IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

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

Listed author(s):
  • Howell, Bronwyn
Registered author(s):

    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.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/4133
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation in its series Working Paper Series with number 4133.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 2012
    Handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcsr:4133
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    ISCR, PO Box 600, Victoria University Wellington 6140, New Zealand

    Phone: +64 (4) 463 5562
    Web page: http://www.iscr.co.nz/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. 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.
    2. Inderst, Roman & Peitz, Martin, 2012. "Network investment, access and competition," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 407-418.
    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. Ibrahim Kholilul Rohman & Erik Bohlin, 2012. "Does broadband speed really matter as a driver of economic growth? Investigating OECD countries," International Journal of Management and Network Economics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(4), pages 336-356.
    5. Annemijn van GORP & Catherine MIDDLETON, 2010. "Fiber to the Home Unbundling and Retail Competition: Developments in the Netherlands," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(78), pages 87-106, 2nd quart.
    6. 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.
    7. 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, 03.
    8. Elhanan Helpman & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1996. "Diffusion of General Purpose Technologies," NBER Working Papers 5773, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Rohman, Ibrahim Kholilul & Bohlin, Erik, 2012. "Does broadband speed really matter for driving economic growth? Investigating OECD countries," 23rd European Regional ITS Conference, Vienna 2012 60385, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Bourreau, Marc & Cambini, Carlo & Hoernig, Steffen, 2012. "Ex ante regulation and co-investment in the transition to next generation access," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 399-406.
    13. 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.
    14. Howell, Bronwyn & Obren, Mark, 2002. "Broadband Diffusion: Lags from Vintage Capital, Learning by Doing, Information Barriers and Network Effects," Working Paper Series 3896, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Heatley, David & Howell, Bronwyn, 2010. "Regulatory Implications of Structural Separation," Working Paper Series 4069, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcsr:4133. 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)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.