Red Alert

Archive for the ‘comms & IT’ Category

A new public broadcaster

Posted by Clare Curran on November 1st, 2011

1. There is no public television broadcaster in NZ. Our public broadcasting environment is depleted. Labour believes a strong, independent, free public media service  NOT driven by commercial interests is essential to an informed democracy.

2. A Labour Government will immediately start a debate to establish a new non-commercial public broadcaster. It will include the functions of Radio NZ and TVNZ7. It will consider other functions. So to be clear we will keep TVNZ7. Radio NZ will retain its autonomy. We will strengthen them and may add services. We will ensure the governance of the new broadcaster is more arms length from government.

3. It will exist in the digital environment. Therefore it spans the traditional broadcasting telco industry and internet realms. This is called convergence. Labour has already signalled a converged regulatory environment for broadcasting and telco sectors.

4. A public and industry (broadcasting and telco sectors) debate will take place on the final shape and funding mechanisms. There are a range of options to be canvassed. The debate is important because it will be a New Zealand broadcaster that belongs to all of us and is about us. The lack of a public broadcaster has been debated. The shape of a future one has not. That debate has been sorely missing.

4. We don’t anticipate any extra cost to the taxpayer. We will asking the sectors how they think it should be funded. The outcome could be a mix of options. We are not prejudging or anticipating the outcome of this. The debate hasn’t been had. Many stakeholders are keen to have it.

5. The debate will be concluded within a year and it is anticipated that decisions will be made and any regulatory and other changes underway.

This is a significant policy. It marks an important change towards a contemporary Kiwi approach to protecting and promoting our culture in the 21st Century. It’s a commitment not made lightly and it’s a commitment we will see through.

I hope you agree.


Labour will establish a new, modern public broadcaster

Posted by Clare Curran on November 1st, 2011

Here’s the policy link.

It new, it’s modern. It’s not a we might do it, We will do it. We’ll have a debate first. Then we’ll decide the funding mechanism and the new shape. The policy sets out how we’ll do it.

Will blog further about it soon.


Thinking outside the square #3

Posted by Clare Curran on October 17th, 2011

If New Zealand’s economic future requires a focus on a digital economy, what are the barriers to that taking off?

No doubt there are a few. One of them is who gets access access to technology.

How many people in New  Zealand currently don’t have a computer in their homes? Perhaps more importantly, how many of these people have  pre-school or school-aged children?

And how many of the schools that they go to have good connectivity and are likely to be connected to the ultrafast broadband network in the foreseeable future?

Take a child of 5 starting school on 25 October. No computer at home. Limited connectivity at the school. Could be in South Auckland. Could be Palmerston North. Could be Balclutha.

One or two computers per classroom. In 5 years time, aged 10, her school has only just been connected to the ultrafast broadband network.

Because the school has to look for most of the money within its existing operations budget, it’s still grappling with the increased costs to upgrade wiring, hardware and software. There’s still only a few PCs in each classroom.

Her parents have now bought a computer at home but still can’t afford to connect.

Compare that to the 5 year old on the North Shore who’s parents have iPads, iPhones and iMacs. They use a wireless connection at home. Their suburb was a priority  to get connected to Ultra Fast Broadband (UFB). As was their daughter’s school, which was in the first wave of connectivity. All the children have devices at school. Their child regularly uses the internet for her homework.

This is the digital divide. It’s already here. It must not get bigger. Labour intends to close it.


Thinking outside the square #2

Posted by Clare Curran on October 16th, 2011

There’s a fundamental shift in communications and media that’s blurring what used to be clear distinctions between telecommunications, broadcasting and the internet.

The digital environment is seeing computing and other information technologies, media content, and communication networks merging and transforming. Fast. It’s called convergence.

Steve Jobs turned a company that made computers (Apple Macs) into one that made music devices (iPods) iphones and iPads.

Google started off as a computer search engine. It developed gmail, a web browser (Chrome), then it moved into the smartphone business with its android operating system. As an agregator of news content across all platforms it is now starting to compete with existing news organisations and now it has entered the smart TV market with its Google  interactive TV product.

Newspapers now deliver their breaking news via websites and social media, often using video clips.

TVs are increasingly turning to the internet to deliver content as well as the traditional means. You can now send emails, access the internet and watch news and TV and even movies on your phone.

What used to be our state public television broadcaster TVNZ has signalled it wants to enter the pay TV market which is currently dominated by one player Sky. It already provides content through Sky. There’s no rules and there is an ongoing debate about the implications of deals done with networks to carry content over the Ultra Fast Broadband network.

As the technologies converge, a number of issues arise for policy makers around the networks that will be needed to carry both content produced inside New Zealand and which comes from outside the country.

Steven Joyce doesn’t seem to believe convergence is occuring

Labour does.

Australia is undertaking a landmark review of Australian media and communications regulation.

Canada has just released a regulatory framework for media ownership to address unfair competition.

Malaysia, the EU, the UK, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, South Africa… have all gone down this path.

Labour will release its ICT policy on Monday.

Our broadcasting policy will follow soon.


Thinking outside the square

Posted by Clare Curran on October 15th, 2011

Some important questions to ponder:

  • Should technology be a priority industry for growth?
  • Could New Zealand become a world leader in the use of digital technology, to transform New Zealand economically and socially?
  • Is a strong and vibrant ICT sector a platform to improve all areas of NZ’s economy and society.
  • Just how important is the digital environment as core infrastructure for the New Zealand of the future?

If it is, what do we need to do to get there

Labour will release its ICT policy on Monday.

I’ve always thought Information Communications Technology (ICT) was a bit of a cumbersome name. It’s time we called our policy something sexy


A game changer

Posted by Clare Curran on October 6th, 2011

I have just heard that Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple has died.

It’s terribly sad. For his loved ones, his colleagues at Apple. His legacy is enormous for our world. He took a software company and transformed it into a telephone. He has been in the vanguard of technology transformation.

He’s changed the software industry (iMac) the music industry (iTunes) the telco industry (iPhone and iPod) and he brought it all together with the iPad.

He was controversial. But he changed our world.

Here’s a piece that was written about him recently when he resigned suddenly as Apple CEO.


If we sign ACTA what are we agreeing to?

Posted by Clare Curran on September 29th, 2011

This Saturday in Tokyo, according to reports, New Zealand will sign a controversial trade agreement, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (otherwise known as ACTA) targeting counterfeiters and copyright infringers.

The big questions are what are we signing up to? Will it mean we have to change our laws? And why hasn’t government informed the community of its contents and that we were going to sign it until 2 days before it happens?

A media release issued this afternoon by the government says this:

Cabinet has formally approved New Zealand’s signature of ACTA.  As is normal practice with international treaties, a separate decision to ratify ACTA will be made subsequently, the Minister said.  This would require the Government to make some minor amendments to the Copyright Act 1994 and the Trade Marks Act 2002 and would be subject to the usual ratification process, including public consultation and scrutiny by Parliament.

What minor amendments? What will change?

I have written many posts about ACTA. Here and here. Calling for transparency. That did seem to happen for a while. But now it appears we are moving to sign it. Where has been the public discussion on where the agreement is at?

Will signing ACTA result in New Zealand being required to include a disconnection from the internet clause in our copyright laws? This is despite repeated denials from Commerce Minister Simon Power. And make it extremely difficult to remove. And what else will it require?

Will ACTA will foreclose future legislative improvements in response to changes in technology or policy. Read this post and worry.

One report this week  has said:

Representatives of the U.S., Japan, Australia, Canada, the E.U., South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and Switzerland will be at the signing ceremony for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), according to Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Countries that have “completed relevant domestic processes” will sign ACTA, the ministry said in a press release. The agreement, which would create international standards for protecting intellectual property, will be open for signature until May 1, 2013, the ministry said.

Public Knowledge, a digital rights group, said the latest version of ACTA contains more protections for consumers than previous versions. Still, the group urged U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration to “make it clear” that ACTA does not change U.S. law, including provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protecting ISPs and websites from copyright enforcement.

I’ve still got significant concerns.

  • Agreements negotiated in secret don’t make for good law or public policy
  • ACTA contravenes a number of fundamental rights
  • The major parties in ACTA (US and Europe) still don’t agree about whether their laws might need to change, even though provisions in it are incompatible with existing laws

I’d like to hear from our Trade Minister on these issues. And from our Commerce Minister on the domestic implications for Kiwis and our own intellectual property. In the meantime,  until we know what the implications are NZ shouldn’t sign up to it.


This seems serious

Posted by Clare Curran on September 26th, 2011

Have just seen via Computerworld that 14 Government websites will be offline til Wednesday as the result of a failed system upgrade over the weekend. Upgrades aren’t always successful but surely there should have been a contingency plan in place to roll them back.

Seems like an IT fail. Perhaps Mr Joyce would care to explain? Or Nathan Guy? Or someone else?

The websites are:

business.govt
Companies Office
Ministry of Consumer Affairs
Financial Service Providers Register (FSPR)
G2B
Government Procurement Solutions
Insolvency and Trustee Service
Intellectual Property Office (IPONZ)
Motor Vehicle Traders Register
New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals
Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR)
Radio Spectrum Management
Societies and Trusts
VolunteerNet
Business Data

The outage notice on the MED website says this:

Outage notice

We apologise unreservedly for any inconvenience experienced as a result of this outage. Please read on for further information about the impact of this outage.

The Ministry of Economic Development is working to resolve an outage affecting a number of its websites.

The outage occurred during preparation work on Saturday evening to upgrade the servers hosting these websites. The websites will be unavailable until at least midday 12:00PM NZST Wednesday 28 September.

Tags:
Filed under: comms & IT

A nation of makers #5

Posted by Clare Curran on September 25th, 2011

Every country worth its salt should have some kind of solid manufacturing base. It should also have an economic development policy that decides which industries to invest in for its future.

NZ could be a nation of makers. Our economic future could be geared towards using the digital environment as the platform to grow a new generation of innovators, who use their skills inside New Zealand to build a strong and ground-breaking industry that provides skilled jobs and technological advances.

Imagine what that could mean if we seriously meant it. Here’s what we need to be doing more of. Because look what can happen.

Two examples. The first was written up last week in the DomPost:

Wellington open source software firm Catalyst IT has won a seven-figure contract to develop the news website and supporting systems for the South China Morning Post.

The English-language newspaper is based in Hong Kong and has more than 100,000 subscribers.

Catalyst director Mike O’Connor said South China Morning Post (SCMP) had invited it to bid for the tender to rebuild its news portal after discovering Catalyst had expertise in the open source content management system called Drupal. Catalyst also uses Drupal to support Fairfax’s Stuff website, and the Otago Daily Times and Scoop websites.

The SCMP deal was worth “seven figures over a number of years”, O’Connor said, and included management of its reader subscription service, site management and hosting services.

The 130-person firm would look to set up an office in Hong Kong in the next few years to support SCMP and other clients there, he said.

Catalyst co-director Don Christie said the company was also finding early success with its joint venture, Totara, which launched in April and distributes and supports learning management software for corporates based on the popular open source elearning software Moodle.

Totara – owned by Catalyst, Wellington firm Kineo Pacific (formerly the Flexible Learning Network), and British firm Kineo – customers have included Nike, British supermarket giant Tesco, BP and New Zealand’s Inland Revenue Department and Social Development Ministry, which use the software to train staff.

Christie said Catalyst had spent about $3 million over two years helping to develop Totara and in setting up Wellington broadband monitoring start-up TrueNet, in which it holds a majority shareholding.

During the week I met with a small Dunedin-based export company Perreaux Industries, which is a New Zealand based manufacturer of state-of-the-art hi fi audio amplifiers, preamplifiers, CD players, home theater systems and other hi fi audio equipment. They have a niche market overseas, they describe their market specialities as the sophisticated software circuitry and rock-solid construction. They use a Christchurch company to construct the circuit boards using high tech robotics.

The interesting thing is that they’ve been around since 1974. Whatever they’re doing works.

They operate out of a backstreet warehouse office space which is hard to find, in Mosgiel, Dunedin. Their market is overseas. They are part of our future. And we need to value them and their ilk more.

Hi tech, software, weightless exports. Part of our future. A nation of makers. A digital nation. Could we be?


A matter of privilege

Posted by Clare Curran on September 5th, 2011

At the beginning of August I laid a complaint with the Speaker Lockwood Smith asking him to refer Steven Joyce to the parliamentary Privileges Committee for having deliberately misled (ie lied to) parliament in answering a written question more than two years ago.

The complaint was that he had deliberately misled the House. It’s a very serious matter. I take it seriously. I hope all MPs and Ministers do. You can lose your Ministerial portfolio and even your job for doing so.

The Speaker has since replied to me saying that he has determined that no question of privilege is involved.

He doesn’t have to give reasons.

For an understanding of why I laid the complaint and the seriousness of the issue read here and here. And here.

The letter that Joyce lied about was important because it implied the government held opinions on the  structural separation of Telecom and that they were being communicated to Telecom well before the tender process had begun on the ultrafast broadband project.

Well before Telecom had been named as being the successful bidder for the broadband project. Well before Telecom had announced it would structurally separate if it won the UFB; and well before pre-emptive legislation was brought before parliament on that issue (before the contract was announced).

Sound weird? And suspicious? Well yes it is.

This is a very big government project. A large amount of taxpayers money is involved. Steven Joyce has not been straight with the public throughout the process.

He has a track record of negotiating government contracts in great secrecy and getting the outcomes he wants with little or no transparency for the taxpayers. He fought for two years to keep that letter from the public arena once the DomPost discovered it existed.

I can’t challenge the Speaker’s decision. My concern is that if it’s okay to mislead (lie to) parliament about an issue this important, what else is it okay for this government to lie about? And get away with?

I have lodged a Notice of Motion  with the Clerk of the House to refer the issue to the Privileges Committee which I will attempt to move next Tuesday in the House.


We’ve come a long way. Digital copyright for the 21st century

Posted by Clare Curran on August 31st, 2011

Tomorrow is the start date for the controversial new copyright law which provides owners of copyrighted works such as movies, TV shows and music a quicker and easier way to penalise people infringing their copyright via online file sharing

Labour voted for that law. Because at the time we thought it was the best thing to do. We’ve learnt from the experiences and we have moved on.

Today Labour announces copyright policy which significantly shifts our position.

If elected, we will introduce a Bill within 90 days to remove the termination clauses from the Copyright Act. Those clauses, which give the District Court the ability to impose account suspension as a remedy for infringing file sharing – can’t work in the long term.

Right now they are inactive in the law and can only become active if the Minister decides to make them so. We negotiated this compromise position with the government. And this was our reason for supporting the Bill. The Bill was better for this compromise. Without it people would be risking account suspension from tomorrow. But we are totally committed to repealing this aspect of the legislation if we win election.

Labour will also undertake a review of the Copyright Act, with the aim of introducing a new Copyright Bill within 18 months that updates and extends the framework for digital copyright in New Zealand.

The first phase of the review will be to commission an independent analysis of the problems with the status quo from an eminent expert, such as the review Professor Hargreaves has recently conducted for the UK Prime Minister, and then consultation on a draft Bill before it is introduced.

New Zealand’s Copyright Act has been half-heartedly adapted for the Internet age.  Instead of more piece-meal reforms, we need to transform our digital intellectual property framework, to bring it into the 21st century and to promote innovation and growth in our economy

Labour’s approach to copyright will promote our creative industries and put citizens interests at the centre of the policy debate.

We will have more to say about this in the launch of our ICT and innovation policies.

This is a debate is about shifting power, access to information, outdated business models and the immense potential of the Internet to change our world. Most politicians in our parliament don’t get that. Some are starting to.  Nobody really knows what to do about it yet. But Labour is committed to having a go. The legality of the Irish three strikes system is currently being investigated after 300  users were wrongfully being sent a “first strike” letter (due to a ’software failure’) accusing them of sharing music.

The last Labour Government tried to address the growing problem of Internet piracy by requiring Internet service providers to police illegal downloading and to have a policy for terminating the accounts of repeat offenders.

We acknowledge the commitment of that Labour Government to ensuring that the work of New Zealand artists was valued, allowing them to maintain control over their own works. This is a fundamental principle.

But the digital environment has changed our world.  The old business model – where big companies had control over the distribution of creative works – doesn’t apply anymore.  Governments have to recognise that their citizens are hungry for information and creative material via the Internet.

We’ve learned from our experience in originally passing Section 92A. Labour no longer believes that termination is appropriate as a remedy for infringing filesharing. Many parliaments around the world are grappling with these issues right now and none have got it right yet.  The solutions are bigger than a re-write of one section of the current Copyright Act.

What we are seeing is a digital revolution and it is our responsibility to ensure there is a balanced environment for creators and consumers in our country.  New Zealand’s legal and regulatory framework needs to enable creative expression and the industries that rely on it, not just penalise people for accessing information.

We believe in this country becoming a nation of makers. We must invest in our own economy. Invest in content. Invest in innovation and decide how we want to look in 5 or 10 years time.

Labour will properly address the issues of copyright in the digital age – and we’ll involve New Zealanders in that discussion.


Is this true?

Posted by Clare Curran on August 15th, 2011

The process of awarding the ultrafast broadband contract to Telecom has been shrouded in secrecy and dubious process from day one.

I think there’s pretty general agreement about that. The problem has been working out what actually went on.

A letter recently came to light between Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds and Communications Minister Steven Joyce which indicated pretty strongly that the structural separation of Telecom was being discussed way back two years ago before the contract tenders had been announced.

If so, then it would appear that a plan was put in place and an outcome determined before the tenders were put to the public.

If so, that makes a complete mockery of the tender process and the other tendering parties who would be right to feel very aggrieved.

I’ve been told (by a very strong source) that around that time (2009), the Ministry of Economic Development head in charge of broadband Bruce Parkes, used emissaries to go and talk to the Telecom boss and verbally explain that if Telecom agreed to voluntarily separate, there would be “regulatory relief” (and by implication the ultrafast broadband contract would follow).

One of those emissaries has said that when speaking to Reynolds, he/she was told “you’re not the only one they’ve sent to tell us that”.

I’ve also been told, from within Telecom, that the letter written by Reynolds back to Joyce was deliberate, to put it on the record so to speak.

This smells.

I have a request before the Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith referring Steven Joyce to the privileges committee for denying any letters existed on this issue. The letter I’ve referred to above clearly did exist. He has fought to keep it from the public eye since Octover 2009.

I’m waiting for the Speaker’s response.


Morality tale #2

Posted by Clare Curran on August 14th, 2011

Social order, corporate dominance vs free speech and the taming of the internet. How important is this?

Can and should governments be able to shut down social media and disable citizens access to the internet during times of social unrest? And if they can do that, what else can they do? Have a read of this:

One of the anti-riot measures recently suggested by British PM David Cameron is to prevent rioters from using Twitter and other social networking websites. Such a tactic, which was slammed as a trick resorted to only by authoritarian governments in the past, has had a great impact on world media.

The bold measure indicates that Britain is at its wit’s end on how to stop the country’s worst riots in decades.

Cameron’s suggestion to block social networking websites smashes basic concepts of freedom of speech in the West, which always takes the moral high ground in criticizing the reluctant development of Internet freedom in developing countries.

The violence has brought a comprehensive and diverse influence on the whole of the West. Created by globalization and the development of the Internet, the headache of governance suffered by developing countries has now spread to their developed peers.

Democracy and freedom of speech should have their pragmatic connotations and denotations. The Chinese edition website of the Financial Times carried an article on Friday titled “What is the bottom line of freedom of speech?” Fanned by the rapid development of the Internet, the requirement for freedom of speech is trespassing the boundaries of the current political system in the West, it warned.

I wrote a post in January about this after the riots in Egypt when the government attempted to shut down the internet. Back then it seemed unthinkable that a western democracy would contemplate such a thing. But in the UK that’s what’s now being discussed.

There is a much wider context to this debate. It’s called net neutrality. And yes, it’s about power and vested interests. So watch out.

Net neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. But all that could change.

I believe any government should be very very careful before it rushes out in the heat of the moment promising to shut down communication channel in order to preserve social order.  Doing that affects all of us. And some fundamental principles upon which our society and our political system is built.


Explaining Netflix to Simon Power

Posted by Clare Curran on August 10th, 2011

Commerce Minister Simon Power drove through the Copyright Bill a few months ago. It gets enacted on 1 September, but as of tomorrow illegal filesharing will count towards penalties. Labour supported it in order to keep the termination clause inactive.

We will be releasing new copyright policy soon.

Today in the House Simon was asked by Gareth Hughes from the Greens and myself what he was doing to promote alternate business models which meant people could download material legally without being pinged by the new copyright law.

Nothing was the answer. Then he was asked about Netflix. What? said Simon. Never heard of it.

Well, he should have, He’s the Minister for goodness sake. He’s clearly not interested in the issues and unconcerned at the consternation by thousands of people out there who are worried they, their children or their organisations (schools, libraries, universities) will become criminals for seeking out online material that just isn’t available legally.

So here’s some info for Simon on Netflix. It’s a video and game streaming service delivered online. It’s got more than 23 million subscribers in the US and Canada.

 It’s not available here. But it’s overtaken Bit Torrent in the US for downloads. Bit Torrent is one of the major sites where you go to get content and download it for free (and illegally).

At Netflix you pay. Not much, but you pay (A streaming-only, all-you-can-watch monthly Netflix subscription costs just US$9). And it’s doing really well. It’s a new business model and its taking off. Just the sort of thing we need in NZ.

Why can’t we? Well one reason would be the ignorance and disinterest of this government in how technology is changing the way people do things.

If we were in government we’d be pushing hard to make NZ an attractive place for a business like Netflix. Giving people a real alternative to downloading films and other content illegally for free. Now’s the time to be doing it. But Simon Power didn’t even know it existed.

So much for a forward thinking switched-on government.

Gareth asked a bunch of questions about what the government had done to prepare people for the new copyright law. Nothign much was the gist of the answers. Simon Power #fail

InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) has launched a new website 3strikes.net.nz to help people and organisations get ready for the new copyright law


The trolls under the bridge

Posted by Clare Curran on August 9th, 2011

One of the childhood stories that sticks in my mind is that of the Billy Goats Gruff. It’s a Norwegian fairytale and it tells the story of three goats who try to get over a bridge inhabited by a nasty troll underneath. They work together and manage to get to the other side safely. The troll is vanquished.

Time to use that strategy. The trolls who inhabit this site are on notice.

You have been tolerated for long enough. Your tactics are increasingly obvious. Real debate is encouraged on Red Alert, but not trolling.

You will be banned without notice.

I was going to put this post up a few days ago. Instead I ran a poll. As a litmus test. The results are pretty clear. Of the people who comment, most are put off by the tone of many commenters.

In the last couple of weeks the intensity of trolling by anonymous commenters on Red Alert has increased.

Genuine comments will be posted, no matter what their angle. Moderating policy will be followed.

If you are anonymous, breach the moderating policy and provide a false email address which can’t be verified, you will be banned. You can email one of the moderators if you want to contest the decision. But you must provide your identity to us which will be kept confidential.

If you are a regular commenter and breach the moderating policy you will get a warning. If you are banned you can email one of us to put your case. It will be heard.

That’s fair. Because this blog is for everyone, it’s not a playground for nasty trolls.


Joyce caught red handed

Posted by Clare Curran on August 2nd, 2011

Steven Joyce has been caught red handed and is now attempting to worm his way out of reference to privileges committee.

I hope Speaker of the House, Lockwood Smith, who is a straight shooter, can see though Joyce’s ploy.

Yesterday I laid a complaint with Lockwood over whether Steven Joyce deliberately misled Parliament by not revealing the existence of a crucial letter from Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds on the ultrafast broadband project. The letter made reference to the possible structural separation of Telecom. He denied seeing any correspondence on the issue.

This morning, two years after that letter was sent and 21 months after he responded in the negative to a written question by me, he issued a corrected reply.

What a coincidence that his corrected response comes just a day after I laid the complaint with the Speaker.

I find it breath-taking that Steven Joyce can show such cynical disregard for accountability and transparency for Parliamentary procedure. He is treating the entire process with contempt. Whether it’s the Labour Opposition’s right to receive a truthful answer to a question, or the parliamentary process to take its course once a complaint has been laid.

For these reasons I am releasing both my letter to the Speaker and Steven Joyce’s corrected answer (see below).

I hope the Speaker holds Steven Joyce to account for his deliberate obfuscation.

Subject: 15840 (2009) Published – Communications and Information Technology – Corrected Reply

Question: What correspondence, if any, has he received or sent, listed by correspondent and date, about possible structural separation of Telecom?

Portfolio: Communications and Information Technology
Minister: Hon Steven Joyce
Date Lodged:23/10/2009

Answer Text: I have not sent any correspondence about the possible structural separation of Telecom. I have received one letter from Telecom dated 6 August 2009 where Telecom indicated they understood the Government had a preference for Telecom to structurally separate. Officials advised Telecom at the time that this was not the case.

Date Received:02/08/2011

Here’s his original response to the same question:

15840 (2009). Clare Curran to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (23 Oct 2009): What correspondence, if any, has he recieved or sent, listed by correspondent and date, about possible structural separation of Telecom

Hon Steven Joyce (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) replied: I have not received or sent any correspondence about possible structural separation of Telecom


Would we ever be brave enough?

Posted by Clare Curran on August 1st, 2011

Last year Labour embarked on the first attempt by a (NZ) political party to develop an open policy. OpenLabourNZ began the process of developing Labour’s policy on open and transparent government. It was an experiment, but it signaled a change in approach.

This is a step further. I believe it’s exciting and heralds a new way forward to bring people and politics closer together.

Icelanders on Friday delivered what may set the template for other governments: a crowdsourced constitution.

A group of 25 citizens presented a draft of the constitution to Iceland’s parliament. The group, which is made up of ordinary residents, compiled the document online with the help of hundreds of others. The constitution council posted the first draft in April on its website and then let citizens comment via a Facebook Page. The council members are also active on Twitter, post videos of themselves on YouTube and put pictures on Flickr.

Iceland’s original constitution was created in 1944 when the country gained independence from Denmark. The country’s economic collapse in 2008 prompted calls for a rewrite with checks and balances to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis. The draft was due before the end of July. It may be put to a referendum without the input of parliament.

Iceland may be ahead of the curve on using social media to inform its new government, but it is not alone: Earlier this month, volunteers at a series of hackathons at Stanford University created a site where Egyptians could discuss their proposed constitution.

Hat-tip @Teh_Aimee on Twitter


Moderation

Posted by Clare Curran on July 28th, 2011

I thought it might be time to have a chat about our moderation policy on Red Alert.

It’s been a while since we told you all what it is, and it’s important that we remember that new people view Red Alert all the time; there are new commenters. And some of the existing ones can forget.

I thought it might also be useful to say a few words to anyone who has transgressed the policy and found themself  “in moderation” (where their comments get held up until they have been vetted and approved. Or worse, have been banned.

The Red Alert moderators (myself, Trevor, Grant and Chris) will review your status if you ask us to.

Here’s the moderation policy:

  1. Keep it relevant to the post.
  2. Keep it clean. Don’t use offensive language. We’re tolerant, but we use the test of wanting to have intermediate age school kids using this site for research.
  3. Don’t make it personal. Stick to the issues rather than the person. By all means criticise what people have said or done, but do it in a way that is not personal. Leave families out of it. And we moderate attacks on National and ACT MPs on the same basis as Labour.
  4. Don’t tell lies

If you’re commenting for the first time, your comment will go into moderation, and is generally approved. After that your comments should automatically appear.

But if you step outside the guidelines, you’ll be placed “in moderation” which means your comments will sit in a box and be looked at by one of us before being approved.

(more…)


Tweet of the Week

Posted by Clare Curran on July 24th, 2011

Moana is unable to post this week. I am the ring in. So I shall start with a King and end with a Queen (yes I will)

PS: I don’t think my layout is as good as hers

These words give us all strength and courage

NorwayUN NorwayUN

King Harald of #Norway: “when the nation is tested, the strength, cohesion and courage of the Norwegian people becomes evident.” #Utøya

15 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

and these

@andy_williamson Andy Williamson

RT Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg: “The answer to violence is even more democracy. Even more humanity” Hope our world leaders are listening

23 hours ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply

Retweeted by Roselady64 and 100+ others

and these

olavkjorven Olav Kjorven

Deeply saddened by senseless attacks in Norway. Thanks for outpouring of support from around the world to a hurt but sturdy people.

17 hours ago Favorite Undo Retweet Reply

then there was this. Not so good

homebrewcrew Home Brew

‘Key uses Norway massacre to justify NZs military involvement in Afghanistan’. Can we please do something bout this guy in November people?

9 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

and the clash of stories

mingyeow Ming Yeow Ng

Via @dcurtis: Norway was attacked, Amy Winehouse is dead, Greece has defaulted, the US is about to, and New York melted. What a week :(

7 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Billy Bragg had this to say about the 27 club

billybragg Billy Bragg

It’s not age that Hendrix, Jones, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain & Amy have in common – it’s drug abuse, sadly #27club

14 hours ago Favorite Undo Retweet Reply

and the final word goes to Her Majesty about “that other story” which, am pretty sure, won’t go away easily

@Queen_UK Elizabeth Windsor

No, Mr Murdoch, you cannot “pop round” after you’ve finished at the Commons.

19 Jul via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply


Told you so

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 11th, 2011

On 25th June 2009 Telecom announced that its two biggest network engineering contractors, Transfield and Downer EDI had lost their contracts to look after the Northland and Auckland network to a new company, Visionstream.  700 lines engineers were informed that their jobs were redundant and they would only get work if they transferred to Visionstream as dependent contractors.

Despite widespread industrial action, organised by their union, the EPMU, along with financial support to support the workers from being starved into submission, the lines engineers were made redundant, and one by one, many reluctantly became their own bosses.

Some of us wrote blogs about this dispute warning there would be serious consequences for the industry and Telecom.

An independent analysis of the contracts offered by Vision stream calculated that as owner operators, the workers could lose up to 50 – 66% of their income. The consequences haven’t just impacted on the lines engineers. Customers are paying too, just like we were told it would.

The EPMU reports that :

Last week, Visionstream called on its contractors for the tenth week in a row to work through the weekend in order to deal with a backlog of service calls. In a memo sent to all contractors, Visionstream said that they are currently going through “the worst performance we have faced as individual companies and Visionstream ever”.

Visionstream pays a flat rate to its dependent contractors for service calls, and if they want the work they have to meet the company’s demands.

The NZ Herald reported on the 8th July 2011 that ;

“Maintenance of Auckland’s telephone network at its worst in years – but the company in charge denies taking up to five days to fix faults.

The company asked all installation and fault technicians to postpone days off between June 28 and July 8, and acknowledged that this came on top of having staff working every weekend for the previous nine weeks.

“For the last nine weeks, on average up to 1000 customers per day in the Visionstream-managed areas have had their service impacted in one form or another,” the internal memo said.

I see these workers around still, driving the same Chorus vans they were driving when they were employees, but they are earning heaps less for the privilege of being their own boss.

They were treated them badly.  The law allowed Telecom to get away with it.

Now we’re all paying.