KEY POINTS:
I've had an unprecedented response to last month's column ("Telecom cabal leaves legacy we all have to suffer") about the departure of the chairman, CEO and other executives.
It seems I'm not alone in being angry about Telecom's apparent contempt for its customers, which is heartening. But it's
also a worry I'm not alone in my pessimistic outlook for telecommunications services here.
Here are a few excerpts from the swag of emails (thanks to all - but too many to reply too):
* "It's hard to know how long it will take the country to recover from the diversion and time wasting this famous four have left us with."
* "Telecom is responsible for economic treason."
* "It has been a tax on Kiwis of staggering proportions and successive governments have just turned a blind eye."
* "As a former broker, I used to promote the stock to professional investors when living in London in the early 90s. The investors saw the benefit of investing in a monopoly. No one would have believed it would remain unchallenged and largely intact for 14 years."
* "Having lived the last 20 years in the United States, I can see a thousand subtle ways in which substandard phone and internet service is holding back "real money" development here. For most Kiwis, it is a matter of not missing what they never had."
* "What is it in the political and business psyche that allowed, and took so long to recognise, address and rectify this abuse of the national interest?"
* "As one who has worked in the industry, I can vouch for the delays, stalling and obfuscation ... I also observed amazing incompetence and lack of vision as well as a complete reluctance to invest in technology."
* "I have had first-hand experience with this crew ... but the real story with this gang and their behaviour is the loss of opportunity for a country."
* "The real shame is that one can now see no reason why Telecom could not have become a model telco in its regulated environment delivering world class services and thereby securing its own future and that of the country to exploit the opportunities of the communications revolution."
The common theme here is that Telecom has so underinvested in infrastructure that, even with the new era of competition, it's not going to make much difference.
Yes, we may see pockets of competition in the more affluent city suburbs but, even then, contention rates and other problems with Telecom's copper wires means the fast broadband will still be quite slow. What's missing is significant investment in optical fibre to serve residential customers and there's no sign of anyone - least of all Telecom - prepared to dig up footpaths or string the wires needed.
It's an issue Telecom is aware of. Last March, in an effort to stave off the Government bringing down the hammer, it wrote in its "Delivering affordable broadband for all" paper (www.med.govt.nz/upload/37221/ telecom-delivering-affordable-broadband-for-all.pdf): "If New Zealand is to remain competitive globally with respect to broadband then it's clear that significant investment is required over the next five to 10 years. What is clear is that this will require the industry to invest hundreds of millions of dollars, not a few tens of millions of dollars, in broadband."
In truth, hundreds of millions is an underestimate. I'm reliably informed that fibre to about 80 per cent of homes would cost about $1.5 billion.
Telecom then asked: "The core question for Government is - who will invest this sort of capital and how will they make a sufficient return on investment?"
It's a good question. We know Telecom won't and there's no sign of competition about to step up. Which puts the ball back - as has happened with every piece of critical infrastructure sold off to private enterprise - squarely in the Government's court.
