IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competition and Regulation Policy in Antipodean Government-Funded UltraFast Fibre Broadband Markets


  • Howell, Bronwyn


Both the Australian and New Zealand governments have committed to spend substantial sums in order to bring forward the nationwide deployment of ultra-fast fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) broadband networks. With deployment proceeding apace, two significant questions have arisen regarding the economic, commercial and political rationale for the Australian and New Zealand governments‟ decisions. The first is why the respective governments are assuming a central role in the design, financing, deployment and (in Australia‟s case) operation of a nationwide network of a specific technology type, given that such intervention is at significant variance with both recent international industry policy and practice advocated by international agencies such as the OECD and the ITU, and the recent policy and regulatory history in both countries. The second is how these new Government-funded networks will affect the nature of competitive interaction in the telecommunications (broadband) industry in their respective countries. This paper addresses these questions. First it traces the development of the Australian and New Zealand fibre investment policies in the context of international competition policy orthodoxy. It then examines the competition and regulation policies that will govern the insertion of the respective government-funded fibre networks into environments where both legacy policies and technological developments have shaped, and will continue to shape, the evolution of the respective telecommunications sectors. The analysis finds that political, rather than economic imperatives have dominated the government investment decision in both countries. The Australian investment has been accompanied by a comprehensive set of competition and regulation policies aligned with maximising the likelihood of fibre uptake, but both the up-front costs and political risks are high. The New Zealand initiative is lower-cost initially, but lacks clear over-arching competition and regulation policy objectives to guide sector development. The result is a fragmented regulatory regime and a range of contradictory and confusing incentives for all sector participants that will inevitably increase the economic costs of the project and lead to delays in fibre network uptake. Consequently, the Antipodean „experiments‟ in government funding of fibre networks are unlikely to offer good models of either policy or process for other jurisdictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Howell, Bronwyn, 2012. "Competition and Regulation Policy in Antipodean Government-Funded UltraFast Fibre Broadband Markets," Working Paper Series 2787, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
  • Handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcsr:2787

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Oecd, 2001. "The Development of Broadband Access in the OECD Countries," OECD Digital Economy Papers 56, OECD Publishing.
    2. Bourreau, Marc & Dogan, PInar & Manant, Matthieu, 2010. "A critical review of the "ladder of investment" approach," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 683-696, December.
    3. de Streel, Alexandre, 2008. "Current and future European regulation of electronic communications: A critical assessment," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(11), pages 722-734, December.
    4. Michał Grajek & Lars-Hendrik Röller, 2012. "Regulation and Investment in Network Industries: Evidence from European Telecoms," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(1), pages 189-216.
    5. Given, Jock, 2010. "Take your partners: Public private interplay in Australian and New Zealand plans for next generation broadband," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 540-549, October.
    6. Wallsten, Scott, 2005. "Returning to Victorian Competition, Ownership, and Regulation: An Empirical Study of European Telecommunications at the Turn of the Twentieth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(03), pages 693-722, September.
    7. Crandall Robert W. & Ingraham Allan T & Singer Hal J, 2004. "Do Unbundling Policies Discourage CLEC Facilities-Based Investment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, June.
    8. de Boer, David Boles & Evans, Lewis, 1996. "The Economic Efficiency of Telecommunications in a Deregulated Market: The Case of New Zealand," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 72(216), pages 24-35, March.
    9. Guthrie, Graeme, 2006. "Regulating Infrastructure: The Impact on Risk and Investment," Working Paper Series 3851, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    10. Bouckaert, Jan & van Dijk, Theon & Verboven, Frank, 2010. "Access regulation, competition, and broadband penetration: An international study," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 661-671, December.
    11. Howell, Bronwyn & Meade, Richard & O'Connor, Seini, 2010. "Structural separation versus vertical integration: Lessons for telecommunications from electricity reforms," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 392-403, August.
    12. P.W.J. De Bijl, 2005. "Structural Separation and Access in Telecommunications Markets," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Intersentia, vol. 6(2), pages 95-115, June.
    13. Frieden, Rob, 2005. "Lessons from broadband development in Canada, Japan, Korea and the United States," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 595-613, September.
    14. Heatley, David & Howell, Bronwyn, 2010. "Structural Separation and Prospects for Welfare-Enhancing Price Discrimination in a New 'Natural Monopoly' Network: comparing fibre broadband proposals in Australia and New Zealand," Working Paper Series 4056, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    15. Goldfarb, Avi & Prince, Jeff, 2008. "Internet adoption and usage patterns are different: Implications for the digital divide," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 2-15, March.
    16. Sadowski, Bert & Howell, Bronwyn, 2012. "Will they fly?: Different Forms of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in New Zealand's UFB Initiative," Working Paper Series 4134, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    17. Huigen, Jos & Cave, Martin, 2008. "Regulation and the promotion of investment in next generation networks--A European dilemma," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(11), pages 713-721, December.
    18. Joshua S. Gans & Stephen P. King, 2004. "Access Holidays and the Timing of Infrastructure Investment," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 80(248), pages 89-100, March.
    19. Elhanan Helpman & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1996. "Diffusion of General Purpose Technologies," NBER Working Papers 5773, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Dogan, Pinar & Bourreau, Marc & Manant, Matthieu, 2010. "A Critical Review of the “Ladder of Investment†Approach," Scholarly Articles 4777447, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    21. Graeme Guthrie, 2006. "Regulating Infrastructure: The Impact on Risk and Investment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(4), pages 925-972, December.
    22. Nicholls, Rob, 2011. ""Please hold for your connection": Determining points of interconnection for open access broadband," 8th ITS Asia-Pacific Regional Conference, Taipei 2011: Convergence in the Digital Age 52320, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    23. Sadowski, Bert M. & Nucciarelli, Alberto & de Rooij, Marc, 0. "Providing incentives for private investment in municipal broadband networks: Evidence from the Netherlands," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10-11), pages 582-595, November.
    24. Bronwyn HOWELL & Arthur GRIMES, 2010. "Productivity Questions for Public Sector Fast Fibre Network Financiers," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(78), pages 127-146, 2nd quart.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcsr:2787. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Library Technology Services). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.