TUANZ - socialism in telecommunications

Ernie Newman has been head of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand (TUANZ) for some years now. TUANZ has been one of the leading lobbyists for the so called "rights" of telecommunications users, rather than producers. It has supported the government's decimate of part of Telecom’s property rights over its infrastructure, and compulsory funding of telecommunications infrastructure. Of course, TUANZ, you see, produces absolutely nothing.
^
As an association of users, it seeks to represent their interests. Now this isn’t in itself a bad thing. There is always value in consumers having product information, and to inform suppliers about demand and what they are interested in. However the agenda of TUANZ is a bit more than that. TUANZ demands that the state ensure that suppliers provide it with what they want.
^
Imagine a FUANZ for food. FUANZ would demand that the state regulate the price of food, guarantee a certain variety of produce and foods be available across the country at a similar price, and probably would want supermarkets which had no competition within a certain area to open up parts of their property to competing retailers. FUANZ would be ridiculous, so why isn’t TUANZ?
^
TUANZ talks as if competition in telecommunications is new, just because Telecom is forced to allow other companies to use its property at a price dictated by the state. It largely takes for granted the vast reduction in prices for many basic telecommunications services, such as national and international calls, internet provision, mobile phone services, which all arose without local loop unbundling. TUANZ would say it wasn’t enough- but did you see TUANZ investing a dollar in a network? Well it might argue some of its members did, as TUANZ has been supported by many of Telecom’s competitors for years. At one point if I recall correctly, Telecom gave up on membership of TUANZ, because it was sick of helping funding a lobbyist that was so against it, and was effectively representing the interests of its competitors.

^
TUANZ has long supported local loop unbundling, which is now compulsory in NZ (as it is in many countries admittedly, but then so is a state monopoly on postal services). It is predicated on it being economically unviable to duplicate Telecom’s twisted copper pair local telecommunications network, and therefore the provision of broadband internet capacity.

Funnily enough, it hasn’t been predicated on competition in local phone services, largely because the price of these has never really been seen to be too high. Besides, with the Kiwishare Obligation, Telecom has been required to grossly cross subsidise rural phone consumers from the cost of urban phone consumers.
^
Ironically, having achieved the effective nationalisation of the local phone network of Telecom (though not the duplicate one of TelstraClear in central Auckland or suburban Wellington and Christchurch – one rule for one), Ernie Newman is not yet happy. Decimating Telecom’s property rights of course decimate its interest in investing in that network, something dismissed by Newman and the Labour regime as being of less interest than competition. You see, it wasn’t seen to be reasonable to simply sit back and let competitors invest in a duplicate network. Telecom's competitors wanted access to Telecom's network to resell its services under their brands.

^

Somehow building duplicate networks was deemed uneconomic even though:
- Bellsouth, then bought by Vodafone, virtually duplicated Telecom’s entire mobile phone network within five years;
- Saturn/Telstra-Saturn/ Telstra-Clear duplicated Telecom’s residential phone network with a combination twisted copper pair/hybrid fibre coax network in most of suburban Wellington/Hutt Valley/Kapiti Coast and Christchurch;
- Satellite based broadband (high speed downloads not uploads) has been available nationwide for around nine years.

Don't forget the barriers that local authorities through the RMA have imposed on this network duplication, but that is an aside.

^
Now Newman in the NZ Herald is saying”
“As telecommunications increases its role as a dominant force in our lives, a small country like New Zealand has a vast amount to gain in productivity and lifestyle terms from taking the extra step to be an early adopter.In the 21st century this means replacing copper wires with fibre optic cable”.

^
Words of a sector seeking protectionism or subsidies if ever there was one.

To which I say – what the hell was the point of decimating Telecom’s property rights in technology you now deem obsolete? He talks of it bringing great benefits, with high speed video, voice and data services – great. You might ask yourself what else you might like at home, like a jacuzzi, home gym, you might like more overseas holidays, so bear this all in mind.

^
Newman continues:
“In total, the cost of digging up the nation's footpaths and rose gardens to replace copper with fibre looks daunting.”

^
Surely not Ernie, if after all, everyone wants what you say they want, they’ll pay for it! He says it will work this way:

^
“Fibre to the street cabinets is the job of the phone companies - they've already started.”

The “they” are interesting, I would have thought it was all the job of the phone companies, but then Newman wants to make it easier for them and for his members. He goes on:

^
“From the street cabinet to the letter boxes should be a job for local authorities or power companies - provision of infrastructure services is work they excel at.”

^

Should be? Why did Telecom do this in the 90s, why did Telstra Clear? Since when did local authorities “excel” at provision of infrastructure services? Has he seen how water/sewer infrastructure in some rural districts is in a crisis? Roads in Auckland? The great days of municipal electricity companies underinvestment and regular power cuts? What’s stopping power companies now Ernie? What has been smoking? Either he wants to force them to do it, or with local government force us to pay for it – given what he says in his next statement – it sounds like a bizarre string of payments.

“And the letter box to the living room should be the customer's contribution - once I have fibre running past my letter box I'll gladly pay to get it to the house to improve my quality of life and ability to work, and add value to my home.”

Well Ernie good for you, surely you would pay the phone company for the lot directly or through the fees you pay for the services you think everyone wants to improve their productivity.

You see, Mr Newman sees telecommunications like roads – except roads are paid for by users of course, and he ignores the tragedy of the commons of roads – which is congestion, gross overpayment by some users (trucks on rural Canterbury state highways) and gross underpayment by others (car commuters on most congested Auckland routes).

He says:

^
“Broadband is infrastructure - the "roads and railways of the 21st century". Investment in infrastructure is inter-generational and has an economy-wide payback.”

Complete rubbish of course, as broadband infrastructure hardly has a depreciated life anywhere approaching a road or a railway line. It doesn't justify why those who DON'T use it should be made to pay for it. It is easy to physically duplicate telecommunications infrastructure, and it can be done wirelessly as well as by cable. Roads aren’t quite as easy. The “economy-wide” payback is the same sort of socialist nonsense that farmers, motor vehicle manufacturers, and ever other featherbedded industry put forward for state protection and subsidy. The truth is that state investment in infrastructure has been incredibly wasteful in many many cases. Why should it be any better now?

You see governments tend to invest not based on commercial returns at all, but on a combination of economic appraisal and political imperatives, because they are not spending their own money, but other people’s for which they are not accountable fundamentally.

^

He goes on about fibre networks being “common roadways” so everyone uses and no one takes responsibility. He calls for public investment in broadband – which to get rid of the euphemism is forcing you to pay for a network you may or may not use. He wants a sharing of the cost between public and private sectors.

TUANZ is now the telecommunications subsidy association of New Zealand. New Zealanders should tell Newman to get the hell out of the wallets and that if he stopped lobbying for government to hamstring the largest investor in telecommunications then he might get more investment in new technology and networks. Newman might ask Telstra Clear why the hell it doesn’t roll out a competing network and if it isn’t economic then he might ask his members to invest in one themselves. Newman might wonder why the hell he thinks the people he represents are more important than consumers of books, music, shoes, air travel, antiques or the like, or why telecommunications providers are more deserving of taxpayer support than farmers, manufacturers, restaurants, trucking companies or others?

Or maybe why people need to be forced to pay for something? Maybe people don’t really want the “triple play” of high speed services he says are so compelling, or rather they wouldn’t choose to pay for that over a new car, overseas trip, new shoes, reducing their mortgage or a nice bottle of wine. He uses the arguments of a socialist, and does no service to users or producers in doing so.

NZ's own insurgency

Hat tip to Not PC for pointing out Phil Howison's excellent article about the Urewera 17, you know that group that far too many have excused.

Phil has gone through much detail to demonstrate what a credible threat they posed, and does help you think what nonsense is behind those who think the arrests were some sort of Labour party manipulated political targeting.

Read it, it is one of the best researched articles so far on this incident, and all Maori and Green party candidates this year, in particular, deserve to be grilled about what they think of the views expressed by the Urewera 17.

Battle of values: Part One

Much of the political and philosophical debate around policies, ideas, practices and even the use of language surrounds values - in other words, what is someone declaring is more important than something else. While it may seem obvious what "commonsense values" may be, they are not - indeed, you'd be hard pressed to find universality about values across major civilisations around the world. What is the chief value of Islamists? Arguably it is submission during life and pursuit of death (and the believed afterlife). What is the chief value of an environmentalist? Arguably it can be other species, or even simply matter. What is the chief value of a Marxist? The so called "working class". The values actually believed in may not be expressed explicitly, but they do guide philosophy and speak volumes about how philosophers and politicians (indeed everyone) see the relationships between human beings and the universe.

~

Without going into a long, and potentially turgid explanation of values and philosophy, I'll state what my highest value is - human life. Sounds self evident, but in valuing life I am rejecting the worshipping of an after life as an end in itself, or that human beings should be sacrificed for other species, or indeed that human beings should be sacrificed at all. Human beings have a rational faculty which they must use to survive and to prosper and be happy. In order that they can use this they must have the freedom to apply their minds and its greatest tool, their bodies to the universe. However, the initiation of force is the denial of reason and the denial of another person's rational faculty. That is why I reject the use of force, except in self defence.

~

So coming from that, I believe that government and more importantly, societal values should respect reason and as a corollary of that, individual adult autonomy and freedom, and reject violence except to defend that. Human beings should be able to interact voluntarily, and can choose what they do together or for each other, or in exchange. From that human beings can maximise their own life and the lives of those they care for.

~

There are plenty of people and philosophies out there that reject this, in fact none of the political parties in the NZ Parliament accept this, although ACT come closest in its rhetoric (and in the last three years has said the least that is inconsistent with this). So this post, and the series to follow over the next week or so will be focusing on the battles of values which i see as being most pernicious to confront in the 21st century.

~

I see them as being:

- Islamism;

- Environmentalism;

- Christian fundamentalism;

- Nihilism (or rather a lack of values at all);

- Nationalism/racism

- Marxism.

~

I hesitated to add the last two. Nationalism/racism and Marxism are less of a problem in the 21st century compared to the 20th, but they are still a problem, infect minds with an evasion of thought and reason, and both are harbingers of bigotry. Nationalism is bigotry by location and origins, Marxism bigotry of property ownership. So they both need to be covered, imagine if US politics was devoid of the politics of nationalism and Marxism - what would the Democratic Party do without Marxism?

~

The most urgent battle is against Islamism - because Islamists are waging war against us, against Western civilisation. Unfortunately environmentalists along with Marxists are appeasing it and Christian fundamentalists want to replace Islamo-fascism with their own. The others are, by and large, not waging an orchestrated campaign of war.

Green's ignore the vileness of Iran

Think of South Africa some years ago, when under apartheid it tortured political prisoners, suppressed free speech, shot unarmed civilians on the street, and was developing its own nuclear weapons programme. Think also of how you could pretty much guarantee all those in the Green party would have protested loudly against all of this, with pretty good justification.

Now of course we have Iran. Iran has a nuclear programme that it has consistently refused to allow inspections at the level of transparency required by the International Atomic Energy Agency under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Green Party believes in the abolition of nuclear weapons, so you’d think it would regard as a priority stopping new countries acquiring them – well apparently not. I haven’t seen a single protest or call by any Green MPs or letter to the Iranian embassy requesting that Iran fully comply with IAEA requirements, given that 183 other non-nuclear weapons states seem to be able to do so. No, well apparently its not important.

Iran’s President repeatedly calls for the abolition of the state of Israel, using rhetoric of annihilation. Iran funds and trains Hamas and Hizbollah, which have both repeatedly attacked Israel and are both committed to wiping Israel off the map. Iran also funds, trains and arms part of the insurgency in Iraq, committed to installing an Islamist regime there. However, the Green party isn’t too concerned about warmongering against Israel, or fighting secular and US led coalition forces in Iraq, is it now?

So what does an Iranian Islamist regime look like? Well Iran executes teenage girls who admit they have been raped. By no measure of civilisation can this be seen as anything less than vile and immoral. It also executes teenage boys for having consensual sexual relations with unmarried legal age girls. It used underage soldiers for mine clearing during its war with Iraq. Iran imprisons though who “insult Islam”, and who call for a secular liberal democratic state – you know, like the one the Green party likes to support, or indeed like the United States.

So when the USA confronts Iran, because it has failed for some time to meet its international obligations to the IAEA, including failing to fulfill conditions laid out in relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and notes that Iran through military means is promoting its own vile form of Islamist tyranny, what does the Green Party say?

Frogblog asks John Key “Would he agree that Iran was “the world’s leading state sponsor of terror”? Many would say that the US was, citing their financial and technical support for Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein prior to turning against them."

At best, this is dredging back to the 1980s, during the Cold War, when not this US President, nor the previous one, nor the one before that (but the one before that) started providing support for Hizbollah’s campaign against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (not quite Osama Bin Laden but certainly Islamists). This was Jimmy Carter that started this!! The US also provided support to Saddam Hussein against Islamist Iran, which is difficult to defend except on the “enemy’s enemy is your friend doctrine”. However let’s note that the US has consistently opposed the Iranian Islamist regime from day one. It has been some Presidents ago since the US supported Saddam Hussein.

Of course, Green MP Keith Locke was one of those cheerleading the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at the time (hey they like to blame the USA today for something that happened over 20 years ago, why not blame them for supporting murderers then?). This was a brutal imperialistic occupation, but somehow the Greens DON'T say that Russia was a leading sponsor of terror - of course not, that was "back then" during the Cold War, we don’t worry about that now – Russia is forgiven for the decades of misery its Marxist-Leninist dictatorship inflicted upon hundreds of millions around the world.

Moreover, the Greens effectively apply moral equivalency between Iran and the USA - where there is individual freedom on a grand scale compared to Iran, where women do have equal legal rights, where there is a high degree of freedom of speech and a secular state. It is dishonest and discredits their claims to be advocates for "international justice, peace and human rights".

The Green party likes to claim it takes the moral highground on human rights internationally, but when it is a state the US targets (for whatever reason) it starts finding excuses for it.

The Green (declared) beliefs in feminism, freedom of speech, secular government, liberal democracy and human rights are set to one side, along with its agenda against nuclear weapons, or even the belief in peace, because Iran is being exposed for what it is by the USA. The blind anti-Americanism is such that the Greens NEVER protest against the torture and executions carried out by Iran, and NEVER protest Iran's failure to be transparent with the IAEA (even though you profess to believe in multilateralism).

They are no different from the old fashioned Soviet type anti-Americans of the Cold War. If USA confronts another country it's baad, so a blind eye is turned to what Iran does. I for one would be thrilled if the Iranian Islamist state was overthrown, I would also prefer an airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities over an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel, or an Iranian supplied nuclear device for terrorists to use in the West.

The question really is, what will it take for the Greens to protest against Iran's horrendous human rights record and its nuclear programme? How many have to die due to the Iranian state deliberately engaging in murder of its own citizens? What answers will the Greens have if Iran tests a nuclear weapon in the next 2-3 years, or if it implies that it has one?

So what about the men?

Now this case of public group sex involving a teenage girl and several men, is likely to be associated with an earlier news item about an occurence of group sex between a teenage girl and several men on a hotel balcony in Christchurch - which still raises the question as to why SHE was charged, but nothing has been mentioned about the men involved.

She was convicted of theft, which is the only real crime here. The drugs were presumably not just about her, whereas the sex charge (indecency in a public place) is what the prurient media have latched onto.

Perhaps the men have been charged and convicted, or perhaps reporters are only interested in the words "teenage girl" and "groupsex" in the same phrase.

and on the name suppression, assuming there aren't two very similar cases, it really should have happened before Stuff published the girl's full name some months ago.

Such high standards.