5 ms·

I don't disagree that the investment in copper was the wrong decision, but according to that article the minister actually sold his shares to Nixdorf (now Sieme

I don't disagree that the investment in copper was the wrong decision, but according to that article the minister actually sold his shares to Nixdorf (now Siemens?) immediately before becoming a minister. So I'm not quite sure if this is actually a case of corruption or just a case of being too conservative and incompetent (which is also quite widespread in politics).

ChuckNorris89 6y ago
He sold his shares hours(!) before being signed on as minister and he sold them to the company that benefited the most from the copper cabling that he pushed for. How you can mistake this obvious corruption for incompetence is beyond me.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  > He sold his shares hours(!) before being signed on as minister This is normal procedure. There is a rather short timeframe between appointment and becoming a minister. Of course did he sold it only after he know it would be a problem. > How you can mistake this obvious corruption for incompetence is beyond me. He had no benefits personally, so it's not corruption. This is just a nice story you tell the kids to give them a scapegoat, ignoring the historical context. This happend 1982, when Internet did not even exist yet. And fiber at the time wasn't really great as today. Copper probably was indeed the better solution, consicdering that survived the decades, where fiber from that time has already become useless long ago.
  - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
    Except you're ignoring the part where the copper cable policy he pushed against the advice of his experts made the company he sold his share to obscenely rich. Is that also not corruption but incompetence?
    - DangerousPie 6y ago
      I don’t see how you could call this corruption, he didn’t benefit from someone else getting rich. Unless there is any evidence that he sold his shares at an inflated price with the understanding that he would pay back the favour while in office or something like that, which I don’t think there is.
      - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
        It doesn't matter who benefits from this deal, what matters is the country got shit infrastructure against the advice of his experts and the taxpayers paid for it. Since he signed off on this, it's on him to be investigated. That's what corruption is. Of course, if you want, you can cover it up in red tape and make it look like incompetence.
        DangerousPie 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption First sentence: > Corruption is a form of dishonesty or criminal offense undertaken by a person or organization entrusted with a position of authority, to acquire illicit benefit or abuse power for one's private gain That's what corruption is.
    - slightwinder 6y ago
      This still lacks the information of his personal benefit. It's just no corruption until you have a benefit from it. And experts are also no argument, as there are always experts saying this and that which you can call on later for eny kind of complain. Neither you nor me are informend enough to say whether it was corruption, biasment, incompetence or something else. We don't even know whether it was good or bad for history. 30-40 years are a long time for technology and infrastructure.
  - zentiggr 6y ago
    So... if he hadn't pushed for copper and instead did the 'better for society' fiber solution, the company wouldn't have been worth nearly as much, possibly much less. And those stock sales would have been much less profitable. Not direct cash bribe but definitely far more motivated than just incompetence.
    - DangerousPie 6y ago
      I don't get it. Once he sold the shares he had no further interest in their value. Nothing that happened once he became a minister could have affected his profits from the sale of his stocks. Why are you saying "those stock sales would have been much less profitable"?!
      - labawi 6y ago
        Legally, that's why he had to sell the stocks, which is a reasonable requirement. OTOH, it doesn't preclude a mutually beneficial understanding, which the exchange points to. Maybe he had a deal, or wanted to keep the good stock between friends.
  - bserge 6y ago
    > Copper probably was indeed the better solution, consicdering that survived the decades, where fiber from that time has already become useless long ago. Politics aside, isn't that the problem? Copper survived so it didn't need to be replaced. Fiber would have been replaced with newer one because otherwise it would not work at all. People put up with slow Internet, but they wouldn't have put up with no Internet.
  - pantalaimon 6y ago
    It’s true, they installed fibre in the 90ies when modernizing the phone network in the East. A decade later those OPAL installations were replaced again by copper as they could not handle high speed Internet.
- DangerousPie 6y ago
  Please explain how this is “obvious corruption”.
  - zentiggr 6y ago
    He personally benefited by the increased share price of the company, which would have been vastly less if the policy choice had gone with fiber, which is the obvious choice for an infrastructure _upgrade_. Personal financial gain by abuse of power.
    - DangerousPie 6y ago
      How did he benefit from the increased share price? He sold his shares before he came to power.
- lioeters 6y ago
  This is what I question about Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence." In practice, when such "incompetence" involves millions (of Euro, dollars, etc.) - and those involved stand to gain from it - we ought to scrutinize it as a possible symptom of "malicious competence". For me, "incompetence" sounds like an excuse or smokescreen, when there are those who profited from it. After all, numerous real-life cases suggest that corruption is endemic, if not inherent, in our institutions of politics, business, and public decision-making process.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    The purpose of the Hanlon saying is to make people feel good about the world they live in.
C1sc0cat 6y ago
FTC and VDSL Copper from the CAB to the Home is not a "Bad" decision. For quite a while early on in the internets history we are talking 1990's the German Telcos still wanted to use IDSN
- corty 6y ago
  Germany did quite a lot of ISDN over fibre to the home in the 1990s, most of the recabling in the east after reunufication was done that way. However, they made the mistake of burying active components along with the fibre strands that only spoke ISDN. And of course no tubes. For upgrades they ripped it out again and built copper when DSL was en vogue... If they hadn't fucked up this badly, probably due to corruption, Germany would have had 20% broadband fibre coverage instantly 20 years ago
  - C1sc0cat 6y ago
    Ah I see thank you I recall years ago when I did work on the international side my boss making a comment about ISDN and Germany and I now see the issue they backed themselves into. The UK could have had much better fibre if back in the 90's Mrs Thatcher's government had given BT a 20 year payback and allowed BT to implement its Fibre plans.

ChuckNorris89 6y ago

He sold his shares hours(!) before being signed on as minister and he sold them to the company that benefited the most from the copper cabling that he pushed for. How you can mistake this obvious corruption for incompetence is beyond me.

slightwinder 6y ago
> He sold his shares hours(!) before being signed on as minister This is normal procedure. There is a rather short timeframe between appointment and becoming a minister. Of course did he sold it only after he know it would be a problem. > How you can mistake this obvious corruption for incompetence is beyond me. He had no benefits personally, so it's not corruption. This is just a nice story you tell the kids to give them a scapegoat, ignoring the historical context. This happend 1982, when Internet did not even exist yet. And fiber at the time wasn't really great as today. Copper probably was indeed the better solution, consicdering that survived the decades, where fiber from that time has already become useless long ago.
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  Except you're ignoring the part where the copper cable policy he pushed against the advice of his experts made the company he sold his share to obscenely rich. Is that also not corruption but incompetence?
  - DangerousPie 6y ago
    I don’t see how you could call this corruption, he didn’t benefit from someone else getting rich. Unless there is any evidence that he sold his shares at an inflated price with the understanding that he would pay back the favour while in office or something like that, which I don’t think there is.
    - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
      It doesn't matter who benefits from this deal, what matters is the country got shit infrastructure against the advice of his experts and the taxpayers paid for it. Since he signed off on this, it's on him to be investigated. That's what corruption is. Of course, if you want, you can cover it up in red tape and make it look like incompetence.
      - DangerousPie 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption First sentence: > Corruption is a form of dishonesty or criminal offense undertaken by a person or organization entrusted with a position of authority, to acquire illicit benefit or abuse power for one's private gain That's what corruption is.
  - slightwinder 6y ago
    This still lacks the information of his personal benefit. It's just no corruption until you have a benefit from it. And experts are also no argument, as there are always experts saying this and that which you can call on later for eny kind of complain. Neither you nor me are informend enough to say whether it was corruption, biasment, incompetence or something else. We don't even know whether it was good or bad for history. 30-40 years are a long time for technology and infrastructure.
- zentiggr 6y ago
  So... if he hadn't pushed for copper and instead did the 'better for society' fiber solution, the company wouldn't have been worth nearly as much, possibly much less. And those stock sales would have been much less profitable. Not direct cash bribe but definitely far more motivated than just incompetence.
  - DangerousPie 6y ago
    I don't get it. Once he sold the shares he had no further interest in their value. Nothing that happened once he became a minister could have affected his profits from the sale of his stocks. Why are you saying "those stock sales would have been much less profitable"?!
    - labawi 6y ago
      Legally, that's why he had to sell the stocks, which is a reasonable requirement. OTOH, it doesn't preclude a mutually beneficial understanding, which the exchange points to. Maybe he had a deal, or wanted to keep the good stock between friends.
- bserge 6y ago
  > Copper probably was indeed the better solution, consicdering that survived the decades, where fiber from that time has already become useless long ago. Politics aside, isn't that the problem? Copper survived so it didn't need to be replaced. Fiber would have been replaced with newer one because otherwise it would not work at all. People put up with slow Internet, but they wouldn't have put up with no Internet.
- pantalaimon 6y ago
  It’s true, they installed fibre in the 90ies when modernizing the phone network in the East. A decade later those OPAL installations were replaced again by copper as they could not handle high speed Internet.
DangerousPie 6y ago
Please explain how this is “obvious corruption”.
- zentiggr 6y ago
  He personally benefited by the increased share price of the company, which would have been vastly less if the policy choice had gone with fiber, which is the obvious choice for an infrastructure _upgrade_. Personal financial gain by abuse of power.
  - DangerousPie 6y ago
    How did he benefit from the increased share price? He sold his shares before he came to power.
lioeters 6y ago
This is what I question about Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence." In practice, when such "incompetence" involves millions (of Euro, dollars, etc.) - and those involved stand to gain from it - we ought to scrutinize it as a possible symptom of "malicious competence". For me, "incompetence" sounds like an excuse or smokescreen, when there are those who profited from it. After all, numerous real-life cases suggest that corruption is endemic, if not inherent, in our institutions of politics, business, and public decision-making process.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The purpose of the Hanlon saying is to make people feel good about the world they live in.

C1sc0cat 6y ago

FTC and VDSL Copper from the CAB to the Home is not a "Bad" decision. For quite a while early on in the internets history we are talking 1990's the German Telcos still wanted to use IDSN

corty 6y ago
Germany did quite a lot of ISDN over fibre to the home in the 1990s, most of the recabling in the east after reunufication was done that way. However, they made the mistake of burying active components along with the fibre strands that only spoke ISDN. And of course no tubes. For upgrades they ripped it out again and built copper when DSL was en vogue... If they hadn't fucked up this badly, probably due to corruption, Germany would have had 20% broadband fibre coverage instantly 20 years ago
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  Ah I see thank you I recall years ago when I did work on the international side my boss making a comment about ISDN and Germany and I now see the issue they backed themselves into. The UK could have had much better fibre if back in the 90's Mrs Thatcher's government had given BT a 20 year payback and allowed BT to implement its Fibre plans.