This is an opportunity lost. We could have led the world in developing a robust, next-generation policy framework: one that allows for economic cost-benefit analysis of fibre investment and the need for a return, balanced alongside sound competition and regulatory principles.

To this end, we could have expanded the current competition-focussed mandate of the Commerce Commission into a wider brief that encompasses commercial incentives and economic outcomes, as we have seen in other markets. Instead these regulatory changes subvert established regulatory and competition policy principles.

That carries sovereign risk for New Zealand. We are consciously removing the incentives for alternative investment and, given our short three-year political term, committing ourselves to a regime that becomes prey to political interference, outside established principles of independent regulatory scrutiny for the next decade -- a critical period of development for the sector.

Is this really what we want? New Zealand faces immense infrastructure and economic challenges in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake, along with a $10 billion quake-related taxpayer bill. There is a rational argument right now for a shift in government strategy that prioritises the reconstruction of Christchurch, focusing on fibre to schools, businesses, universities, public sector institutions and greenfields developments.

The programme could push ahead with rural broadband for under-served rural communities, and expand backhaul and international network links to drive growth in new access technologies, particularly mobile.