Former Telecom CTO supports unbundling and FTTH rollout
I'm not sure what Telecom thinks of Dr Murray Milner's submission to the finance and expenditure select committee, as the former CTO of the telco says unbundling is way overdue and increased investment in FTTH is necessary.
Milner submitted to the select committee on behalf of the Institute of Professional Engineers, saying that New Zealand needs to spend $1.5 billion on shortening the copper lengths for the local loop in order to reach the government's very modest 5Mbps target. This means replacing much of the copper network with fibre-optic cabling.
This is the way we'll have infrastructure similar to what other countries already enjoy, and no, wireless isn't going to cut the mustard here. Apart from anything, Milner says wireless will cost about eight times more to deploy, to reach the 5Mbps target.
Although Milner says that the only player capable of entering into such a massive replacment is Telecom, at the same time his submission vindicates the government turning up the regulatory heat on the incumbent. Some anti-unbundling zealots point to Telecom's offers of investing more in the network in lieu of regulation, but these blinkered people conveniently forget that the telco's been playing the same game for a decade now. It should by now be abundantly clear to anyone that Telecom will only invest as little as it can get away with. Furthermore, the investment is used as a weapon to stave off regulation as well - Telecom has no qualms about pulling money out of the provinces and rural areas if a regulatory decision doesn't go its way. This is what Telecom did in December last year, when the Commerce Commission awarded TelstraClear DSL that is unconstrained in one direction.
If there were guarantees that Milner would remain independent from Telecom, he would be an ideal "Broadband Czar" to drive the operational separation of Telecom as well as the copper network replacement. New Zealand needs a techie like him to kick things off, not more lawyers and accountants interested mainly in earning more fees through increasingly convoluted and drawn out processes.
PC World is New Zealand’s top selling computing and technology magazine.
Comments
Well, Juha, I do not agree with government protecting monopolies. That protection needs removing. What I want is government to stay out of all aspects of our lives except to protect our rights.
As for "with automatic line-rental increases and permission to degrade voice over IP over the DSL", well it is their network so they have every right to do that.
Oh, yes the RMA. In the situation I refer to that wouldn't exist. All the RMA does is restrict property rights. The government has no right to tell others what they can and can't do with their property so the RMA should go as it is in blatant breach of property rights.
So in my situation TelstraClear would of been able to install it since the mayors would of been powerless to do anything unless TelstraClear breached the rights of others.
Posted by: Kane Bunce | September 25, 2006 10:01 AM
Kane: if it was as easy as that, sure. You need to look into "natural monopolies" and see why they are considered harmful.
Telecom last-mile monopoly has been protected by the NZ government since it was privatised, with automatic line-rental increases and permission to degrade voice over IP over the DSL it sells to others built into the law.
It's all very well to say that others should be build a last-mile network too, when none are in possession of an existing, taxpayer funded sweated asset like the copper loop, and now have to battle the RMA.
TelstraClear tried to build a network in Auckland, and put up $2 billion on the table - this failed, due to a campaign in the media and Auckland's mayors not understanding the value of a second network or for that matter, going down to the Wellington to see what the cables in question would look like.
Posted by: Juha | September 24, 2006 11:43 AM
I mean property rights not tights.
Posted by: Kane Bunce | September 22, 2006 10:13 PM
It's a shame property tights seem to mean so little to the government and those that support LLU. The network belongs to Telecom. They have the right to do with their property as they will, as long as it does not breach the rights of others, which our current broadband situation does not do.
No one but the owners of any property and those they delegate to make decisions for them have the right to decide what to do with their property. No one else has that right.
Posted by: Kane Bunce | September 22, 2006 6:26 PM