Today the UDP held a press conference mainly to criticize BTL's proposed acquisition of Speednet and the cable companies.
But, the Leader of the Opposition Tracy Panton didn't outright condemn the idea of a telecom monopoly, but she did list out conditions that would have to be met before any deal could even be considered:
Tracy Panton, LOO
"Here are the UDP is non negotiable demands: public disclosure on the independent assessment and evaluation that have been complied to justify this deal must be made public. There must be full transparency on financing sources and public exposure. Parliamentary consideration and discussion and debate must be had before the process is allowed to proceed any further. There must be binding consumer protections on pricing and service quality. There must be binding worker protections and disclosure on labor impacts. And there must be the establishment of clear competition and merger control rules. Decoupling of the PUC appointment of members from those who run the government or at minimum the inclusion of an opposition representative on the commission. Let me be clear, the UDP is not anti-technology. The UDP is not anti-investment. We are however firmly opposed to secrecy. We do not support monopolies without proper consultation and consent. And we definitively oppose a government that attempts to operate with unilateral latitude, a posture that does not align with the government's commitment to institute the gold standard for transparency, accountability and good governance."
So does that mean that she would approve a monopoly if these conditions are met? Panton explained they would support what is best for the country.
Tracy Panton, LOO
"The role and responsibility of the opposition is to hold the administration to account 1, 2, to act in the best interests of the people and to defend the public interest. We have moved away from under mandatory. And I said that it is c policy change. And a policy change requires the input of the Parliament, both the upper house and the lower house. I believe, and I heard prior on the Beef where Mr. Vasquez of Channel Seven explained that consolidation. There might be room for consolidation if there's an imminent threat of an external provider that will further compromise the investments that have been made by the government and Social Security, which are the workers of this country in terms of telecommunications, we simply don't know. At this point we do not support a monopoly, and we certainly do not support a monopoly that includes providing a golden parachute for the Dying cable sector. We have not heard, the only insight that we have received, and I believe the media has received in terms of the quote unquote deal, was what was presented in a press release issued by the Waterloo Trust and the Ashcroft Alliance. We had no idea. We had no idea what the settlement would be, how much we are going to be investing. We don't understand what is what were the assumptions that were part of coming up with this arrangement. We don't know what the valuation assessment says. We have no information that informs the decision making. And so that is absolutely required."
