Green MP uses abuse rather than debate

What happens when you challenge the co-leader of the Green Party in one of his blog posts?

He resorts to name calling.

Take this thread, where Russel Norman gets hysterical about cellphone towers, with scaremongering about them being near children's bedrooms etc.

The bogey is non-ionising radiation, and of course the Greens have decided the target on this one are cellphone towers which are commissioned by another bogey - evil privately owned telecommunications corporations (oh if only it was the Post Office, we'd still be testing to see if cellphones are safe or we'd have our own bespoke system with no roaming to rip people off when overseas).   Russel even claims the group of bureaucrats and industry representatives involved in setting standards for such things was:

another committee dominated by industry and government departments with one health professional. A group dominated by those trying to reduce costs for telcos.

So a conspiracy of those who don't believe the pseudo-science. Playing the ball not the people again.   If these people don't take it seriously then it must be vested interest, rather than being wrong.

Now let's be clear.  I do think there can be issues with continuous high concentrations of non-ionising radiation from sources like cellphones or laptops.   There is some evidence around very high volumes of cellphone use and effects on tissues that frankly tell me just to be cautious.  However it is about handsets NOT transmitter towers.

Why?  Well humanity has been testing non-ionising radio transmitters since the 1920s, and at transmission power many many many times that of any cellphone tower.  West Auckland has been bathed in high powered TV transmissions from Waiatarua since the 1960s, as has Khandallah and Johnsonville in Wellington from Kaukau.

So I wrote:

Suggest you shut down the AM transmitters for National Radio, the AM Network and Newstalk ZB in Titahi Bay since they have been transmitting non-ionising radiation blanketing Porirua City at levels of over 100x the strength of cellphone transmitters since the 1940s. Mt Victoria has had radio transmitters on it for some years as well, and then Khandallah and Johnsonville have had nearly 50 years of Kaukau blanketing them. 

I have a friend who was part of a detailed study into levels of non-ionising radiation in Australia. A group of unscientific cellphone site phobics demanded readings be made in one town, and it was found the local TV transmitter on the hill exposed residents to much more continuous exposure at higher volumes than those who would live within a radius of the cellsite. She told them the TV transmitter and local FM radio stations would need to be closed first before removing cellsites – naturally there was an outrage and people couldn’t stand losing TV and radio.

However, don’t let science and the fact that human beings have been bombarding each other with high levels of non-ionising radiation for a couple of generations get in the way of renewing scaremongering over something that hasn’t been remotely demonstrated to be dangerous to human health. Don’t confuse it with the issue of cellphone handset exposure to brains, which does have some merit as an issue (as people haven’t been doing that).

I’m amazed you haven’t jumped on cordless phones at the home, wifi base stations at home, electric blankets (sleeping on an electrical element), the people sitting in front of cathode ray tubes for the last couple of generations (LCD, Plasma and LEDs are ending this). How many of the people who you’ve scaremongered about cellphone towers happily have any number of these devices and let their kids use them and don’t think twice about it? 

Or is this really about beating up privately owned telcos instead of a balanced rational debate about science? Otherwise you would have long campaigned for National Radio’s 500kW transmitter at Titahi Bay to be shut down years ago.

 

However, that doesn't matter to Russel.  He doesn't want to tell people to turn off the radio stations or TV.  It's a war against corporations as you can see by his response to me here:

I’m interested that a blogger called Liberty Scott seems to have so little concern with freedom. The state ties people’s hands over the control of cellphone towers so they can’t resist telcos and you applaud – rather typical Act Party position – freedom for corporations and no rights for individuals. CaptivityScott might think that the people are illinformed to be concerned about a cellphone mast outside their kids bedroom, but genuinely freedom loving people would defend their right to tell the state and corporations to move away, as the courts have done in france.

Kadin, bj and Kerry, there are of course many other sources of non-ionising radiation already present. The question is should we be concerned at adding to the increasing background level. We are doing it with wifi quite extensively at the moment. And there are studies raising issues around it. I say keep an open mind.

So he lazily associates me with ACT, and then starts engaging in childish name calling, then claims to want "the state to move away", which of course is the antithesis of his politics.   He then admits there are other sources, but that it is about adding to the background level.   This is scientific hogwash.  The issue, if there is one, is not lots of radio signals on different frequencies, but intense application of one continuous transmission over a long period. 

Sue Kedgley then lifts it to her usual heights of calm reasoning by claiming conspiracy.  Even Radio NZ must  be in on it:

The whole saga is a classic example of vested interests manipulating the policy process in Parliament. The media are also complicit. When the Green party tried to alert people to the so-called National Environmental Standard, and its effects, the media completely ignored it. Only the Wellingtonian reported on it. Could this have anything to do with the massive advertising by our telecommunications companies?

Didn't occur to her that most people don't believe the scaremongering and that being ignored can simply mean people have rolled their eyes and decided they have better things to worry about.
 
Without me responding, Russel plays the man not the ball again:

 It seems that you and DungeonScott are very proactive talking about freedom except when the rubber hits the road you are all in favour of restricting people’s rights and increasing corporate rights. the freedom you are after is the antithesis of human freedom, it is corporate freedom.

Well done Russel, you refuse to consider the issue on its merits.  You have hitched yourself to a bandwagon embraced by all sorts of snake-oil merchants because it suits your big company bashing agenda.  You can't actually answer the counter-claims about non-ionising radiation partly because you know nothing about it, but also you don't appear to have the humility to admit you (and Sue Kedgley, chief scaremongerer) are wrong.

Where did the Liberal part go?

In the midst of the announcements of slender cuts to public spending in the UK, came the news that the government is to proceed with Labour's plan for data on every phone call, website visit, text message and email in the UK to be stored for one year.   Unlike Labour, which wanted the government collecting it on its own database, the Con-Dem coalition will impose the obligation on internet service providers and telecommunications providers.  The emails and text message details wont include the content, but it is still a big brother state seeking to have the capacity to engage in surveillance of anyone it wishes.   It is one thing to get a warrant to monitor the communications of a suspect, another to make private providers keep such records.  After all, what does a website visit tell anyone other than what someone may be curious about (does visiting an Islamist website make someone a sympathiser?).

The Liberal Democrats claimed that they would bring a commitment to individual freedom and a belief in a smaller state to this coalition.   It would appear that this has been stomped on by the jackboot of the Home Office and the obsessive paranoia of the law enforcement sector which always errs on the side of less freedom.

Blogging disrupted

Just to note my blogging regularity has been disrupted because of:

1. Being overseas twice in the last few weeks (with glacial speeds available);
2. Moving home;
3. Two and a half weeks to get a phone line installed to carry broadband (and no, there is no cable TV option, as Virgin Media hasn't cabled my street).

So whilst I wait another 7 working days to get POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service), after which I can get broadband, service is not going to be regular. No, I'm not getting it from BT, not only because it is an expensive and poor quality deal, but also because since BT has lobbied hard to destroy BSkyB's property rights in programming (which were built up commercially against two government owned competitors, and three government licensed ones) I figured I no longer needed to give a damn about BT's property rights on local phone lines.

Meanwhile, the British media has been focused on:
- Gunman who went on a shooting spree (but few have asked whether others having guns might have stopped him earlier);

- The Gulf of Mexico oil leak, Obama's xenophobic attack on BP to make up for his own impotence on the issue, and BP's own incompetence;

- The World Cup (which sadly is unlikely to see a New Zealand-North Korea final, as much as it would upset millions) is hyping up England and South Africa;

- The next stage of austerity, as the Con-Dem government "warms" up the British public for spending cuts perhaps ten times that already agreed (whilst the public continues to remain ignorant about what cuts actually MUST mean, such as cutting the welfare state and increasing university fees). Much good is being said about focusing on the role of the state. Few yet understand how drastic and urgent the cuts have to be, and sadly it will also include tax rises;

- The ultra-tedious contest for leadership of the British Envy, Spendthrift and Spin Labour Party, now no longer including a relative unknown who said Margaret Thatcher should have been assassinated in the 1980s. Most recently it now include Diane Abbott, who is notable for being a black woman. One of the contenders, Ed Miliband, said it showed the diversity of the Labour Party. It was pointed out to him that two of the contenders share the same mother (his brother David Miliband is also standing), and of course another man called Ed is standing as well.

Erosion of private property rights in the UK

Three issues in the past few days have exemplified how the notion that private property rights are sacrosanct has been seriously eroded in the UK. They are around pay TV, mobile phones and bed and breakfasts.

First, Ofcom, the UK media regulator deemed that the UK's most successful pay TV operator - BSkyB - must be forced to sell content from its Sky Sports 1 and 2 channels to competitors at 23% less than it currently chooses to do so. The reason? "Sky exploits this market power by restricting the distribution of its premium channels to pay TV providers." This "reduces consumer choice." "

Now BSkyB has brought more choice to British TV viewers than any other broadcaster. It offers 615 TV channels, and people pay for it voluntarily, unlike the BBC which is paid for by state enforced demand notice. The story of BSkyB is how it started operation to the UK without a licence, because it was operating entirely from outside the UK. It easily bet the state endorsed BSB, bought it out and became an enormous success story, against the odds (the story is in this book). It lost money for many years, never seeking a penny from taxpayers, and became successful because it took risks, it bought broadcasting rights for major sports events and people wanted to pay for it.

In other words, it was a great British entrepreneurial success story, something to be proud of. So what does the state do? Kneecap it. It wants to boost the competitors, the lacklustre Virgin Media (which bought out the poorly performing cable TV companies NTL and Telewest), BT's (once the focus of Ofcom diktats till it was cut down to size) Vision service and even the barely known Top Up TV. What it does is say the broadcasting rights Sky bought from various sports codes are NOT Sky's, but the "people's", so it is helping out Sky's competitors.

What will be the result? Sky's competitors wont bid for the sports broadcasting rights, so the price paid to the distributors and clubs will be lower, since Sky will only be bidding against the beleagured commercial networks ITV and 5, and state owned Channel 4 and the BBC. It means Virgin Media, BT Vision and Top Up TV will have to make less effort to appeal to viewers, they can be clones of Sky.

It is another example of pseudo-entrepreneur Richard Branson seeking the gloved fist of the state to take from his competitors to help him out. A charlatan indeed.

Remember, what did Ofcom ever do to increase consumer choice? The UK has one of the most vigorously competitive pay TV sectors in the world, one which has not been subject to the ridiculous rules on price and content that is seen in the US, and the content rules in Australia. As the Daily Telegraph says "the UK desperately needs strong media conglomerates that can compete internationally. In a globalised digital era when Google is eating ITV's lunch, that means we must stop being so parochial and let British companies grow and succeed.That might mean, say, Sky and ITV gaining an uncomfortably strong domestic position. But – like a monthly subscription to Sky Sports – that's a relatively small price to pay."

However, dare the politician speak up against the wide open mouthed "consumer" in favour of the property rights of the producer.

The second issue is about mobile phones. In the UK four companies operate national mobile phone networks of their own - O2, Vodafone, Orange/T-Mobile and 3. In all they, and their wholesalers (for example, Virgin Mobile uses the Orange/T-Mobile network), have 121% market penetration. In other words, there are mobile phone accounts for every adult and child in the UK, and a fifth have a second! With a vigorously competitive industry, multiple network providers, you'd think the free market could reign. Oh no. Ofcom, yet again, sets the price those companies can charge other operators (including fixed line operators) for terminating their calls.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the current price is 4.3p/minute, it is to drop to 0.5p/minute by 2014. Allegedly it is partly due to EU pressure, as clearly it thinks it has some moral authority to set prices for contracts between private companies. Orange and Vodafone are unimpressed saying respectively:

"If these measure are put in place they will stifle innovation. Any incoming government should be mindful of what these ill-considered proposals mean for the future of their country. Handsets may no longer be subsidised, you may have to pay receive calls."

and "A cut of this magnitude deters future investment, makes it less likely that the UK will continue to lead in mobile communications and is at odds with the Government's vision of a Digital Britain."

Of course the bigger question is "Why the hell should the state interfere in contracts between companies in an open fully competitive market"?

Naturally, those advantaged by it are happier. "3" is a relatively new network, so its customers make more calls to competitors than it receives. BT, long been battered into submission by the state for being the former monopoly (and which has withdrawn from a long line of overseas investments in recent years) has also welcomed it.

What WOULD happen if Ofcom said "Set the price you wish"? Well the operators would negotiate rates based on what they thought their customers could bear. Their customers don't want to be on networks nobody wants to call after all.

Again, the UK has spawned one of the world's most successful mobile phone companies, with Vodafone the largest mobile phone company in the world by revenue, and second largest by subscribers. It's UK competitors are French-German, Spanish and Hong Kong owned, and it has thrived. New Zealanders might note that without it they would have waited far longer for text messaging, prepaid mobile phones and competitive pricing with Telecom.

However, what incentive does Ofcom have to NOT meddle?

Finally, a gaffe. Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling was recorded, off the record, by an Observer journalist saying that those who run bed and breakfasts from their homes have a right to turn away gay couples. This is contrary to "human rights" laws which say otherwise. His point was that there should be respect of people of faith who have genuinely held beliefs. His point is the wrong one.

Now, he has since felt the need to backtrack on this, pointing out he voted for the said laws which ban such discrimination, and he voted for civil partnerships to be allowed. There is little sign he himself holds so-called "homophobic" views. Of course, those on the left are out like sharks to claim the Conservatives "haven't changed".

The point he should have made IS about private property rights. It is your home, you decide who enters it. If you run a B&B then you should also be able to turn away anyone, for whatever reason or feeling you have. Simple as that. If you, as a prospective customer or visitor don't like it? Then use free speech to say so, but don't expect the state to come banging down the door to force anyone to let you in.

You don't have a right to enter anyone's property without the owner's permission. Now had Grayling said that, he might have escaped some of the dirt thrown at him. If you had children and ran a B&B, you might not ever want single men staying, or you may not want priests or whatever. You don't need to justify yourself, it's your property.

Sadly, in the UK today, the argument of private property rights is peripheral. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats actively reject such rights and will surrender them at will. However, the Conservative Party hasn't the wherewithal to argue differently.

It's about time there is a choice that does!

Prince Charles frustrated using Youtube

Well I'm guessing that's whats going on.

Imagine being Prince Charles. Never a worry about where to live or how to afford to do anything really, never a concern about being unable to generate publicity, and then not actually having a coherent philosophy about anything at all. More recently, this man with many a car to his name, called on Britons to drive less and walk more - the height of elitist hypocrisy if ever it could be.

Now he wants to make Britons pay so that rural folk can have broadband, presumably because he sits on one of his estates unable to watch funny videos on Youtube because of a lack of broadband access at prices he is willing to pay.

He is fighting for rural Britain, which he could well do with his own ample resources and fundraising. Good luck to him doing that. However he's more concerned about farms going to the wall when subsidies drop in 2012:

"Quite frankly, the fear that many of us hold is that after 2012, when support from the E.U. will alter so dramatically, it may be simply impossible for our family farmers to continue – particularly in the remote uplands, where farming is at its toughest. If they are to stay on the land they will need all the help they can get, and denying them broadband, and effectively cutting them off from the Internet, will only be more likely to drive them off the hills and into the towns and cities taking with them generations of inherited knowledge. "

Yes Charles, where farming is uneconomic, where the environment should be left to be as it was. Nobody denies them broadband, they just aren't willing to pay for it. It could be available via satellite and other means, but people in cities, who pay much much more for living space, face chronic congestion and overcrowding on roads and public transport, don't expect a subsidy for their high costs.

A better approach would be to encourage farms to consolidate, become more efficient and to attack the one tax that hits rural areas unfairly - fuel tax. Fuel tax recovers four times what is spent on roads in the UK, and given rural areas disproportionately face relatively low road costs (getting little capital investment), it should drop or be replaced with road pricing.

Charles, farmers are struggling in many countries. Farmers in Europe are among the most feather bedded in the world, and if they were so efficient they'd have nothing to fear from reduced subsidies, as their European compatriots would face even tougher conditions.

Of course, given you're own status as one of the bigger receivers of EU subsidies for your own properties, you can excuse someone for claiming that this is a hint of vested interest in this.

To say "the stakes could not be higher" shows how incredibly out of touch he is, peculiarly so. Farmers in Australia and New Zealand were weaned off of many and all subsidies respectively a couple of decades ago. It's time to grow up, and to find stakes that are higher. I'd have thought the living conditions of children growing up in homes of violence, neglect and poverty would be more important a charitable cause than subsidised farmers who find it hard to use the BBC iPlayer or video porn.

Can't rural women pay for their own broadband?

The call by Rural Women New Zealand to force taxpayers to pay for them to be able to watch Youtube more easily, listen to foreign radio broadcasts, swap holiday photos and play multiplayer computer games (and no doubt some looking at porn) is outrageous.

There is no right to high speed broadband services. Just as there is no right to free car parking next to your job, or no right to have paddocks to keep horses on.

If Rural Women New Zealand want fast broadband access, nothing is stopping them paying for it, signing long term contracts with prospective suppliers and seeing who will provide it. If no one will, nothing is stopping them entering the market themselves and providing these services which they claim are in demand.

Nothing except, they don’t want to pay the cost of providing it.

If they don’t like how much it costs, they can always move into one of the main centres where such broadband services are available. You see, if you live in remote areas why should you not be surprised that you don’t get everything that is economic to provide in cities?

In the meantime, they might contemplate why, if taxpayers are forced to subsidise their choice to live remote from telecommunications infrastructure, why they shouldn’t pay for car parking for people at work in cities (which rural people “unfairly” get for free at their jobs), pay for city home owners to acquire an acre of land each upon which their kids can play and they can keep multiple pets including ponies, and pay for increases in road capacity so city dwellers can enjoy uncongested trips, like country dwellers do. After all school children in cities miss out on having open spaces to play in, and the opportunities to interact with nature, and it is “unfair” that they don’t.

Instead, you might just accept that where you live has advantages and disadvantages, and if you live in remote areas, you get cheap land, wide open spaces, empty roads, in exchange for being remote.

Subsidising entertainment and business

That's what Steven Joyce is advocating with new "targets for rural broadband".

Apparently if you locate your business and home where the square metre of land is cheap, where there is no traffic congestion, where you don't pay for parking, where it is quiet and the air is clean, and you have ample space to do, well most things, you don't have enough advantages over major cities. No. You should get communication networks akin to them, without paying the full cost.

Given rural local road networks are already effectively subsidised by urban ratepayers and state highway users, it's not surprising of course. Fair? No.

"Over 80% of rural households will have access to broadband with speeds of at least 5Mbps, with the remainder to achieve speeds of at least 1Mbps"

You might ask why this is special? If it is for business purposes, I'd expect it to be a cost of business, and so treated as such. After all, businesses in cities have costs that rural businesses don't have (far more expensive land, parking for example), but do not expect those to be cross subsidised by rural businesses.

If it is for private use then why again? High speed internet is fun for looking at pictures, watching Youtube, listening to internet radio, downloading music, multiplayer games or whatever. So why should rural folk, again with far bigger opportunities for a wide range of outdoor activities, get these subsidised?

"Mr Joyce says he expects the rural policy to cost around $300 million". That's just over $210 per household in tax across the country. This is to reach 25% of the population, so if that is pro-rata that means the subsidised households get $857 each from this scheme. Take away the $210 per household and it is $647 each.

You'd think if it was THAT special, they might all pay that.

It's not though. You see, I bet they'd rather spend that on something else. I bet you'd rather pay that for something else too.

Feedback on Telecom proposal

The NZ Herald reports "The Government wants feedback on Telecom's request for a variation on its planned operational separation.

Telecom announced a three-way split of its operations as part of the previous Labour Government's 2006 decision to reregulate aspects of the industry.

Communications and Information Technology Minister Steven Joyce said Telecom recently requested the government consider a variation to the proposed plan"

Here's my feedback:

1. Let Telecom do as it wishes. The Government does not own Telecom, Telecom's shareholders do.

2. Advise Telecom it does not need government permission for any changes to its own corporate structure, and that the Telecommunications Act 2001 will be amended to remove any powers of the government to direct the Telecom as to its property rights.

The NZX50 should take a rather significant leap at that point. The mooching participants in the telecommunications industry might have to think again before expanding their "businesses" using other people's property under duress.

Guess who likes the cellphone driving ban?

Yes the Queen of prohibition herself. It's not enough though! The harpie of controlling everyone has even said "all mobile phone calls are distracting. She recommends that even drivers with hands-free car kits pull over to take calls.

Thanks Sue, maybe we should pull over when we hear you on the radio? Maybe people walking the streets should stop. Maybe there should be more rules.

Maybe we are all adults who can figure things out for ourselves.

No, it is not because I have no concern for accidents caused by distracted drivers, but rather I'd like people prosecuted for dangerous driving, not endless new little rules that control freak authoritarians just adore to tell people what to do. It's fairly obvious, holding a cellphone while driving over the Rimutaka Hill Road isn't smart, but while stuck in a major traffic jam it wont make a difference.

Oh and she loves 2 degrees demanding that its competitors be regulated as to what they charge it for terminating calls. Always waging war on successful businesses and approving of the subsidised ones, even when they are predominantly foreign owned. Of course she gets it wrong, the campaign isn't about fees to consumers, it is about fees between carriers - and of course, why let businesses in an open market set the charges they want to pay each other when the government can do it for you?

2 degrees wants more government help

Remember I posted that 2 degrees started with an advantage over Telecom and Vodafone? Well it’s becoming more clear that 2 degrees isn’t interested in competing on a level playing field. No. It wants the government to make life easier for it by forcing its competitors to charge less than they are willing to access their networks. According to NZPA it has a "Drop the Rate, Mate" campaign, which isn't as friendly as it sounds - it wants the government to use force to help its business out.

It wants mobile termination rates (which Vodafone never had regulated in the 17 years it has competed with Telecom) to be regulated because it thinks the cost is too high. Not that it would know since it isn’t interested in building much of a parallel network to the two major players, it never has been. 2 degrees, like Vodafone (when it was owned by BellSouth in the beginning) has few customers, so as a result it pays other mobile phone operators more than it receives in kind.

In fact I recall not long after BellSouth entered the New Zealand market, the CEO of Bellsouth (USA) visited New Zealand, and demanded from the then Minister of Communications (Maurice Williamson) that he regulate Telecom so BellSouth could get a fair share of the market. Williamson told him politely that New Zealand is not the United States, you can’t get politicians to do your bidding in New Zealand as easily as he thought, that BellSouth knew the regulatory environment when it invested and so should actually get out there and compete on its merits. Within a couple of years BellSouth, having underinvested in the network, and done little to attract new customers sold the business to Vodafone, which has been a roaring success.

However, after nearly 9 years of Labour intervening and regulating in the telecommunications sector, 2 degrees isn’t interested in competing on merit, but using the state to give it a hand up – again.

It has former blogger and centre-left (well he is now) journalist Matthew Hooton to do its PR. Moreso it has an interesting ragtag mob of supporters. Consumer New Zealand has always supported regulating producers, so no surprise there. TUANZ is pretty much the same, always using never producing. NZUSA has long been a platform for socialism and the Federation of Maori Authorities has a corporate interest, as it owns the frequencies (thanks to the last Labour government) that 2 degrees uses. However, Federated Farmers is an odd one. I am sure in the interests of fairness, Federated Farmers might agree to the prices of all of its commodities to be reduced so that consumers can pay less for food and woollen items.

Steven Joyce should tell them the same as Maurice Williamson. Go away and compete. 2 degrees already has an advantage in that it didn’t pay a market price for its frequencies, it already doesn’t need to build the infrastructure of Vodafone and Telecom because it is reselling their capacity (by voluntary agreement). Grow up and move on. The last Labour government agreed, it should be a swift dismissal by Joyce.

"Mr Hooton said the new minister would face "ferocious corporate lobbying"." with apparently a large campaign, which wont be cheap, spent on lobbying - money presumably that could be used to build more of a network so less termination charges could be paid.

So, it is pretty clear 2 degrees is NOT a normal private enterprise, but one that seeks to make money through government favours. It would rather waste money engaging in currying favour with government than to build a network so it would need to pay less to its competitors (or indeed to negotiate with its competitors for better rates).

It's a company that believes in using force to get its own way, a company that I don't believe is moral to support.

2 degrees isn't competing on a level playing field

Now there has been much publicity about the new mobile phone network "2 degrees" with many TV ads.

What 2 degrees isn't telling you is a little about its history.

How did 2 degrees get its radio spectrum? Telecom and Vodafone both bought their spectrum in open competitive auctions. 2 degrees didn't get it that way.

You see, it was part of a deal that the last Labour government did to shut down Maori claims for the radio spectrum (which of course was often used before 1840!). The Waitangi Tribunal at the time believed that radio spectrum is a taonga and so shouldn't be sold, Labour allocated one of the 3G mobile phone spectrum networks to the "Maori Spectrum Trust" at a discount price, with some taxpayers' money to "develop it". Neither Telecom nor Vodafone ever used taxpayers' money to develop its cellphone networks. That Trust teamed up with a Zimbabwean company (Econet), which has since sold its shareholdings on. 2 degrees has had various private sector backers along with the Trust.

So, in effect, 2 degrees has radio spectrum at a discount rate, and has been subsidised to develop it.

It also isn't developing its own network to cover the country, no, it is using Vodafone's, at commercially negotiated rates, but always with the threat of the state regulating them, and with the threat that if Vodafone or Telecom told it to "go build your own" network, the government may regulate for access - like it already has to Telecom's network.

Broadband initiative should be shelved

Rather than duplicate the good work of someone else, the press release from Libertarianz spokesman Luke Howison on the government's broadband proposals says it all for me:

While the proposal tries to present itself as forward-looking and visionary, it is really just about identifying a currently fashionable investment and then throwing huge amounts of taxpayers' money at it. It is very easy to be visionary when you are spending someone else's money and have no accountability for the financial success of the investment.

The best thing the government could do would be to remove the barriers to private sector investment in telecommunications and to accept that if there isn't enough customer demand that investments will be (and should be) directed elsewhere.

Confiscating Telecom's property rights happens to have coincided with the end of competitors rolling out networks. Perhaps returning those property rights would have the opposite effect? Or are the soothsayers about how much prosperity and HD video porn fibre to the kerb will bring a bunch of enthusiasts that want everyone else to help pay for what they are interested in?

Rob Muldoon's back

The NZ Herald says NZ$1.5 billion of your money - an "investment" - which will "bring New Zealand into the 21st century" - "enable it to compete with countries such as Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong". (Ah yes the 20th century is alive in well in NZ, and which Korea are we competing with again?)

Yes, National is going to grow the state by setting up a "Crown investment company" called "Crown Fibre Investment Co" (not that it is picking technology winners of course!) to build a network, and the users will come. I said before the election that this was shades of Muldoon's Think Big.

Look at the promises behind it:
- John Key says "They will be able to watch TV comfortably and easily over their computer screens, ". OHH TV over the computer screen, now THAT will create jobs right? I mean it's not as if there isn't digital Freeview subsidised by the state, and Sky's own commercially provided satellite platform right? You need TV via broadband to.... let you watch foreign TV subsidised??
- and "they will be able to run businesses from home". Amazing. Don't believe anyone running a business from home at the moment, they LIE, you can't do it without fibre to your home!

This is despite Telecom, Vodafone and Telstra Clear, the only real network providers in the country saying that their own plans will be adequate to meet demand - no doubt noting that when the government starts setting up a rival network, it devalues their own. In other words, the government is effectively shutting out significant new PRIVATELY funded network investment.

Ask yourself how you'd feel now as Telstra Clear, having spent hundreds of millions of dollars ten or so years ago rolling out hybrid fibre-coax cable to the kerb in Wellington and Christchurch, for the state to be now using taxpayers' money to roll out a superior network? (Well frankly Telstra Clear, having called for state expropriation of Telecom's property rights SHOULD now feel some chagrine).

Ernie Newman of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand (not producers mind you, and not taxpayers either) is happy as can be, having long demanded the state subsidise and regulate for the benefit of his members. He was long a chief advocate of confiscating Telecom's property rights.

So why is this happening? Does the government truly believe that subsidising a particular technology so that consumers (far more than producers) can download Youtube, music, listen to internet radio and play high definition interactive games is good for the economy, or even moral?

After all, Stuff says "Ultra-fast broadband will let people watch high-definition or three-dimensional TV online, while talking on the phone via broadband or making video phone calls. Downloading movies will become much faster."

Is that worth subsidising? Faster movie downloads??

Anyway, why wont the private sector provide if people want it (and crucially are willing to pay)?

Well when you add up:
- Government denying Telecom and Vodafone private property rights over their telecommunications networks by forcing both to sell capacity on their networks to competitors at a price set by government;
- Government likely to regard any collusion between telcos for a new fibre network to be "anti-competitive";
- The RMA allowing local authorities to prohibit new overhead wire telecommunications networks in their districts, even if there are already such networks at present.

Then you might figure out that this Muldoonist approach to telecommunications is the wrong approach, and that subsidising the entertainment of New Zealanders who want cheap fast broadband is quite simply wrong.

David Farrar is typically abandoning his usual rather liberal smaller state approach to affairs and swinging in behind Muldoonist central planning of internet infrastructure. He will enjoy fibre to the kerb, and thinks my parents and their elderly friends should be forced to pay for it.

It is Think Big for the 21st century, it is cheaper, and less ambitious, but is driven by the same cargo cult belief that it will be some sort of economic saviour.

At best, it might prove to be financially self sustaining at some point, and get enough use to not be a total disaster, but at worst it will prove to be far more expensive than predicted, will not be completed according to plan, supplant other technologies, and wont deliver cheap broadband because... quite simply, it can't make international internet backbone capacity cheaper.

UPDATE: Paul Walker at Antidismal quotes an interesting example of how private sector underinvestment occurs when it fears the risk of nationalisation.

Government cuts spending on broadband pork

Well, the NZ$340 million broadband subsidy that Labour proposed.

Because National has a bigger one, which I can only hope doesn't go anywhere. If the telecommunications industry could be certain of its private property rights, it would invest where it would see returns in providing broadband capacity.

Labour's Clare Curran (who I described as a vile little PR hack) is screeching saying it is "gut wrenching and wrong", presumably because delaying some people having subsidised access to swap music, download pirated videos, porn and do high end gaming is "wrong". Not that she knows right from wrong, as she actively tried to position National as "enemies of the people". You can just see what she'd have been doing had she lived in East Germany before 1989. She says it sends the industry tumbling backwards. Well any industry that needs shots of money taken from taxpayers shouldn't be our concern.

Broadband has become the new political pork of the 21st century. Those who want it aren't prepared to pay for it. Some suppliers are gagging for subsidies to expand their "businesses" and it has become the cargo cult "essential for the economy". Remarkable how something so essential doesn't get investors excited or the users willing to pay for what it costs.

However, I wont hold out hope that the government will keep its sticky fingers off this, restore private property rights to Telecom over its network and remove the ability of councils to block the roll out of new telecommunications networks through the RMA

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear

The New Zealand Police catch on quick. Given the report that the UK government is looking to ban anonymous prepaid cellphone accounts, they are looking to do the same thing according to the Dominion Post.

Yes, a government mandated national database of everyone using cellphones. Although it is remarkable that there isn't one to require everyone using internet messaging services to display IP addresses, or indeed one to require everyone with a PC to be registered, or every letter. How have the Police coped? As I said before, in communist Romania the Securitate required all typewriters to be licensed. In the former East Germany, the Stasi kept meticulous notes on everything suspects did, down to the minute. The film The Lives of Others, gives a chilling insight into this.

Of course, Detective Senior Sergeant Darrin Thomson has the classic response to those who might query it:

"I certainly don't think that this is a system to be implemented that would be abused - it's no different from you and I having a landline. People who are going about their lawful business, which is a great majority of the community, have got nothing to worry about".

Which of course is how the Police will justify any intrusion into your privacy. After all, you could let the Police search your home without warrant under that basis, open all your mail, tap your phone calls, read your emails.

Why fear the state?

The Police say it is no different from having a landline after all - except that the phone company HAS to know where you are since you are connecting fixed infrastructure. This is different. This is the state demanding that there be no anonymity when you do something that 9 times out of 10 is innocuous.

Of course criminals will all be caught through this. After all, none would use false or temporary addresses. This couldn't possibly increase the attractiveness of stealing phones. No. In fact, it wont cause a run on prepaid phones now will it? Then a legal market in prepaid SIM cards. No, the Police are totally switched onto this.

However, this is hardly surprising. Only an idiot or someone blind to history about police states would let the Police determine public policy. However, both Vodafone and Telecom are quite happy to do so, which begs the question, why the hell aren't you doing it now? If it makes sense to you, do it, don't want for the state to make you. Maybe it's because enough people WANT anonymity, maybe people want to be able to share a cellphone and as long as someone pays, who cares?

So people, which political party will oppose this? Labour? Hardly, it greatly enhanced the laws on telecommunications interception this term. National? Likewise, it is all about the war on crime - National has never been a secure believer in civil liberties. ACT? Well it is about zero tolerance as well now, but I'd like ACT to state its position - clearly. Given Australia already requires ID for purchasing cellphones, I'm not hopeful. The rest? Well United Future who knows, NZ First will happily go along with this, the Maori Party and the Greens will oppose it, because they fear their violence loving mates being caught.

So, which MP or candidate is the first who is going to trot out the Orwellian title to this post as the justification for this extra inch of Police state?

TelstraClear damns National's Think Big on telecoms

"political opportunism and a lot of hype",

"What we are seeing is a series of questionable studies and hype"

"At the moment we don't believe that putting fibre into every home is economic or necessary."

Word from the Telstra Clear Chief Executive Alan Freeth, according to the NZ Herald, and given Telstra Clear actually put a hybrid fibre-coax network to the kerb of nearly every home in Wellington, Christchurch, the Hutt Valley and Kapiti Coast, he might know a bit more than your average politician. You see his business is about selling broadband to customers, and he thinks National has got it badly wrong.

He suggests that many homes will just download more movies and porn, rather than become "more productive". Of course, the simple point is that subsidising very fast broadband is subsidising a lot of entertainment. Something the advocates ignore.

I asked where is the demand in April. Why can't those who want broadband pay for it? As Freeth is quoted saying, what good is fibre to every home in Hokitika? Indeed, why should a business that benefits enormously from high speed broadband be subsidised by one that isn't, or a pensioner, or anyone else?

I called it Think Big.

It is headline grabbing, it ignores the risks that government "investment" brings, it ignores the ethical and economic problems of forcing people to pay for something they otherwise wouldn't pay for, and may not even benefit from. It is taking money from people who may otherwise invest it in businesses or their families for what they see as greater benefit.

Labour isn't much better though, but isn't it about time that all of you who don't want to be forced to pay for this stood up and said no? Or are there far more of you who can't wait for everyone else to subsidise your movie, music and porn downloads? Or you are all running enterprising net based businesses that need subsidies right?

Kedgley's latest hysterical scaremongering

Yes, it's that old bogey the cellphone tower. Why does she hate them so, even though she uses cellphones? Well it's simple:

1. It's new technology. Yes, new, not old, traditional, nostalgic like trains, it's new, so we should be wary, cautious, don't move too fast. Remember talking in person was always good until letters were proven safe, then after that twisted wire copper phone lines. However cellphones? No. The towers haven't been proved safe have they? (neither have many foods, but nevermind - evade).

2. It's technology used a lot by businesspeople. Yes those selfish child eating, worker crushing lowlife who would sell all the poor people into Chinese sweat shops and steal crusts from begging children, boot pensioners out of their homes so they could build parties to drink expensive French champagne and drive their big SUVs to pollute the world. Cellphones aren't used much by... oops that argument doesn't wash anymore does it?

3. Private enterprise builds cellphone towers. PRIVATE! Not like the loving caring community centred Kiwirail building railways in Auckland. Private companies make profits!! Yes they spend money to make MORE money. How evil is that? Yes and when you make a profit you don't care how you do it, even if it involves taking blood from poor people, and making the elderly run on treadmills to generate power. You can't trust private enterprise!!

4. Cellphone towers involve electromagnetic radiation. What? Radiation? Ohhh like Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Mururoa. We know that kills you. Non Ionising? Oh stop with your Western non-feminist scientific rational mumbo-jumbo, PROVE it's safe? Yeah go on - it's radiation! It MUST be bad.

Kedgley's deranged attack on cellphone towers can be outed for the sheer stupidity that it is by pointing out a few little facts about electro-magnetic radiation:

1. The average person gets far more exposure from a computer screen/ TV screen (CRT or not) that they would if they lived adjacent to a cellphone tower. People with home WIFI networks also are exposing themselves to a greater level of exposure.

2. People have been living in close proximity to major radio transmitters for up to three generations with no reported ill effects. For example, Wellingtonians in Khandallah, Johnsonville and Ngaio live under the bathing radiation of the Kaukau transmitter site which transmits 10 TV channels and more FM radio stations at levels many times that of a cellphone tower. Those in Titahi Bay live adjacent to AM transmitters that target a range as distant as Hawera to the north and Blenheim to the south. A friend working in this field in Australia pointed out to some people in a community concerned about cellphone towers that they faced much greater exposure from TV transmitters 24 hours a day - to which the community responded "don't take away TV"!

3. Far more important is personal use of cellphones and laptops with WIFI. There is some anecdotal evidence indicating that sustained close exposure to these devices causes some localised heating which may pose some sort of risk. It is far from proven, but worth taking care about. Kedgley surprisingly hasn't ordered laws protecting people from talking too long on cellphones.

She funnily enough says "It is bizarre that while people need a resource consent to alter their homes, even in a minor way, telecommunications companies can erect 12 to 22 metre cell towers around New Zealand without needing any resource consent, or even to consult with the local community."

It is bizarre Sue - bizarre that people should ever need a resource consent to alter THEIR homes. THEIR P.R.O.P.E.R.T.Y. I know you don't understand the concept. However well done evading the point that if a new cellsite is created it DOES need a resource consent - the lack of consent is only needed for existing sites that are able to be used for this purpose.

Oh and Sue, there are cellphone transmitters on buildings all over cities, you can't even tell they are there, keep an eye open next time you drive through town.

Subsidised music swapping, youtube, gaming

Don't have high speed internet access? You fool - you are being made to pay grants to help subsidise the business of those supplying it.

You could just like books, but tough because the government wont make other people pay for those. You might like foreign films, but again, tough. You might like painting, but no, the state wont pay for that. This is a special bribe.

It's just another part of the advance auction of stolen goods. Your taxes being taken to pay for something Labour thinks you'll like. Well many of you will. Grants to broadband providers will make it a bit cheaper for you to download music for your ipod, watch youtube, listen to internet radio, download porn videos, engage in internet gaming. Yes of course it also will enable some businesses, but cheaper broadband benefits all such users - except it's only cheaper to the user. The taxpayer is screwed, and David Cuntliffe gets the credit, for his great plan to spend your money.

See he produces nothing. He didn't invent the internet, use his own money to set up a business to supply it, he just advocated to take more of your money and spend it on this little bribe. He says "his model provides better value for taxpayers, encourages more service providers into the market and drives competition.” Of course taxpayers never had a say did they David? You couldn't convince them to fund it voluntarily could you? Wasn't your money to spend was it?

.

Oh and of course, National promises even more.

Labour erodes mobile phone operators' property rights

David Cunliffe has nationalised something else by stealth. It was coming, and has less publicity than local loop unbundling, but the government has announced the terms and conditions by which Vodafone and Telecom will be forced to onsell their network capacity to competitors. That means being required to offer the cellsites they developed themselves, and all of the equipment including the newer 3G networks.

.Let's remember how cellular networks developed. The first was Telecom's from 1987 which was a monopoly until the government sold off other spectrum, and BellSouth started replicating Telecom's network in 1993. Vodafone bought BellSouth and greatly expanded its coverage, built it all from scratch. Its coverage largely overlaps Telecom's. Meanwhile Telecom installed two digital networks and Vodafone retrofitted its current one.

.However Labour doesn't want a third company doing the same thing, it has decided to penalise those that HAVE built networks by making them resell them to those who wont. So there wont be any new networks (the new providers have to reach 5% of the population, which can be easily done with a handful of sites in Auckland) unless you are willing to share your investment with competitors.

.Nice one that, and will National reverse this?

Broadband Think Big - so where is the demand?

Well as David Farrar posts there has been a lot of positive about National's proposal to make you pay for a network you may never use. Even some snarking from the left, which of course means nothing, because as Owen McShane pointed out on Kiwiblog - Labour (and the Greens) want to pour over a billion dollars of your money into public transport that hardly anyone will use, and which will lose money and make hardly a dent on congestion in Auckland.
.
So in some ways you can see that spending $1.5 billion on broadband makes more sense that on railways. No study asserts that Auckland rail improvements will generate new income or even generate net economic benefits.
.
However, it is important to remember Telecom's (ha!) network of twisted copper pairs is not the only telecommunications network to many homes in the country. In Christchurch and Wellington (including the Hutt Valley and Kapiti, but not Porirua except a small part of Whitby) almost all homes have access to, not fibre to the kerb but the next best thing - a hybrid fibre coax network. What this means is that fibre optics provide the backbone, but this is broken out into networks for streets with coaxial cable, which is far higher capacity than twisted copper.
.
This network is TelstraClear's and it sells cable TV services and highspeed broadband over that network. In Christchurch it offers 25 Mbps, and 10 Mbps in Wellington.
.
So I want to ask, given TelstraClear isn't the majority provider of broadband in either major city, given it is technologically more advanced than current ADSL services, why aren't Wellington and Christchurch enjoying the rapacious economic "boom" promised by National?
.
Meanwhile, the reaction from other parties is instructive:
.
ACT has actually shown some principles and argued that (funnily enough) it is Think Big all over again (gee who said that first?) . Rodney Hide said:
.
Who will invest now, when National is promising one or other company a $1.5 billion investment subsidy?.... Telecommunications has suffered hugely from government-induced risk and an uncertain regulatory environment. National has thrown the existing regulatory framework back into chaos.... It’s 'Think Big' all over again, with John Key 'picking winners' in an industry remarkable for its innovation. He has set an arbitrary goal of 75 percent "Fibre to the Home" by 2014 with no clear analysis of the costs and benefits. And it's a backward step for competition in the industry as the $1.5 billion subsidy will deliver a state-sponsored monopoly."
.
Indeed Rodney, well done, although he didn't explicitly say ACT rejects it, it was as good as doing so. Naturally Libertarianz rejects it out of hand.
.
NZ First is just stupid saying National wants to do a deal with Telecom. It's almost as if its geriatric voters don't understand the idea of open access or competition. Nonsense that home phones are dear (with unlimited free calling) and cellphones are expensive is just plain old fashioned pig ignorance.
.
Peter Dunne likes it, but then he worships the cargo cult of Transmission Gully - another $1 billion waste of money that needs general taxpayers to prop it up. He funnily said ACT "delivered a standard libertarian rant", ah we can dream Peter. You deliver the standard "government should spend other people's money" rant.
.
So I do wonder, should National sacrifice Transmission Gully in favour of transmitting broadband? Or should it just remember whose money it is?
.
Oh and for all the arguments about lifting GDP - here's one, for National - cut spending and cut taxes! That means company tax at 20% not 30%, the top tax rate not at 39% but at 20%... it means New Zealand being attractive for investors, businesspeople and professionals.
.
It's called the level playing field - you might even find telecommunications investment increases then.