Hacker News Reader

Comment by mwc | Hacker News Reader

In New Zealand, our broadband market is structurally separated.

The the access provider for both the copper and fibre network (right to the customer premises) is a regulated wholesale only provider, which is required to provide open access to its network on a non-discriminatory basis between all access seekers (retail telecommunications companies).[0]

This almost entirely resolves the net neutrality debate in New Zealand.

[0] This is a slight simplification: Chorus is the network owner for the copper network, and about 70% of the fibre network. The other 30% of fibre network is also built, owned and operated by wholesale only providers on a comparable basis.

View on HN

How well do you feel that this has worked? I was under the impression that telecom prices in New Zealand were pretty painfully expensive?

It's a little island in the middle of the pacific everything except maybe sheep is going to be expensive

Two islands, actually. More than 30 if you count all the outlying ones.

NZ used to have expensive and slow internet (we don't have much TV cable here, so it was all ADSL), but it's gotten a lot better in the last few years. Currently I have 1000mbit down / 500mbit up fiber with unlimited data for $130nz/month (90usd).

The model does work pretty well.

I have 1000/500 UFB to my house for ~$100USD/month. Unlimited data :)

Electric service works that way in Texas.

The US has basically that model for many other natural monopolies, and it works alright.

I think we could do with a bit more government investment in infrastructure, because government is really the only entity that can drop a trillion dollars, then wait 40-50 years for its returns. (Well, them and pension funds, but neither has exactly shown great financial prudence lately.)

I just... Have a hard time articulating why infrastructure is important, because it's just so glaringly obvious from my perspective that it is. I mean, we see infrastructure everywhere in nature -- from the layout of bacteria mats to ant colonies. The idea that our society can be vibrant without having to perform those basic functions is absurd.

So it makes sense that the lives which depend on the services should control the final delivery network when it's not possible to deploy more than one or two -- eg, FTTH should be utility, cellphones should be a market; roads should be (largely) public, etc.

If the US's power is its people, then infrastructure is what allows us to maintain and focus that power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com