Thoughtful editorial by the NZ Herald yesterday about Telecom’s XT woes, its culpability and the possible role of government.
Two sentences I particularly agree with:
“Few things are guaranteed to raise ire as much as a useless piece of expensive technology.”
“There comes a point when nothing can compensate for a piece of equipment that does not work when needed.”
I also agree with Ernie Newman of the Telecommunication Users Association (TUANZ) who says that if Telecom did not do something drastic to help its customers, it was time for the Government to step into what was a national economic issue.
But what I don’t agree with is the Herald’s conclusion that:
such a situation would exist only if Telecom enjoyed monopoly status in the mobile-phone market. Such is not the case, with Vodafone and the fledgling 2degrees offering competition. That means it falls to Telecom’s customers to punish the company if they so wish.
Three points to make here.
The XT network is part of New Zealand’s core infrastructure. People rely on it for communication; social, business and emergency. Competition does not overturn this. Steven Joyce is moving in this direction by indicating that mobile performance standards may be regulated under the TSO (the old Kiwi share). We agree but regret it is necessary.
Then there’s consistent standards. The failure of 111 has drawn attention to the nature of our critical infrastructure. Too many NZers rely on mobile phones for most, if not all their calls for this not to be an issue. Are there consistent standards for delivery of service to NZers? Are there consistent standards that a network must meet in order to remain viable?
And a government that takes information access seriously ought to be procative about ensuring progress towards universal availablity and reliability.
And finally, who should be representing the voices of New Zealand people on these issue? TUANZ has a mandate to represent the players in the marketplace. It does a good job, but its mandate isn’t to speak on behalf of New Zealand domestic consumers.
Consumer NZ has made one statement to my knowledge, advising XT customers to contact Telecom if they have problems or rival networks to negotiate the best deal. That’s fine, but it’s not really sticking up for people is it.
As for the Ministry of Consumer Affairs! What is it that they do again? Under Heather Roy?
That leaves the Labour Opposition.
In Australia, the Communications Minister Stephen Conroy recognised there was a gap early on and established (and properly funded) a new body to represent consumers; ACCAN, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network.
This is what they do, and I think New Zealand should consider whether it needs a similar body.
ACCAN is the peak body that represents all consumers on communications issues including telecommunications, broadband and emerging new services. ACCAN provides a strong unified voice to industry and government as consumers work towards availability, accessibility and affordability of communications services for all Australians. Consumers need ACCAN to promote better consumer protection outcomes ensuring speedy responses to complaints and issues.
