A definition of egalitarian:
"Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people."

As Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has Mr Steven Joyce considered principles of an egalitarianism in his world-leading telecoms reforms? It appears not.

Since his election to parliament as a list MP in 2008, Mr Joyce has achieved a shift in New Zealand's telecommunications industry. This was not a seismic shift - the opportunity for that was lost towards the end of the Ultra Fast Broadband (UFB) process when the contract was awarded to Telecom.

He gave a hint of hoped-for major transformations when holding out Telecom to the threat of competition in infrastructure provisioning. But that applied only in urban areas, so no concept of egalitarianism there.

In hindsight, the threat of competition was no more than a negotiating tactic to force concessions from Telecom. It worked well, for the UFB promises to contribute significant economic gains at a minimal investment of around $600 million of taxpayer's funds.

In a recent interview with Computer World, Mr Joyce said he was thrilled and proud of his achievements in the $1.5Bn UFB program. That feeling is well justified and would have earned kudos from everyone had the same principles been applied to the 25% of people living in rural New Zealand. That is what egalitarianism is all about - equal economic and social rights for all people. Instead, what we have are very promising economic and social opportunities for the 75% of people living in urban areas only. Those of us living in rural areas face higher costs for a lesser standard of broadband service.

One of Mr Joyce's major achievements was to force the separation of New Zealand's once-largest public company in to separate retail and infrastructure companies, something that is unique in the world. Telecom shareholders have not yet approved the separation but it is inconceivable that it will not happen as planned.

Mr Joyce says it was not his intention to force that separation, but so much about the process indicates that this outcome was in his, or his officials', mind early in the process.

The down side of separating Telecom and making Chorus the monopoly provider, is that New Zealand will no longer enjoy the fruits of real competition that we have glimpsed over the last few years. Glimpses like fibre-to-the-farm at lower prices and higher service levels than urban users enjoy.

One of Mr Joyce's challenges in rural areas has been around the TSO - Telecommunications Service Obligation. The TSO was a charge on telcos to realise a fund given to Telecom to subsidize the costs of meeting uneconomic telephone demand in rural areas. Under review for around 10 years with no easy resolution, Mr Joyce converted the TSO to a contestable Telecommunication Development Levy which will provide over 80% of the funds to roll out broadband in rural areas. The cost to the taxpayer is only $48 million or around 8% of the taxpayer’s bill for urban fibre. Again, not at all egalitarian.

There is now an opportunity for Mr Joyce to ensure economic and social rights for rural people that will equal those already on offer to our urban cousins. That opportunity comes from the switch over from the old analog television to digital services and the consequent release of radio spectrum in the 700MHz 'digital dividend' band. Making that spectrum available to an infrastructure provider for open access wireless-to-the-home services, similar in principle to UFB fibre-to-the-home services, need not cost the taxpayer anything extra.