Telco bill and regulatory environment for next-gen networks

SUBSCRIBE
Newsletter & Subscriptions Computerworld is New Zealand's only specialised information systems fortnightly.
Subscribe now for $100 (23 issues) and save more than 37% off the cover price!
SIGN UP
Newsletter & Subscriptions
Get the latest news from Computerworld delivered via email.
Sign up now
IDC analyst Rosalie Nelson’s concerns about the regulatory forbearance period
  • Share

IDC research director, Telecommunications, Rosalie Nelson questions whether bypassing the regulator during the building phase of the Ultra Fast Broadband network, will set the right regulatory environment for next-generation networks.

The controversial forbearance period, which would mean the Commerce Commission has no oversight into pricing on the UFB network until 2020, took a step closer to becoming law yesterday. The majority of the finance and expenditure select committee recommended the Telecommunications Amendment Bill proceed to a second reading in parliament, albeit with some changes.

The rationale for the forbearance period is explained in the Committee’s report: “To be able to offer prices that are competitive with the current copper network from the outset, those who bid to supply services through the UFB require some certainty that prices negotiated would not change during the period in which the fibre network is built”.

But Nelson wonders why, in a country with an election cycle of just three years, it is necessary to bypass the independent regulator. Especially given the highly-politicised process of selecting private partners for the UFB, because in the new network the government will be both investor and price-setter.

“There are those who will argue that our regulator has to get ministerial approval for things,” she says. “We get a lot of raised eyebrows internationally – why are we bypassing the independent regulator? If there are issues and challenges with the role of the Commerce Commission, with the breadth of its current mandate ... we need to be making changes there to support a next-generation environment.”

Nelsons says the current process for selecting UFB has raised industry concerns because it is a competitive tender and therefore not open to public scrutiny.

“There is an absence of information. Sometimes we hear it being said that if the industry could see what the terms and conditions were around this, there would be a lot less concern. But we don’t have that.”

Nelson says a next-generation regulatory environment would take into account issues of mobility, what happens when an industry is structurally separate (that is, the owner of the network can’t provide retail services, as will be the case with UFB), and how to create regulatory settings that promote investment in both the wholesale and the retail environment.

“We need to have a rational debate,” says Nelson. “So much of the debate gets really polarised by vested interests and it is quite hard to find a middle line through it all.”
Comments
re: Not quite as it seems? you said:
"Given that we have seen fibre-based services from competitors to telecom offering 100Mbps, a telephone line, tolls inclusive and no data caps for $100/month retail, it appears that fibre broadband services can be priced lower than copper-based services."

ummm, who exactly is offering that? because I am calling BS on that claim.
Posted by a. nony mouse at 12:53:56 on May 17, 2011

Flag abuse

re: Not quite as it seems? Opto Networks in Marlborough and the Wairarapa. That pricing level is what the lines companies would likely pitch at if they won the UFB.
Posted by Rural Connect at 12:59:34 on May 17, 2011

Flag abuse

re: Not quite as it seems? so when you said "given we have seen" you were actually lying because those prices are *not* available right now at all, they are merely lowballing by bidders made with the intent to get the business, but until they actually release that plan to the market it might as well be 1trillion Mbps for $1 per month.
100Mbps with unlimited data and calling for $100 just isn't going to happen.
Posted by Anonymous at 13:27:26 on May 17, 2011

Flag abuse

re: Not quite as it seems? If you are going to be abusive then please come out from behind your cloak of anonymity.

The price vs services I quoted exist now in the districts I quoted. They are also the objective pricing levels of new providers - I made that distinction clear.

An apology is in order.
Posted by Rural Connect at 14:04:29 on May 17, 2011

Flag abuse

re: Not quite as it seems? simple way to resolve it.
You made the claim that such a plan exists right now so you ought to be able to back up your claim with a link to the Opto website where this plan can be purchased.
I for one would love to purchase a 100Mbps plan with unlimited data and calling for $100, and I'm sure a lot of other people would.
If such a plan exists then surely it is on a website somewhere.
I have searched the Opto network website and cannot find it anywhere. Maybe you can point me in the right direction?
Posted by a nony mouse if I want - this is the internet at 14:27:28 on May 17, 2011

Flag abuse

re: Not quite as it seems? Opto has been offering $100 plans around my rural area for a while but this is only for their 100Mbps symetrical service. I suggest that you contact them as see what they offer.
Posted by Anonymous at 9:07:20 on May 18, 2011

Flag abuse

re: Not quite as it seems? but is it unlimited data and unlimited calling as implied by Rural Connect?
link to their website?
Posted by a nony mouse at 11:25:16 on May 18, 2011

Flag abuse

Not quite as it seems? The Committee's explanation of the regulatory holiday provisions does not mention holding fibre prices down to match copper prices, only that fibre prices be competitive with copper.

Given that we have seen fibre-based services from competitors to telecom offering 100Mbps, a telephone line, tolls inclusive and no data caps for $100/month retail, it appears that fibre broadband services can be priced lower than copper-based services.

So the regulatory holiday is about allowing CFH to hold prices up and so providing an artificially higher return on investment.

If Telecom win the UFB, CFH will be relying on the high barriers to entry to minimise competition overlaying Teleom's fibre. But with the lower ROI sought by utility companies, perhaps there is an opportunity for the lines companies to compete.

If NZRFG win the UFB, then Telecom can compete effectively given their extensive FttN fibre network that is nearing completion.
Posted by Rural Connect at 12:30:44 on May 17, 2011

Flag abuse

computerworld
Computerworld NZ has now reached LinkedIn! Join to expand your networks and meet others interested in information systems.