as good as the cellular networks behind them -- investment in these networks would've been as slow as the slow conversion to electronic exchanges without the massive internal investment that Telecom embarked upon after privatisation. Deregulation (which I'm sure you would've opposed at the time) brought Vodafone and other providers into the cell phone market forcing Telecom to innovate more rapidly. Had Telecom still been an SOE it would've been unable to respond to these competitive demands as rapidly as more of its profits would've been required for the social good vs investment in new technology. The health or otherwise of the nation's accounts was unaffected by the sale of Telecom. The loss of the dividends after the sale (the loss of the social good you so lament) was made up by the additional taxes the government received from a more vibrant and growing private sector (a notion lost on socialists who forget that unprofitable companies pay fewer or no taxes and employ fewer staff who in turn pay less taxes and spend less) that resulted from more efficient, technologically nimble and productive Telecom. Telecom was of more use to the wider society because of the greater productivity that better and newer technology brought to businesses abd consumers and the levelling of price increases brought about by better competition. The arrival of 2 Degrees is a classic example of this. Cropston House was at the time the Canterbury Labour Party's sole asset -- Telecom was not the NZ Governments sole