On 3/05/2006, at 7:43 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:
In my view the Government have continued to duck the real issue - structural separation in telecoms. I am disappointed, that with all the evidence available (eg. British Telecom structural separation [voluntary]) , the Government have just fiddled at the edges of the problem, hoping that would make it all OK. If I was in Telecom NZ I would be celebrating tonight -- Telecom NZ still have control over vertical markets. Accounting separation will not suffice -- many recent examples have shown that accounting practices cannot save us!
Neil
Actually, if you read it ( I am lothe to defend the government, but ...)
Key features of the final package Facilitating competition by improving access at the wholesale level to the fixed local-loop telecommunications network, through:
* introducing local loop unbundling; * removing constraints on the regulated Unbundled Bitstream Service, including providing for “Naked DSL”; * requiring the preparation by Telecom of a set of regulatory accounts (accounting separation) based around its wholesale businesses; and * the preparation and disclosure by access providers of information to facilitate compliance with the applicable access principles set out in Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications Act 2001.
Points 2 and three are significant.
Long experience in this has led me to doubt the implementation. As I indicated in my first post on this I am skeptical about what the accounting separation will actually achieve. Telecom are very experienced in manipulation of accounting -- how else could their figures on the cost of services be so at odds with others? the wriggle room is just too large. Neil _____________________________________________ Neil James, Information Technology Strategy and Policy Consultant & Executive Officer, New Zealand Vice-Chancellors' Committee Standing Committee on Information Technology (SCIT) c/o University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. Tel (03) 479-8594 Mobile 021 393-123 FAX (03)479-8577