3 ms·

It probably should not have been done (why ever sell an asset like that) but it didn't go terribly in New Zealand. The sale stipulated that the government woul

It probably should not have been done (why ever sell an asset like that) but it didn't go terribly in New Zealand. The sale stipulated that the government would regulate the wholesale price of copper and that the copper lines, and later the exchanges, could be accessed by competing telcos. Years later the government, no longer owner of any copper lines, set up a fibre network. The fibre network is owned 50% by central government and 50% by private or local government owned corporations and its pricing is highly regulated. 87% of the population can now get a 4000/4000mbs connection for 117 USD/month.

dhsysusbsjsi 4y ago
NZ is a great success story. Compared to Australia who privatised Telecom copper (now called Telstra), who let the copper rot and were also forced to allow access which caused 3rd party retailers and consumers large problems with poor access. Then the government announced a full fibre to the home network which started being built. Just before the large upwards curve in rollout, the government changed, and bought the rotting copper infrastructure back off Telstra (plus some cable) at astronomical prices. So now we have slow, expensive internet and the taxpayer has spent more than it would have cost to rollout the fibre, and it’s years later.
postingawayonhn 4y ago
> The fibre network is owned 50% by central government and 50% by private or local government owned corporations Does the government actually have an ownership stake? I just thought they provided some grants and debt financing?
- teruakohatu 4y ago
  There are many fibre companies, each with a monopoly in a geographic area. For the largest Chorus the government own non-voting shares and gave them a loan, and for the others I believe the government had a 50% stake originally. That all might have changes over the years.
  - everfrustrated 4y ago
    The stake was also to incentivise the local fibre companies to pay back their govt loans (stake would be reduced)

dhsysusbsjsi 4y ago

NZ is a great success story. Compared to Australia who privatised Telecom copper (now called Telstra), who let the copper rot and were also forced to allow access which caused 3rd party retailers and consumers large problems with poor access. Then the government announced a full fibre to the home network which started being built. Just before the large upwards curve in rollout, the government changed, and bought the rotting copper infrastructure back off Telstra (plus some cable) at astronomical prices. So now we have slow, expensive internet and the taxpayer has spent more than it would have cost to rollout the fibre, and it’s years later.

postingawayonhn 4y ago

> The fibre network is owned 50% by central government and 50% by private or local government owned corporations Does the government actually have an ownership stake? I just thought they provided some grants and debt financing?

teruakohatu 4y ago
There are many fibre companies, each with a monopoly in a geographic area. For the largest Chorus the government own non-voting shares and gave them a loan, and for the others I believe the government had a 50% stake originally. That all might have changes over the years.
- everfrustrated 4y ago
  The stake was also to incentivise the local fibre companies to pay back their govt loans (stake would be reduced)