The end of Kiwishare

18 comments on “The end of Kiwishare ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   20 June 2011 at 9:21 am

   “or cancel free local calling entirely.”
    
   As someone who rarely uses a phone, this would suit me more as the currently ridiculous fixed line rental would drop in accordance with this. It would become user-pays.
   • millsy 1.1

     20 June 2011 at 9:40 am

     There is nothing to stop telcos from offering such a plan to consumers.

     The KiwiShare/TSO is to ensure a minimum of service, without which thanks to profits and dividends being sucked out of the business:

     1) Would leave large parts of rural areas without a landline phone service, and having to make do with and expensive and unreliable cellphone – cellphone coverage in rural areas

     2) Would price a phone services out of the reach of a lot of people. As of now you need a decent credit rating to be able to have the phone connected. I know of people who were refused a phone connection thanks to failing a credit check.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1

       20 June 2011 at 1:45 pm

       There is nothing to stop telcos from offering such a plan to consumers.

       Telecom used to. I’m assuming they dropped it when they realised that they weren’t getting as much income. What’s more likely to happen is that they’ll keep the “line charge” the same as it is now and put call charges on top.

       1.) Yep, rural would have lots fixed phone lines a long time ago
       2.) Doesn’t matter how much it costs, a failed credit check will still leave you without a phone.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1

         20 June 2011 at 3:09 pm

         Gah, is supposed to read:

         1.) Yep, rural would have lost fixed phone lines a long time ago
   • bbfloyd 1.2

     20 June 2011 at 11:28 am

     that didn’t happen in australia.(cheaper line rental), so i wouldn’t assume it will happen here.

     what has happened in oz since opening up to competition is discounts on call rates rather than reductions of monthly line rental.

     it’s about profits remember. with the small market here, competition isn’t strong enough to give consumers enough bargaining power to force price changes. that requires govt involvement in nz.
2. queenstfarmer 2

   20 June 2011 at 9:29 am

   Free calling was already removed from the Kiwi Share obligations, by the previous Labour Govt.

   But in any case, how does Telecom just “cast off” its obligations under a deed (“It could be gone by lunchtime if a majority of shareholders approve”)?
   • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1

     20 June 2011 at 11:08 am

     Au contraire mon frere.
     The local free calling is still there.

     Principle 1 – A local free-calling option for local residential telephone
     service will be maintained for all Telecom residential customers.
     Telecom may, however, offer other optional packages (including on a
     3
     geographical or customer segment basis and which include call and
     other charges) to those who wish to take them as an alternative.

     http://www.telecom.co.nz/binarys/kiwi_share_deed_final.pdf.

     So hobby farmer is a hobby telecoms expert as well
     • queenstfarmer 2.1.1

       20 June 2011 at 11:14 am

       Yes, but not in the Kiwi Share Obligation. Your link is the TSO Deed, which replaced the KSO to that effect. Computerworld explained this last week:

       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.

       http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/end-of-free-local-calling
       • bbfloyd 2.1.1.1

         20 June 2011 at 11:31 am

         bullshit semantics will only get you past the dodos that would swallow any old shit from the nats. this isn’t one of those sites.
         • queenstfarmer 2.1.1.1.1

           20 June 2011 at 11:45 am

           It’s not “semantics”. It’s a key mistake in the premise of the article. It’s the same mistake as was made in a guest post last week. Now, apparently it’s a hanging offence here to “suggest” that an obvious factual error be corrected, which is duly noted. But this does perhaps show how incorrect information gets perpetuated.
           • The Voice of Reason 2.1.1.1.1.1

             20 June 2011 at 11:56 am

             Big whoops. You win the prize for pedant of the week, farmer. Well done. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.2

       20 June 2011 at 11:17 am

       So hobby farmer is a hobby telecoms expert as well

       This guy is whatever he is told to be, depending on the briefings he receives from his handlers on a given day.
   • Jum 2.2

     20 June 2011 at 3:19 pm

     Queenstfarmer

     Liar.
3. Bunji 3

   20 June 2011 at 10:36 am

   Clare Curran’s got pretty frustrated at Steven Joyce’s ways and has written this indictment of them.

   The abuse of process by this government is shocking.
4. ghostwhowalksnz 4

   20 June 2011 at 11:00 am

   I guess we will see Telecoms annual report having a big rise in ‘donations’ like last election year when they went from about $50k to $1M.
   Naturally telecom doesnt show up in any party donation list as there are ways around that
5. mikesh 5

   20 June 2011 at 1:26 pm

   “A deed can be much more easily removed than a law. The minister responsible would have no need to comment, let alone do anything, if the new (privately owned) company wants it removed. It could be gone by lunchtime if a majority of shareholders approve – and those shareholders would have a monetary incentive for that to be so.”

   I would think that a company or its shareholders would have no say in the matter. Only the government could waive the provisions of a deed.
6. hellonearthis 6

   20 June 2011 at 2:16 pm

   Didn’t we have this last week, what’s changed since then?

   [lprent: This is a multi-author site. It is not uncommon for different authors to have different opinions and each put up posts.

   Authors also wind up thinking about it more and get to write several posts as they do think about it.

   New facts and opinions emerge and authors write posts on those.

   But most important of all – you should read this and this. ]

Links to post

1. The end of Kiwishare | Ben for Shore: posted on 20 June 2011 at 10:41 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS