via Stuff
“In April, Telecom responded to the Government’s proposal to split the company into three businesses operating at arm’s length with a counter-proposal to sell off its copper phone network to a third party or Telecom shareholders taking a stake in the proposed new network company.
A Telecom press release described the Government’s proposal as “fundamentally unworkable” and uneconomic.
The hard-line approach was driven to a large degree by Mr Bogoievski, the source said.
The source said the board’s change of mind on how to manage the company in the new regulatory environment left Mr Bogoievski and other senior managers, who wanted to continue to fight greater government intervention, at odds with the board and caused a great deal of tension.
It is understood Mr Bogoievski, a candidate for the chief executive job, wanted to maintain an uncompromising stance if he was selected.
Good riddance then (if true).
This demonstrates that Mr. Bogoievski did have a good vision of the nature of the future marketplace. He focussed, it appears, on milking the monopoly cow for short term gains, and was therefore part of the underinvestment that eventually led to Goverment intervention. At the end of it all it was not customer first.
An alternative approach would have been figuring out how to make the most of the Government’s (and your customer’s) passion for change, rather than fighting the us and them battles of the past.
Another source expected acting chief executive Simon Moutter to leave Telecom, describing him as a “hawk” in his approach to Government relations, and possibly unwilling to change stance under a new and more conciliatory chief executive.
The source said one reason Mr Moutter left his position as chief executive of lines company Powerco was because of his disdain for the level of Government regulation in the electricity sector, and the increasing intervention in telecommunications could prompt him to move on.
Ditto. Both these gentlemen failed badly on “Strategy”, the very first of four “must-haves” from the Evergreen work that shows whether compaies are great or lousy. A big part of Strategy is a clear understanding of where the market is going in the future.
Simon – perhaps you too should fall on your rusty sword from those ancient battles, and save new CEO Paul Reynolds the trouble.
Lance Wiggs 
who wanted to continue to fight greater government intervention, at odds with the board and caused a great deal of tension.
Yes, I completely agree with Bogoievski here. The issue at stake here is property rights. The consumers have no rights to Telecoms properties, end of story. Same thing here as I have no rights to what is yours Lance? The consumers have a right to fast-broadband? Yes, consumers has a right to what is available to them, not what is not. Here is quote which is a cut & paste from here.
Regarding the Microsoft case, don’t consumers have a right to Windows without Explorer? Does not Microsoft’s bundling of their products (i.e. Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Windows) into one package disrupt a person’s right to only have to pay for products he wishes to buy?
No one has a right to buy whatever they wish, one only has the right to buy what others choose to sell to them. The terms of any trade must be agreeable to the buyer and the seller, or a sale does not take place. If you don’t like Microsoft’s terms, then you are free to go somewhere else..
There is no right to force Microsoft to create, or sell, a product called “Windows without Explorer” if Microsoft does not want to. The key right in this case is the right to property — which is a legitimate right. The property rights to Windows and Explorer belongs solely to Microsoft and not to potential buyers, and certainly not to the U.S. Department of Justice. That Microsoft does not want to sell the product “Windows without Explorer” does not violate your rights one iota. There is no such thing as your right to Microsoft’s property. There is only the right to buy products that others wish to sell to you. If they don’t wish to sell you them in the first place, then you have no right to buy them..
Ditto. Both these gentlemen failed badly on “Strategy”.
No, wrong Lance, the government , should have left alone the properties of private enterprises for them to manage their own affairs. I don’t own Telecom shares, which means I don’t have rights to their properties one iota, end of story.
A big part of Strategy is a clear understanding of where the market is going in the future.
Yes, Lance, the market needs fast-broadband as I assume, but where is the challenger to step in there to challenge Telecom? When the market changes, and there is a challenger who steps in to fill in those demands for a product or service, then Telecom would woke up and compete, therefore dropping the prices for consumers. The industry just granted Telecom to be a monopoly, just because they don’t have the stomach to compete, simple as that. Competitors want the government to hold a gun to Telecom’s head via legislation (“comply or else”) to steal their private property.
LikeLike
thanks for the comment.
Governments step in when markets fail
Corporates, like us, must operate in a regulated environment. If a corporate steps over the line of decent behaviour then the Government will step in. Oil companies have known this.
The big deal here is that Telecom is Telecom because of Government investment and Government mandates. They are essentially a monopoly provider of services to NZ citizens, and have failed in that provision. There is no viable challenger because Telecom fought rear-guard action to maintain the market structure instead of running forward.
Hence the intervention.
LikeLike
If a corporate steps over the line of decent behaviour then the Government will step in.
Sorry, corporates are not there in the first place to be darling or Santa Claus to the society, by investing in projects that they see as not making money. Corporates (and their shareholders) are there to do business for their own self interests, not the interests of the society, means not your interests nor my interests (unless I am a shareholder).
There is no viable challenger because Telecom fought rear-guard action to maintain the market structure instead of running forward.
Here are some viable alternatives.
First, the government should have built an alternative network as a competitor to Telecom, since the government is run with taxpayer’s money (you , me and the whinging consumers). We (the society) should lobby hard for the government to provide our needs for high-speed-broadband, since they (government) work for us(citizens of the society). The government has our property taken from us (taxation), so we as a society have a right to demand the government to use that money to install a high-speed network on our behalf. See, that is where is our rights are, it rests with the government and not with the private owners. We (members of the society) have no right at all to someone else’s property, be it Telecom, Google, Microsoft or the one-man-band business person around the corner from the street across the road.
Second, the RMA legislation almost made it impossible for any competitor to install their own network. Do you think that Telstra can’t take on Telecom? Telstra and others view the RMA as a barrier to laying their own high-speed network. If RMA is killed or at least repeal some of its draconian clauses that had made Telecommunication companies think twice about installing their own network, then this would enable competitors enter the market.
Here is an interesting article from the following blog site:
Annette Presley: The face of theft.
LikeLike