keep total ownership & control of our assets.

From Theresa Gattung’s “using confusion as a marketing tool is fine”. To Paul Reynolds the present Telecom CEO, who’s take home and salary package last year was worth an estimated $7m, including a estimated $3m bonus, this is the very same Paul Reynolds, that still manages to keep his job after Telecoms new XT network debacle last year. Reynolds stuffs up on a huge scale and he not only keeps his job, he gets a bonus. The average punter, well we gets five eighth’s of piss all and can now be sacked for no reason in the first three months on the job.

Double standards , you bet! More corporate welfare for the Right, when they mess up or get caught stealing, they get a bonus and a pat on the back, when we mess up it’s the dole queue or bankruptcy.

Lets never forget this corporation ‘Telecom New Zealand’ is the only transnational corporation (TNC) to have been a finalist every year since the Roger Awards started a decade ago, some achievement.

They have been shown to be lying and stealing from us since the day they where privatised, and what does National do? It hops in bed with them and for a deal sweetener they drop in a billion plus dollars of our money.

Joyce will be the new leader of the Nacts once Key gets all his photo collection together. Joyce’s record with Telecom, Mediaworks, and corporate welfare disguised as motorway projects is well known. If he ever becomes PM, it will be open season for corporations to use the public coffers as their private chequing account.

Who pays the piper calls the tune.

MrSmith

105 comments on “Joyce and corporate handouts”

  1. queenstfarmer 1

    National are about to repeal our free calling under the Kiwi share

    Not this again… I quote from Computerworld:

    The Kiwishare historically included the obligation by Telecom to provide a free local calling service to every resident at a standard monthly fee, regardless of whether they live in rural or urban areas… However, the provisions relating to free local calling and rural services were taken out of the Kiwishare obligation and transferred to the Telecommunication Service Obligation when the Telecommunications Act was passed in 2001.

    So Labour took free callng out of the Kiwishare. But no problemo, because it’s in the TSO which stays in place.

    • mik e 1.1

      Yeah that was when larger areas of free dialing began to happen. longer distances

    • MrSmith 1.2

      QueenSt. ‘This is taken from the comments thread on the link you provided’. 

      “Quoting the MED, the article states “The Kiwishare goes but restrictions on foreign ownership for Chorus2 remain. Although these restrictions are not enshrined in law, but in a deed, according to the MED document.

      It also states that “…Therefore it (Kiwishare) will be converted to an Ordinary share and Chorus2’s Kiwishare obligations will instead be provided for in its constitution and in a Deed with the Crown”. That to me is removing it from law and Joyce’s and other responses claiming otherwise are based on sophistry and deception. To claim Labour doesn’t know what they did or are doing is undermined by the government’s own department overseeing the issue – the MED.labour’s change continued to have it enshrined in law – just a different one.”

  2. mik e 2

    Even ACT. are against monopolies. Funny that,is until Key tells them to shut up or you won,t have Epsom .

  3. Rusty Shackleford 3

    “Telecom realised some time ago that home phone lines & cell phones companies will become a thing of the past before long.

    We will all be communicating over the internet using the likes of Skype, wireless internet etc in the very near future.”

    Where did you get this silly notion from? Ever heard of a booming little industry known as the smart phone?

    • Colonial Viper 3.1

      Rusty, who exactly is making the money in the smart phone industry?

      • Rusty Shackleford 3.1.1

        The govt mandated “natural” monopoly, service providers I guess.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

          so you say the smart phone industry is “booming” but can’t tell us where the profits in the industry lie?

    • The Voice of Reason 3.2

      Er, a smartphone is confirmation of what MrSmith said, Rusty. So what was your point again?

      • Rusty Shackleford 3.2.1

        “Telecom realised some time ago that home phone lines & cell phones companies will become a thing of the past before long.”
        We are going to need the infrastructure that cell phones use to run those smart phones.

        My over riding point is that the failure of past govt interventions is not reason enough to place the entire telecommunications industry in the hands of the central planners. And that the “natural” monopoly canard is only a post hoc justification for doing so.

        • MrSmith 3.2.1.1

          Rusty: Your point!, is I believe called diversion trolling , nothing more. 
          You said:
          “My over riding point is that the failure of past govt interventions is not reason enough to place the entire telecommunications industry in the hands of the central planners. And that the “natural” monopoly canard is only a post hoc justification for doing so.”

          Rusty, You have just pulled this out off your ass.

          • Rusty Shackleford 3.2.1.1.1

            I’m sure there are many commenters nodding along sagely to what you just said MrSmith. Unfortunately, ones ignorance of an idea does not make the person espousing it a troll. I can assure you that I am not responsible for the vast literature on the failures of central planning.

            • McFlock 3.2.1.1.1.1

              Calling delusional right-wing website rants “literature” is one way to achieve the title “troll”.

              • Rusty Shackleford

                “Rants”, I love it. If you can’t grapple with an idea you smear it.

                • McFlock

                  Like the idea that Somalia is better off under a state of anarchy than with a functional, if corrupt and totalitarian cold war client, government?
                  Keep popping those Rightalin(tm) capsules, Rusty. They help you ignore reality’s left wing bias.
                   

                  • Rusty Shackleford

                    Well it is.
                    http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

                    Reality doesn’t have a left wing bias, it has a liberal bias. Two totally different things. If you had read any Mises (as you claim in the comment you linked to) you would know this. http://mises.org/liberal.asp

                    • McFlock

                      I did. Apparently according to mises if a nation moves forward over 25 years it is proof that libertarianism works, even if every other nation in the world moves farther forward and you end up being one of the 8 worst shitholes in the planet.
                       
                      Great victory there, toryboy.

                    • Rusty Shackleford

                      Where did he say that? It must have been one of his more obscure works, because I have never heard him say anything of the sort.

                      Good victory 김정일boy. Kim Jong Il boy for those who can’t read hangeul .

                      I fail to see how you get any intellectual pleasure out of facile name calling, but I guess I am a fool for expecting to derive intellectual pleasure from a cess pool like thestandard.org.nz. Maybe I should just stick to whaleoil where I am equally as accepted.

                    • rosy

                      But, but they have more cellphones than their neighbours. Surely you’ve weighed that up against higher infant mortality and shorter life expectancy? Oh and don’t forget mass starvation is imminent in rebel-controlled areas. ’tis possible this very crisis may be put down to the lack of organised development.
                      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/27/somalia-famine-instability

                      Given the total absence of effective central authority, it cannot be a surprise that Somalia is fracturing into different statelets, some of which have existed as separate – and peaceful – entities for some time. In the north, Somaliland (which, for full disclosure, Independent Diplomat advises) declared its independence at the end of the civil war in 1991. Since then, it has built its own democratic institutions, held respectable elections and is governed peacefully by a new government that is widely respected. To Somaliland’s east, Puntland appears to be establishing itself as a separate state. And in the more lawless south, smaller self-governing enclaves are springing up, in Galmudug, and in Jubaland, along the Kenyan border.

                      It’s not that anarchy is better, it’s that community involvement is required to build a functioning state, not the imposition of a government structure by self-interested capitalists and imperialists.

                    • McFlock

                      meh. I did actually read the shit you linked to in that thread. Frankly I’m gobsmacked that you’re recycling the Leeson bullshit. “Better off” – when the rest of the planet has streaked ahead. A point demonstrated by your own sources on infant mortality.
                      Somalia has become one of the 5 worst crapholes on the planet, a concept you haven’t figured out since you wrote “Well, Somalia has improved post govt.
                      Get some new material.
                       
                       
                       

                    • Rusty Shackleford

                      What’s with the obsession with states? They are a pretty new invention and don’t appear to be working that well. There are other ways to organise society than through centralising power in some city miles away.

                      The Somalia debate is getting a little boring. The only reason I pick it up is because the statist crowd love to shout about it so much. It’s a challenge. You don’t hear me shouting “North Korea!”

                    • rosy

                      “The only reason I pick it up is because the statist crowd love to shout about it so much.”

                      You picked it because your narrow reading matter led you to think it proved your point that we’d be better off without governments. It didn’t.

                    • McFlock

                      “What’s with the obsession with states? They are a pretty new invention and don’t appear to be working that well. There are other ways to organise society than through centralising power in some city miles away.”
                       
                      What, pray tell, were democratic states preceded by, Rusty? Biggest stick wins.
                      Nice slide, though – “democratic government” into “any government, including totalitarian”
                       
                      From my perspective, the Somalia debate was “humourous surprise at the idiocy of Rusty’s claim, followed by fish. barrel. howitzer.”
                       

            • The Voice of Reason 3.2.1.1.1.2

              So you are saying you’re not a troll, just ignorant? I still reckon there’s heaps here that reckon you’re both.

              • Rusty Shackleford

                No. I meant MrSmith wasn’t familiar with what I was talking about, so he assumed I was a troll. I can see how you would interpret that from what I wrote. Was trying to be clever but only managed to obscure my meaning. I’m ignorant of many things. Examples of the failures of central planning is not one of those areas.

            • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1.3

              I can assure you that I am not responsible for the vast literature on the failures of central planning.

              Are you responsible for the vast literature on the failures of corporate planning then? XT Network etc?

              btw In democratic socialism many aspects of planning are devolved and decentralised, as is decision making within worker owned firms.

              • Rusty Shackleford

                Businesses who cock up should suffer losses or go out of business. That is almost impossible in Telecom’s case, they will always be bailed out and they know it.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Well Rusty, NZ can’t afford for Telecom to go out of business as that will put NZ out of business, so it will always be bailed out. Which says a lot about how Telecom should have always remained in Govt ownership.

            • MrSmith 3.2.1.1.1.4

              Rusty, ‘If you read the post’? there is nothing in it (the post) about your points! 
               
              “My over riding point is that the failure of past govt interventions is not reason enough to place the entire telecommunications industry in the hands of the central planners.”
               
              “Or And that the “natural” monopoly canard is only a post hoc justification for doing so.”
               
              and later: “I can assure you that I am not responsible for the vast literature on the failures of central planning.”
               
              These are opinions Rusty and not even to the point!

            • mik e 3.2.1.1.1.5

              The failure to do any planning laissez fair [unShackled economies] has got a far worse record look at the economies that are growing all of them have central planning Rusty

              • Rusty Shackleford

                Can you give an example?

                • mik e

                  I,ve given plenty of examples before Singapore, South Korea ,China,Germany, are just a few who have planned economies that have sustained high growth I can,t find any laissez fair countries let alone any with growth in fact there is none just like there is no communist country only a couple of totalitarian Dictatorships.

                  • Rusty Shackleford

                    I would say that those countries are rich in spite of central planning, not because of.

                    • I see, Rusty, that you wish people would engage with your ideas. Here goes …

                      To use the supposedly ‘logical’ and ‘scientific’ analysis that von Mises claims is his only guide – it is obviously very possible (with multiple examples that you admit to) to have central planning AND to be a rich country (perhaps even be amongst the richest in the world)?

                      That provokes the obvious response – then why is central planning so bad?

                      Also, according to von Mises (chapters 6 and 7 in Part II of Liberalism), capitalism is the only possible form of social organisation. Part of his evidence for this assertion is that all other types of social organisation are no longer feasible, have failed, etc.. Apart from being an appalling display of illogic (in logical terms, the contingent fact that other forms have failed is not evidence that all other forms must fail), this argument could well be applied to his approach as well. That is, given that every attempt to institute it has failed (hence your self-confessed outcast status on this blog and on Whaleoil) it clearly shows it is not feasible (at least, that would be what von Mises would argue if he was consistent).

                      I have a theory for why that lack of feasibility is the case: von Mises, sadly, had no understanding of the sciences of human nature. The evolved form of life (and neurology) of humans ensures that no such von Misean paradise will ever arise largely because we are not set up, biologically, psychologically or social psychologically, for private property ownership as the be all and end all of economic arrangements. (Which is not to say that we aren’t set up for individuality and freedom, BTW.)

                      In fact, there is exceptionally good evidence in our evolved emotional and social psychological systems, that we are very much set up for collective ownership and cooperative employment of the means of production (e.g., the evolved emotional tendencies to react strongly to inequality in a group, the hoarding of resources by individuals, etc.). Therefore, von Mises had it wrong. His ‘only feasible’ economic system happens not to be feasible – and certainly not sustainable – on human nature grounds. We would have to re-engineer humans from the bottom up to make von Mises’ capitalism viable over the long haul. With any luck, no-one is about to attempt such a re-engineering. Shame.

                      Just as von Mises claims that economic forms other than capitalism have been shown not to be feasible, von Mises’ world, similarly, cannot emerge, given the facts as they are. von Mises’ account of human social and economic arrangements, that is, is not feasible. It can only be imposed on humans in such a way that it produces the kind of emotional, psychological and general suffering that our evolutionary ancestors were wise enough to avoid.

                      The stats are already providing the evidential base of this claim. Rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, etc. have increased many fold in the last five or six decades in ‘developed’, capitalist economies. Von Mises had little awareness of these scientific facts (unsurprising, since they have been gathered since he wrote back in the 20s and 30s and resulted from a world arranged increasingly along his prescribed lines).

                      Always interested in a discussion that goes a long way down the rabbit hole of thought – I’ve spent a good proportion of my waking life down in those dark and seductive burrows. (FWIW, despite all their seductive allure, those burrows are nowhere near as good or enjoyable as life out in this messy world of ours.)

                    • Colonial Viper

                      I hope Rusty replies to you soon 🙂

        • mik e 3.2.1.2

          Rusty one problem is that UHF can only carry so much information with smarter phones more info is being transmitted so eventually it will be over crowded, and its slower than fibre optic cable. So their will always be a need for land lines. but in the mean time their are some very good deals around on uhf broadbad

  4. Draco T Bastard 4

    So instead of trying to set up a competitive market, National and Steven Joyce hand their old mates at Telecom 70% of the Ultra Fast Broadband contract, a virtual monopoly.

    Telecommunications is a Natural Monopoly and, as such, having a “competitive market” just puts the price up. Also, as a natural monopoly and a human right, it should be a state owned service that’s provided entirely through taxes.

    BTW, Telcos don’t actually innovate. What they do is buy products from the companies (Alcatel-Lucent, LG, Motorola etc) that do to provide the infrastructure necessary for telecommunications so we don’t even get the benefits that competition is supposed to bring for the added cost.

    …Steven Joyce hand their old mates at Telecom…

    Clare Curran’s got an interesting post over on Red Alert about this. Basically, it appears that Steven Joyce has been lying through his teeth about the relationship between him and Telecom.

    • Rusty Shackleford 4.1

      I declare puppies and hovercrafts to be a human right and therefore I demand that other people should pay to provide them for me.

      Wow, this throwing logic and economic reasoning out the window stuff is fun.

      • The Voice of Reason 4.1.1

        Wow, you’ve just summed up Nact’s sense of entitlement beautifully, Rusty.

        • uke 4.1.1.1

          “I declare puppies and hovercrafts to be a human right and therefore I demand that other people should pay to provide them for me.”
           
          This could pretty much apply to the capitalist process of appropriating the surplus value of other people’s labour and renaming it “profit”.

        • Rusty Shackleford 4.1.1.2

          Politics of envy!

          I’m new to this whole shouting and name calling and hurling platitudes, dog whistles and buzz words. Am I doing it right?

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2

        Rusty, you’re a moronic idiot and wouldn’t know what an economy was if it bit you this is proven by your inability to address anything I said. Probably a result of reading all that libertarian BS.

        • Rusty Shackleford 4.1.2.1

          You win.

          • McFlock 4.1.2.1.1

            What, two words and no link to toryfuckwit.com/fantasy.php?  Feeling okay, Rusty?

            • Rusty Shackleford 4.1.2.1.1.1

              Why “tory”. If you have ever read anything I have said, you will know I sympathise with National and Labour in equal measure. Which is to say, almost not at all.

              • McFlock

                “Tory” because the beliefs you espouse will simply benefit the 1% who have ruled from feudalism to capitalism.
                   
                Rusty, you come from a long line of apologists for the ruling class, sometimes delusional, sometimes cynical, sometimes called Uncle Tom, sometimes called “self made man”, sometimes called “foreman”. The function is always the same – you make life worse for almost all your fellow citizens.
                 

                • Rusty Shackleford

                  What is your definition of capitalism? I’m not really a capitalist either. I prefer to style myself as a Liberal.

                  We certainly suffer under an economic model that favours some businesses. Not business in general, but certain politically connected businesses. I don’t see how this is free market capitalism as espoused by Mises or Rothbard. In fact they both decry and demolish these notions.

                  I’m fully against the special pleadings of special interest groups. Being an economist I would prefer to pick the low hanging fruit first. Large businesses crying out for special favours (and cash) are certainly low hanging fruit. Next unions, then long after that the smaller fish (which would probably, largely, cease to exist without those other crowds).

                  So, what is your definition of capitalism? If it is “the economic structure we currently live under”, then you have some explaining to do.

                  • McFlock

                    For a rough guide, read Marx.
                          
                       
                    Rusty, I suspect that your definition of “capitalism” is somewhat akin to the ancient Greek doctrine of forms – some ethereal ideal that, no matter how close the real-world approximation, could never be realised in the material world. But you will never even achieve an approximation – all your deluded platitudes will do is put more wealth into the hands of less people, so the majority will starve while the titular minority have mansions in Hawaii.

                    • Rusty Shackleford

                      People get pissy at me when I ask them to read an article that summarises a whole book. You go all out and ask me to read the entire works by one guy. Gee. Have you read the 200 pages of Liberalism? Let alone the 900 odd of Human Action? Both of which combined are shorter than das Kapital.

                      I hardly think, “read Marx” is an apt response to “What is your definition of capitalism”? You can’t even link to an excerpt? Das Kapital is in the public domain after all.

                    • McFlock

                      Oh come on – even a basic economics course gives the cliff notes. Or did they only teach Rand?

                    • rosy

                      For contemporary Marxist theory you could try David Harvey – http://davidharvey.org/ or there are youtube videos of his lectures.

                    • Rusty Shackleford

                      McFlock, but I wanted to know what you think the definition is.

                      Rosy, cheers. I will take a look. How did you get on with Rothbard?

                    • rosy

                      Where to start – As always there are things that are common across all philosophies that are dissatisfied with the human and social condition but his diatrabes against egalitarianism and environmentalism go totally against the grain for me. I believe humans can transcend inequality and the ‘survival of the fittest’, Rothbard does not. He seems to have spent his life looking for a philosophy and never finding one that suited his thoughts so basically said all a pox on all your houses. He sounds like a radical but in the end is deeply conservative (e.g. Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature).

                      The philosophical positions he has don’t make sense when taken to the extreme, like his views on parents and children’s rights – what’s with having the right to sell you kid, for goodness sake? And if everyone could renege in the responsibility for a child you’d end up having to have state power just to look after them! I think history shows there would not be enough charities/adoptive parents to go round – although I’m sure they’d make for cheap labour. These extremes would happen because there are no checks and balances in his beliefs except the law – which he conveniently omits to say this requires restrictions, taxes and organisation to make it function. If restrictions, taxes and organisation are required for law, then they are probably required to curb excesses in other fields of human endeavour – including financial services and property rights.

                      His anti-war sentiments are laudable, but making an artificial distinction between private and state wars is not. As far as his economic theory goes – he says himself that theory must be shown to work in the real world. I think there are enough examples around expect that if his anti-interventionist philosophies were implemented he’d find that the big government, big business connections he hates would resurface in no time at all. As to his abilities as an economist… I can’t comment.

                      In the end he’s a bit like Thatcher – there is no such thing as society, there are individuals and families and that is all (actually, he’s not even that fond of families, really).

                    • Rusty Shackleford

                      He really had no problem with parents selling their children? Where did he say that? I’m trying to fit that into a libertarian framework in my mind. Surrogate children sure. But a 9 year old? I’m not so sure? I guess if the kid wanted to go willingly, no problem. Coercion is bad, remember?

                      Just finished the first David Henry lecture. I had actually come across his work before, but something else stole my attention. I now have all the lectures on my phone in mp3 and Capital Volume I on my Kindle. Last day of school tomorrow, so will have 6 weeks to look into it whilst I’m back in NZ.

                    • rosy

                      The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard – 14. Children and Rights
                      “Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract.”

                      He talks about it as if you’re only going to give your child to a loving foster home, but hey why stop there? He also thinks a child should have the right to runaway without being coerced to stay. This makes no sense at all. Coercion is not bad – e.g. for a child who cannot make decisions on his/her own well-being. For instance getting a child to take medicine. Or to prevent them running away on a cold winter’s night. I wonder if Rothbard ever had kids.

                      Good luck with Harvey.But of course I realise that we come to these things from our own perspective. I think his lectures are much easier to take than his writing.

                    • McFlock

                      Rusty, I said that my definition roughly concurred with that of Marx (near enough for the purposes of a blog debate, anyway).

                      Frankly, I don’t believe you’ve never heard of the guy.

                  • mik e

                    Rusty If you are an economist I must be a brain surgeon. because I have studied economics for over 30 years and you haven,t come up with one fact that you can back up with research .My bet is you are a lower level National party stalwart who can only push their mantra by what i’ve read of your postings. Not one piece of evidence in other words you are just talking pshyco diatribe

                    • Rusty Shackleford

                      What have I ever said to make you believe I have any sympathies with National?

                    • mik e

                      The only thing Rusty has got in common with an economist is that he is very economical with the truth. you have been outed.Your economic mantra gives it away.

        • felix 4.1.2.2

          It’s like someone locked kiwiteen123 in a small room with nothing but Ayn Rand to read for six months.

          • Rusty Shackleford 4.1.2.2.1

            Ayn Rand!
            Somalia!

            Don’t you get bored of just shouting the same old shit like a trained parrot?

            Stalin!
            Mao!
            North Korea!
            It gets boring fuckn’ fast if you have half a brain.

            • The Voice of Reason 4.1.2.2.1.1

              “It gets boring fuckn’ fast if you have half a brain.”
               
              That certainly explains your hyperactive commenting, Rusty. Oh, I’m sorry, are you bored again already?

            • felix 4.1.2.2.1.2

              But Rusty, I haven’t seen you offer anything other than the generic Randian/Austrian textbook stuff.

              And I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here repeating ad infinitum the philosophies of Mao or Stalin.

              You’re a good advocate for Randian thought. I mean that, you argue the position well. It just gets boring to read the same things over and over, regardless of the context.

              • Rusty Shackleford

                I wasn’t saying that people here spout Mao or Stalin, though they probably do without realising it, I was saying it would be boring (and probably get me banned) if I shouted “North Korea” or “Pol Pot” with the alacrity and repetition that some here shout rightist epithets.

                • felix

                  And I was pointing out that those repetitive epithets are a response to your repetitive posting, and describe exactly what you write.

                  Your analogy on the other hand is entirely hypothetical as no-one seems to be mirroring your behaviour from a Maoist perspective that I’ve noticed.

                  If you see someone endlessly regurgitating Maoism (which I haven’t seen) and it bores you, then by all means call them a boring whatever. Why would I care?

                  Just don’t get precious about people treating your comments that way.

                • lprent

                  Nope I don’t tend to ban for repetitive slogans. I tend to add the words or phrases to my list of those that are commonly used out of context in comments. These are nuisance indicators because they tend to be included in junk debates. Then every comment with them in gets auto moderated and brought to the moderators attention before they release it. There are a selection from both right and left perspectives.

                  It is a more effective way of getting required behavior modification – which is to stop people writing loaded shorthand that usually degenerates into babble. it does tend to constrain the people who argue in slogans quite a lot. However it never seems to slow the debate because either people write what they mean without the phrases which is usually more intellibable or they wait to get released from moderation or they stop writing here.

                  Banning is for actual behavioral issues rather than something that can be fixed with code.

      • mik e 4.1.3

        I suppose you could dial 111 with a puppy or with a hoovercraft make a doctors appointment.Monopolies slow economic growth when left in private hands its better if their controlled by the people for the people ie sewage and water which are obvious natural monopolies the experiment with those having competition was a absolute failure .Fibre optic cable at this stage is another and if given telecons past record we are going to loose up to3%+ economic growth a year leaving it in telecons hands.

    • Rich 4.2

      it should be a state owned service that’s provided entirely through taxes.

      Yeah, but at what level. Does the little old lady who gets a call from her family a couple of times a month wind up subsidising the rich geek who does 100G a month of WoW and movies.

      You are right about (modern) telcos not innovating. They used to however – Bell Labs invented Unix and the UK Post Office built Colossus. (at that time Bell were an monopoly and the GPO was a centrally directed utility).

      • Colonial Viper 4.2.1

        It’s a road; a private individual who drives to work every day has to pay basically the same amount for the road as someone who usually walks and only drives when its raining.

        At least, that’s one way of looking at it, providing a common utility for ordinary people to use.

      • Carol 4.2.2

        And I don’t have any children but am happy for my taxes to pay for children’s schooling. There are other benefits I get from state run/subsidised services. That’s how a co-operative society works -pooling resources so it makes for a better society for everyone.

  5. Tom Gould 5

    Having read this post, and all the comments, and the sister post on Red Alert, and those comment, it’s obvious there is no news in any of this. So I checked with a few journo mates, and yep, there’s no news here. All is well in the land.

  6. Vicky32 6

    I take issue with the idea that landlines are going to go out of fashion soon.. SKYPE is out for me, I can afford only dial up, and that won’t change for the foreseeable future (it’s ok to talk about UFB, it’ll be wonderful for those who can afford it, but meaningless for those of who can’t). So, I am sticking with my landline – which brings me to another point – some people say polls are meaningless because they only call landlines, and the poor don’t have them. I have just explained why the poor are more likely to have landlines, not less, and I have been phoned for a political poll only once. Our block of streets contains only State Houses (so much for pepper potting!) and I am sure polling companies know that, and have areas like mine marked on their maps “do not call”…
    Regarding costs: on the same day that I first saw Orcon advertising home phone and broadband for ‘only’ $70.00 a month, I was reading il.giornale.it and saw a banner advert the same deal Orcon was offering for €18 a month, no, that’s not a misprint, €18! Even taking the exchange rate into account, it makes Orcon’s special, look sick.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1

      If we’d kept telecommunications a state owned monopoly I estimate that we’d already have FttN across most of the country, rolling out FttH in most CBDs and a number of suburban areas and that prices would still be down around the $40/month for telephone and broadband. But, instead, the stupid fucks in the 4th Labour government bought the neo-liberal line and deregulated and sold off Telecom. This resulted in the easily predicted slow down in investment in the telecommunications network from Telecom due to being already dominant with an adequate network in place, costs pushed up as competition entered the market and that forced prices up.

      The competition should probably be thankful that Telecom decided to be so greedy in the first decade or so pulling out massive dividends and putting Telecom in hock else Telecom would have been able to undercut them to the point where there would have been no way that they could compete as happened in the 19th century.

      • Rusty Shackleford 6.1.1

        Estimations based on what? And people accuse ME of making stuff up.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1

          Based on working in the sector. I figure we’re at least 5 years behind where we would be if we hadn’t privatised and there’s no way that ~$20 billion dollars would have been shipped off shore.

          • insider 6.1.1.1.1

            Draco

            This is all wishful thinking but I think more likely it would have been much more like the SOE power companies (many common drivers after all) – internally focussed, rules bound, engineer driven organisations politically beholden to the GPS driven whims of the current minister.

            So I suspect it would have been hugely overbuilt, monopolistic cost plus driven, capable in theory of doing lots but actually delivering very little in the way of innovation or customer focus because of a limited technology-driven view rather than customer service focused. In those organisations the most important customers are the ones in the Beehive, to the loss and cost of everyone else.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1.1

              Well, you suspect wrong then. You actually got better customer service when Telecom was government owned. Sure, you now get nice smiley people fronting to the customer but what happens in the back end leaves a lot to be desired and that is where true customer service lies. Back then if a fault came in it would be fixed ASAP now it’s more that people try to pass the buck and that there isn’t actually enough people to do the job.

              So I suspect it would have been hugely overbuilt…

              Read an article a few years ago about why India ended up owning all the transatlantic communications cables. It was a relatively simple explanation. The private sector got in and over built capacity, the firms that built it went into receivership or got sold off for pennies on the dollar because there was so much competition they couldn’t even charge cost.

              In NZ it went the other way as it’s impossible for competition to compete with a dominant monopoly especially when it’s a natural monopoly. So we had a capable network which we then sold and the new owners failed to invest because they didn’t need to resulting in lack of capacity and no one else saw any reason to invest.

              …delivering very little in the way of innovation or customer focus because of a limited technology-driven view rather than customer service focused.

              Telcos don’t innovate as I said up thread. Other companies do and then the telcos use those innovations and, yes, they happen to be tech-driven because this is reality and you can only do what the tech allows.

              In those organisations the most important customers are the ones in the Beehive, to the loss and cost of everyone else.

              Wrong again. Government never had a say in what Telecom was doing. They could ask why something hadn’t been done and maybe ask for something to be expedited but it was the managers that put in the plans, costings and then set about getting it done and all of them were technicians. Telecom was, throughout the 1980s, making a profit and putting in the latest tech (Most of the digital exchanges went in during the 1980s).

              I’m not joking when I say that selling Telecom has cost us ~$20 billion dollars (today’s $$$) because that’s how much profit has been pulled out of Telecom that otherwise would have been put in to modernising the network. The competition has added to that cost.

    • mik e 6.2

      In Dunedin there is a wireless co called Unifone they charge between $23 & $37 a month for unlimited broad thats faster than a landline.One down side you can only get it if you can see the receiver. there are probably other similar providers around the country.

    • MrSmith 6.3

      The way I see it you won’t get a chose Vicky32, Telecoms/Chorus will either run down the copper wire service or hike prices, maybe they will even sell it off. But one way or another if they have there fiber optic cable sitting in the ground outside your house telecom will be doing whatever they can to have you hooked up to that blood sucker.

  7. DJ 7

    I’d like it to be nationalised. I’m not sure if we could afford to do it though considering the problems we’re having with the earthquake and child abuse, at least not yet.

    I quite like Chris Trotter’s idea of reverse privatisation where the government buys a big share and puts investors off buying it, then the government moves in and takes it over.

  8. Rusty Shackleford 8

    “Telecom is the best example of why we should keep total ownership & control of our assets.”
    This may or may not imply that the writer advocates central planning the telecommunications industry. Certainly he advocates state control of at least a part of it.

    The idea of natural monopoly does not appear in the body of the article, but it does on the front page intro to the article. It’s the only reason I even bothered with the post.

    • MrSmith 8.1

      Rusty have you heard of china?. With all this talk about central planing, my guess is you hadn’t heard of them (China) this country that is about to become the next world super power, Why?. 
       
      Now don’t be afraid, in my opinion they are far saner than the current one, but I will save that for another post, goodnight.

      • Rusty Shackleford 8.1.1

        China didn’t begin to grow until they allowed markets to provide goods and services.

        They are still doing lots of crazy shit. eg. building cities that no one lives in. But that is to keep the illusion of double digit GDP growth. They can’t keep that up forever. The market always liquidates malinvestment.

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1

          China didn’t begin to grow until they allowed markets to provide goods and services.

          ?

          China has always had markets providing goods and services.

        • mik e 8.1.1.2

          YEAH were building motorways that no one will be able to drive on because petroleum products will be to dear. yeah was that in 5,000 bc Rusty when China started this.They have grown more rapidly since freeing up markets is true but they also have planned their economy to grow at a more rapid rate than ours using the best of both worlds.theirs way more malinvestment in the old wild west. you will find out if the tea party have their way. Modern prosperity comes from the union movement of sharing wealth around with out this big corporations would have no customers.I call it the ying and yang of capitalism the dries verse the wets .Those economies that don,t get the balance right falter

    • mik e 8.2

      Look at Singapore Rusty 66% govt ownership of all business Averaging around 7% growth per annum New Zealand under Bill English under 1% in five years need I say any more

      • Rusty Shackleford 8.2.1

        I thought Key’s whole deal was that he was trying to emulate Singapore?

        • Colonial Viper 8.2.1.1

          How can he when he doesn’t understand anything which might Singapore great?

          Like a massively competent and highly paid public sector? A willingness to give the free market the fingers, if it is in the national interest? The ability to control their fx rate to suit their economic objectives? And to spend directly into economy, picking winners and picking industries.

        • mik e 8.2.1.2

          The closest he,s got to the Singapore model is Don Brashs ex wife.

  9. infused 9

    yawn… been using voip for the last 3yrs. Haven’t had a home phone line in about 4 years…

  10. felix 10

    Aaaaand “Rusty” destroys yet another thread.

    Gee I wonder why.

    • Rusty Shackleford 10.1

      What? You mean I destroyed the tranquil circle jerk. We better keep the debate like this;

      Poster 1: National are dicks!
      Poster 2: Yea, right? Labour totally rule!
      P1: If only Labour were in power everything would be OK. Puppy dogs and hover crafts for everyone. It’s a basic human right you know?
      P2: I know!
      Poster 3: No way! National totally rules!
      P1 & P2: STFU RWNJ.

      • felix 10.1.1

        Or you could, um, debate the post.

        • McFlock 10.1.1.1

          Argh shite – you’re right. I fell for it again.
             
             
          I have a major weakness when it comes to that traffic accident of political philosophy.

      • mik e 10.1.2

        Rusty you’ve obviously being listening to Paul Henry when you should have been at the David Henry lectures.

  11. ropata 11

    Roger Awards 2010:
    Telecom has always been a finalist in the Roger Award, and it has won it three times, as it exemplifies all the worst characteristics of a foreign‐owned company operating in New Zealand, consistently scoring Brownlee points (the opposite of Brownie points) for undue influence over Government (preventing regulation, loop unbundling and true competition), profit gouging, and poor treatment of workers and customers. True to form it was once again a finalist for the 2010 Award, mainly due to its egregious overcharging and shortservicing of hundreds of thousands of customers of its broadband and mobile services during 2010.

  12. tc 12

    Wonder how much RS get’s paid to sit around all day attempting to derail discussions on ths site. I notice he’s not alone as they appear to have sprouted in the election year….funny that.

  13. mik e 13

    National MPs with not enough to do I suspect.

  14. tc 14

    Mmmm then prepare for a lot more of it with all the deadwood in the govt with nothing constructive to do aside from follow the leader and the pre determined script lines like 9 years of economic mismanagement etc…..mice work if you can get it.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago