It [the Commission ruling] substantially reduces the income of that company [Chorus] and its capacity around broadband.
Chorus investors (who are rewarded for risk, ffs) aren’t the only investors in telecommunications, even if you did think “investors” some special interest group that deserved more attention than others.
I wonder to what degree this proposed intervention and attendant kerfuffle is intended to distract us from the rort, that for every copper line, every month, Chorus (nee Telecom) was being paid $12.53 more than it was worth. That the original “retail minus” model was so inflated by monopoly rentier behaviour, that when a “cost plus” regime was instituted it discovered how excessive the rent was.
That a company (Chorus) that is receiving the lion’s share of the State’s investment in fibre deployment, should then be protected by the State from a rational reduction in price is sketchy. Especially when you consider the reduction will transfer profit to more competitive (AKA risky) companies who use the monopoly copper input to provide consumer choice in the market.
Hamish MacEwan 