Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm all for a "get over ridiculous sterotypes" campaign, but are hoodies really a particular sign of "bad yoof" in NZ? I've never come across this particular focus here, it seems to be a pretty generic, widely accepted fashion choice without that sort of stigma?
Have we just imported the Bluewater/hug-a-hoodie thing indiscriminately from the UK? -
Excellent post, thanks. At the very least it allows for a factual argument around what direction real average tax rates should be moving without the partisan hyperbole... Not that I am overly optimistic that will happen
-
Kyle and Matthew, I don't doubt it could help politically (although there seems to be equal potential for harm) but that wasn't really my angle on it. I dislike when any party is willing to play the electoral game in such a callous manner - and there is unfortunately plenty of that from most sides flying around at the moment.
If they get in because it worked for them, I will begrudgingly tip my hat for the political play. But I will not be exactly ecstatic that it took concealing absolute core policy until weeks before the election, such that the electorate can't get a well analysed and digested view across all parties' views.
I know it's politics to do what it takes to get you in there, but I (perhaps naively) still dislike it.
-
According to John Key, we may have to wait until only four weeks out from the election for a look at National's tax policy
That is completely unacceptable. The policy that they seem to happily state is the core of the election and ongoing policy platform and they won't reveal it until then? Absurd, absurd, absurd.
-
I'm similarly impressed with the thoroughness of operational separation, the whistleblower provisions, etc. But Chorus does share various systems with the rest of the business -- I gather that it cost BT quite a lot to duplicate those systems when it was structurally separated.
The precise example being Yellow Pages efforts to separate systems when they were split off last year.
Do-able but a huge amount of work/cost... -
Bilingual Lesbian Marixism is just around the corner
Between this and cheap Treble Cone passes, SIT is looking all the more attractive really...
-
But ... once you've acquired Chorus, even at a regulated price, you've spent all the money you were going to spend on fibre, haven't you? I can see any way it adds up, except for Telecom/Chorus to be the dominant shareholder in FibreCo. That'd be a fun negotiation.
To be honest there was no clear view in the NZInstitute document on whether or not the purchase of the existing copper and fibre networks was included in their upfront $4b cost but it seemed not too (happy, in fact hoping, to be proven wrong). Their simple bottom-up analysis was about fibre ducting and lengths - so no mention of existing network purchase.
So you have to buy one of the largest existing networks in the country as well. Unless, as you said, Telcom gives it up for a HUGE shareholding in the FibreCo entity - but they were keen to separate off the network and flog it initially so I'm thinking not. And you would then require an additional $4billion in funding for rolling out the fibre network as you decomission the copper.
-
It could be done, but I've had some insight lately into the work that's gone into Telecom's undertakings for operation separation. It's eye-watering.
Well there's certainly benefit in having gone through all that before you get to structural separation - at least the businesses should be more easily detached from one another.
But yes, TCNZ is a privately-owned company with moral and legal obligations to shareholders - that makes it difficult to have them easily (and cheapily) give up assets simply because the NZ public would like them in their hands, thankyou very much.Although the TCNZ board may have been eyeing up the well-above-book Toll deal and counting their chickens already...
-
Doing it with Telecom as a willing partner would take 12-18 months and cost a lot. If it ain't willing ...
So the NZInstitute paper on this had three options:
1 (preferred):
FibreCo pays fair price for the existing fibre and copper networks
Telecom (and others) agree to sell its access network to FibreCo
FibreCo takes over management of copper and optimises maintenance and migration as fibre rolls out e.g. copper switched off as fibre rolls out2:
Competitive structure whereby FibreCo setups in competition to TCNZ3:
Regulated purchase - same as 1 but forced by Govt
The problem with 1 is surely that TCNZ would price it through the roof given they have a locked-in, deep-pocket buyer? Unless it is "light-regulation" whereby everyone agrees to sell at an independently-judged fair value. -
To his credit, Williamson has given a much clearer steer as to the nature of the investment vehicle for National's project: it's the New Zealand Institute's FibreCo, by whatever name. Operators large and small would have the ability to take a stake alongside the government in the big company that builds the network.
But most importantly completely separate Chorus from Telecom and "nationalise" it (through public-private investment) into this FibreCo vehicle - that's a big play for a National Govt.
It also doesn't line up with Key's initial criteria at all - but personally I prefer it.