[AmericanChopper]

A majority of the telecom infrastructure in New Zealand is privately owned, and the service there is generally very good and not especially expensive.

This level of service was established by government giving interest free loans to private companies to build the fiber infrastructure (with one company getting about 70% of it). So you might want to revise your use of the word “always”.

[viccuad]

I can recommend this timeline of the history in New Zealand: http://www.wordworx.co.nz/KiwitelcoTimeline.htm http://www.wordworx.co.nz/Kiwitelcotimeline2.htm http://www.wordworx.co.nz/Kiwitelcotimeline3.htm

In short; since privatization in the 90s, the spending in R&D went to 1% (median in other countries is 7%). Rising costs, and lagging on implementing DSL in 00s. OECD list it among the most expensive countries to own a landline, and cellphone. Then, lagging in DSL+, and then, lagging in Fibre. Bottom of the OECD list.

This is for a country that in the 50s, 60s, and 70s had an amazing copper infrastructure, and a computer and technology univerisity sector even.

[marricks]

Well they actually have competition and regulation, with a diverse set of telecom options and expanding public broadband to boot.[1]

I think all of Iceland's internet getting bought by one company is not a reasonable comparison.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_New_Zealand#Pricin...

[AmericanChopper]

A majority of the infrastructure is owned by one company, with some smaller companies servicing regional areas. There is no local competition in regards to infrastructure. No matter where you live, there will only be one fiber provider available for your address.

[ccooffee]

Interesting. I was unaware of the state of telcos in NZ. I found this wikipedia article to have some additional content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_New_Zeal...

Using only that article as a resource (lazy, sorry), it seems that the telco infrastructure improved because of competition. It doesn't really seem to be a private/public issue, but that multiple companies got into the action.

All of Iceland's infrastructure was sold off in one huge chunk, forming a private monopoly. This may become a decent test case for whether government-operation or private-operation makes a difference. (In contrast to the wiki article, which suggests that competition is the thing that matters.) Like the grandparent comment, I expect very little from the private operation of Iceland's telco infrastructure, but I'd love to be surprised.

[onionisafruit]

If you want a preview you can look at what has happened in Iceland since 2005 when the privatization happened. It will probably continue to be the same with different private owners of the monopoly.

[creakingstairs]

> A majority of the telecom infrastructure in New Zealand is privately owned, and the service there is generally very good and not especially expensive.

It used to be quite expensive. This only changed thanks to the ruling[1] that the conduct of charging monopoly price was anti competitive.

[1] https://comcom.govt.nz/case-register/case-register-entries/t...

[limpbizkitfan]

So you would prefer a monopoly that serves a small family and investors vs. a monopoly that has revenue go back into the government?

[AmericanChopper]

I only care about price and quality of service. I don’t have any ideological axe to grind about where the profits go. When I was in NZ, their privately owned telco infrastructure serviced my needs very much to my satisfaction.