This is the second post in a series this week.
There’s a lot riding on Steven Joyce’s decision on which way to take the country to deliver on his government’s pledge to provide ultrafast broadband to the vast bulk of New Zealand.
Earlier this week I predicted that his proposal would look a lot different to the original. I want to take that discussion further and outline just what’s at stake, and what should underpin the decision that is made.
The choice is between a Telecom-led rollout (unitary authority) and a regional approach with involvement by electricity lines companies. The decision taken could herald a significant fork in the road for this government overall.
It has never been Labour’s view (pre or post election) that it should not be possible to give the nod to Telecom. But (and this is the big BUT) the burden of proof must always be for government to prove the benefit to the end user of whatever its decision ends up being.
The best value to the consumer. A decision based on merit, not on market power. Not on allowing a telco to further cement its monopoly status, which is largely what the National Government did through much of the 90s.
Where there is true open access to the network at all levels (duct, fibre, etc). That is technology neutral. That is truely regional (where it’s recognised that the needs of both South Auckland and Southland are different but valid). That’s competitive, and is based on credible regulation.
Labour will support a decision that meets the above criteria. Whatever it is. But we’ll call it how we see it. Which is more than we can say for National’s smoke and mirrors approach so far.
Labour’s broadband strategy was openly regional, we never promised to deliver fibre directly to people’s homes, we were focussed on delivering to major users (schools, hospitals, business) first.
Labour was working on an integrated rural/urban strategy for delivery of fibre, because we knew that rural New Zealand needed better connectivity, we did not want a rural/urban digital divide and we knew that the market would struggle to take fibre to rural NZ in the short to medium term.
We were prepared to invest $1 billion as an incentive to the private sector to take fibre out further and faster. This government expects a mythical return on its $1.5 billion. This is perhaps one of the great squizzes of the broadband fiasco.
We never promised broadband to people’s homes. We were concious that we must not delay, so we kicked off the Broadband Investment Fund last year to get things going.
Now almost a year later, we’re still waiting. At the fork in the road.
“…never…not be possible…”??? Say what? Double negatives don’t help. I had to read that three times before I got what I think you’re meaning.
why no comment on this labour party blog..
on the oecd figures on child poverty..
that show our children to be amongst the worst-off of the oecd countries..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Despite the propaganda, the core of this message is actually pretty correct, let me summarize. If the taxpayer is going to subsidy anything it should be an open infrastructure that encourages competition, and not stifle it. It should also reach the entire country, although some prioritizing in speed of roll-out is unavoidable. It’s time the government gets on with it, actually it’s well over time.
Never thought I’d say it, but I agree with Curran here. (Damn)
Jackboot Joyce will likely stab himself with that fork.
@UO apologies for the double negative. Not my usual style but was writing too quickly. Hope you got the gist though. We could support Telecom but would need a damn good reason.
@Dimmocrazy. Pigs do fly. Thanks for your succinct summary
@Philu Annette King put out a press statement on the child poverty figures yesterday afternoon. Look on the labour.org website. And please stay on topic
“..Clare Curran says:
September 4, 2009 at 9:06 am
@Philu Annette King put out a press statement on the child poverty figures yesterday afternoon…Look on the labour.org website.
And please stay on topic..”
and that’s it..?
no discussion here..?..none allowed..?
why don’t you run a general thread..?
a la frogblog/kiwiblog..?
where would be the harm in that..?
i want to talk about this topic..
..not kate wilkinson..and tea-breaks..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
It’s their sandpit, they set the parameters of debate. If the Red Alert team want to experiment with a general debate thread, then you will have influenced them.
Otherwise there are plenty of other sandpits around including the two you name.
If you’ve been given the ball on this Clare have you submitted any questions or asked any in question time on why our investment is so far behind Australia’s..? They are going to invest 15 times as much as us…
For us to have a similar per capita investment we would need to invest $4.5 billion which would relieve a lot of the urban/rural question…
I even know where we can get the money from… The debt inflated NLTP, the plan is to spend over $10 billion in the next decade on State Highway’s… Real smart considering climate change and peak oil… Surely just over $7 billion will be sufficiently stupid and we can invest the excess in something emminently more important, this…
This one of the reasons young people like myself are looking at Perth, Brisbane etc with longing eyes and why the “plan” to catch Aussie by 2025 is nothing but hot air…
A Vogel-esqe investment in sustainable transport, power and fibre is needed and a party with the courage to deal with the huge structural problems in the economy if we are ever to start climbing and overtaking other OECD countries again… A deep recession is the perfect time to employ people and make this investment, the Americans are still relying on much of FDR’s infrastructure…
My patience is running out with NZ when I look at Australia’s investments in this and rail in particular, leaving NZ would break my heart but it’s getting to the point where I can’t justify to my future children staying here…
Good post Clare – the government’s feet dragging on this is leaves me bewildered. Here is an area where we need decisive action, where they promised decisive action and still they can’t make a decision.
I thought Labour’s plans were possibly as good as it gets for New Zealand, not perhaps the perfect plan but given limitations on budget and our population spread it was probably all we can do at this stage. I remain utterly frustrated by Joyce’s apparent ‘deer in the headlights’ stance. I say that because I think they are paralysed with indecision here, their lack of leadership experience is sorely showing. They need to (wo)man up and do something.
philu – you can talk about child poverty all you like – but don’t try to hijack a conversation about broadband to do it and don’t play the suppressed victim card, it’s hollow. And if you can get Kiwiblog’s commentators to give a damn about child poverty then I have some water that needs turning into wine.
@ Jezza – perhaps you need to look at the bigger picture when looking at being able to justify your children staying here.
The quality of life in NZ is exceptional. Look at the Mercer rankings:
Auckland comes 4th in the world (up from 5th last year)
Sydney is 10th (no change)
Wellington 12th (no change)
Brisbane 34th (no change).
I was recently offered a huge pay rise to live in Australia – but its because of my family that we remained in NZ.
Jezza (assuming you were asking rhetorically) the Parliament site is an excellent source of information about what MPs do.
To search the questions Clare has asked of the Minister of Communications & IT, start at:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QWA/
It’s so easy to do.
Edit button!
. . . assuming Jezza was NOT asking rhetorically)
Phil please stop your thread jacking habits. Once more and you will get a one week ban. Trevor
Or the third option, which you seem to be categorically ruling out even though it’s the cheapest, is to re-nationalise the network. Multiple networks cost more – more environmental damage to mine the resources to make them, more electricity to run them, more bureaucrats to administer them (no, I’m not the type of person who whines about bureaucrats, administration is an important job, but I don’t think that we should have any more than we need) and more dead weight loss to the economy in the form of profit.
Nationalised network and private competition of services supplied on that network = best of all worlds.
Indeed, not to mention it could potentially turn into a direct source of income for the government if managed well, and if not it will at least be a good wealth-enabler for the country.
bikerkiwi, on topic I hope, but isn’t Auckland the one Hide says is stuffed and Brisbane the one he thinks Auckland should mimick? In a perverse way, he may be on track because once his super city changes bite, Auckland will be 35th or worse. Race to you to the bottom. Mission accomplished.
hey..lets call it a voluntary ban..eh trev..
you/yr blog..
are nothing but a sad joke..
a little echo chamber..
with only sycophantic comments allowed..?
bah..!
bye..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Thanks that is a win win Trevor