Telco Transparency Open Web Decline and Windows 10 End of Support: RNZ Tech Snapshot

The recent RNZ Tech segment with Bill Bennett pulled together three separate but tightly connected stories that matter to anyone who buys phone plans, reads news on the web, or still uses Windows 10: New Zealand’s Commerce Commission research shows consumers struggle to get the information they need to pick the right phone plan; Google, in a court filing, conceded that the open web — at least the ad-funded part of it — is rapidly declining; and Microsoft’s scheduled end of support for Windows 10 has pushed millions of users into hurried upgrade decisions. The combination is more than a handful of media headlines — it’s a snapshot of how consumers, publishers and platform owners are feeling the strains of opaque markets, shifting economics, and hard product deadlines all at once.

---

Background / Overview​

Bill Bennett’s conversation on RNZ distilled these themes into practical, local-sized concerns: consumers can’t easily compare mobile plans and may be overspending; the “open web” that historically funded independent sites via display advertising is under real commercial pressure; and the Windows 10 end-of-support deadline is an imminent, tangible date forcing decisions for millions of devices. Those three threads intersect: weakened publisher economics change how news and utility sites operate (more paywalls and login prompts), poor telco transparency hurts consumers, and platform lifecycle choices shift the technical and financial burden onto end users. The RNZ segment acted as a compact primer — useful, but in need of additional context and sourcing to evaluate the scale and consequences of each claim.

---

Phone plan transparency: what the research actually shows​

The facts in brief​

• The Commerce Commission of New Zealand analysed nearly 80,000 anonymised consumer mobile bills and concluded many customers were not on cost‑effective plans for their usage.
• The review found that about one quarter of post‑paid consumers could save, on average, NZ$11.60 per month by switching to better-matched plans; about 7% of consumers were identified as significantly overspending and could save much more.

Those are not marginal findings. A structural gap in transparency combined with consumer inertia means measurable dollars are leaving households’ pockets. The Commission’s open letter to carriers asked for improvements to usage displays, easier comparison tools, and consideration of a broader “consumer data right” to enable secure sharing of billing and usage information with third‑party comparison services.

Why this keeps happening​

There are three recurring friction points that the Commission’s work highlights:

• Fragmented product presentation: telco offers come with complex bundles, promotional discounts, and add‑ons that aren’t easily normalised on a price-per-MB or price-per-minute basis.
• Weak consumer data portability: customers rarely have a straightforward way to export their month‑to‑month usage and spending details to drive automated comparisons.
• Behavioural inertia: many consumers rarely review plans, and default renewals or bundled device deals entrench suboptimal choices.

The Commission compared the mobile market to sectors like electricity where comparison websites and standardised presentation have become normal. It urged operators to make usage data and comparisons easier — not as a regulatory mouthpiece, but because better transparency reduces consumer harm and creates a healthier market.

What consumers should do now​

• Ask for and save your monthly usage and billing statements; treat them like receipts for an ongoing subscription.
• Use official comparison tools or reputable third‑party calculators that normalise data allowances, throttles, and extras.
• If you’re billed monthly, check the carrier’s account portal for usage alerts and consider setting hard spend or data notifications.

Those are practical steps, but they don’t address the systemic shortfall: until operators present standardised, machine-readable usage summaries, many customers will continue to under‑optimise their plans. The Commerce Commission has signalled willingness to monitor and, if required, escalate to more prescriptive remedies — which elevates this beyond market nudges to potential regulatory action.

---

The “open web” is in decline — but what does that mean?​

The sentence that startled publishers​

In a recent legal filing, Google wrote that “the open web is already in rapid decline.” That line — used in defence against proposed remedies in a high-profile antitrust case — stunned many observers because it appears to contradict Google’s public narrative that search continues to send healthy traffic to independent sites. Several mainstream outlets picked up the filing and framed it as an admission that advertising demand and the economics for independent websites are deteriorating.

Parsing the phrase: ad market vs. web traffic​

Close reading matters. Google’s legal framing targeted open‑web display advertising — the market segment that funds many independent publishers — rather than asserting that every kind of web content is disappearing. Google, in related public statements, also emphasised that growth in non-open-web ad channels (connected TV, retail media, in‑app) is changing where advertiser dollars flow. Independent reporting and legal coverage show the admission was tactical: Google argued that forcing a divestiture of its ad-exchange assets would accelerate publisher revenue decline, not remedy it. But the important takeaway is real: ad budgets are being reallocated away from small display placements on the open web.

Why this matters for content accessibility​

Less ad revenue for independent sites creates incentives to:

• Introduce meter walls or hard paywalls.
• Shift to membership or donation models that offer fewer free pages.
• Prioritise content formats that capture higher yields (video, native ads, sponsored content) and deprioritise small, factual pages that used to be sustained by modest display CPMs.

Practically, that means many formerly “open” pages become locked behind registration prompts, subscriber gates, or they’re replaced by short-form content optimised for platforms and feeds rather than browsable encyclopedic pages. Bill Bennett’s observation on RNZ that the era of “freely accessible sites through a standard browser without a login or app” is fading is a direct reflection of this commercial pressure. The legal filing isn’t the only evidence — publishers and traffic studies have documented traffic declines from some sources after the rise of AI-driven answer boxes and click-avoiding search features.

The technical and UX consequences​

• More content behind logins reduces the effectiveness of simple browsing and discovery.
• Mobile and desktop browsers increasingly encounter paywalls and “app-first” flows that funnel users into walled gardens.
• For enthusiasts and power users, the result is a web that looks less like a commons and more like discrete silos where content owner decisioning and monetisation strategies determine access.

For Windows users and community readers, this trend undercuts one of the web’s historic advantages: the ability to open a URL and read without intermediary friction. It also raises questions about the role of platform owners (search engines, operating systems, browsers) in supporting a structurally diverse ecosystem.

---

Windows 10 end-of-support: the immediate deadline and consequences​

The fixed date​

Microsoft’s official lifecycle page and support guidance confirm that Windows 10 will reach its end of support on 14 October 2025. After that date, Windows 10 devices will no longer receive routine security updates or standard technical assistance; Microsoft is offering a limited Extended Security Updates (ESU) program as a temporary bridge for eligible devices. This is not an indeterminate deprecation — it’s a calendar-driven event with concrete security and compliance implications.

Why people are upset​

The anger many users express is understandable and includes several strains:

• Forced cost: Some perfectly functional PCs are not supported for Windows 11 because of hardware gates (TPM, Secure Boot, CPU requirements), leaving owners facing either a hardware refresh or a technical workaround.
• Confusion and timing: The ESU option is a short bridge rather than a long-term cure, and enrolling can be nontrivial for consumers who are not enterprise customers.
• Practical workload: For small businesses and households with many devices, the clock-like certainty of a cut‑off date creates a concentrated project with backups, driver compatibility checks and potential software reinstallation work.

These concerns escalate when combined with other transitions — for example, if a user’s favourite news site is migrating behind a login because ad revenue has shifted, the friction of changing an OS and changing news consumption patterns happens at the same moment.

Practical upgrade checklist (ranked steps)​

• Backup: create a full image backup and an independent copy of critical files (cloud + local).
• Check Windows 11 eligibility: run PC Health Check (or Settings > Update & Security > Windows Update) to confirm whether your machine meets minimum requirements.
• If eligible, schedule the in-place upgrade after a verified backup and a driver check.
• If ineligible, evaluate: a) ESU enrolment for a bridge; b) move to a supported Linux distribution or ChromeOS Flex for continued security updates; c) replace hardware — look for trade‑in/refurb options to reduce cost and e‑waste.
• For businesses: prioritise critical endpoints, use phased rollouts, and test application compatibility in a controlled environment.

Risk management for the cautious​

If you must keep a Windows 10 device online after October 14, 2025, treat it as elevated risk:

• Avoid sensitive transactions (banking, healthcare portals) on unsupported machines.
• Maintain up‑to‑date antivirus/EDR and enable strict network segmentation where possible.
• Plan a replacement or ESU enrollment with explicit timelines — the later the migration, the higher the support and security cost.

---

How these threads intersect — and why that matters for WindowsForum readers​

Three trends converge into a single operational reality:

• Consumers struggle to compare and choose phone plans because carriers don’t publish consistent, machine-readable usage and price data.
• Publishers face declining open‑web display ad revenue, pushing more content behind logins or into app experiences and narrowing the neutral, browser-first web.
• Platform lifecycle events (like Windows 10’s end of support) force upgrade projects that expose uneven consumer readiness and raise the cost of digital participation.

The combined effect is an environment where friction is increasing on multiple axes: financial (overspending on telco bills), informational (harder-to-access content and comparisons), and technical (required OS upgrades). Each alone is manageable; together they create an ecosystem where the least-resourced households and small organisations bear the brunt.

---

Critical analysis: strengths, weaknesses and policy implications​

Notable strengths​

• The Commerce Commission’s empirical approach — analysing tens of thousands of bills — gives regulators credible, actionable insight into household-level harm and provides a measured basis for constructive engagement with carriers. That sort of data-driven intervention is exactly what policy should look like when markets produce uneven outcomes.
• Acknowledging the decline of open-web display advertising in a court filing signals a realistic appraisal of the ad market; public acknowledgement allows policymakers and industry to consider targeted remedies or transitional support for publishers.
• Microsoft’s clear calendar for Windows 10 gives organisations a firm planning anchor; predictable deprecation dates, when well-communicated, are easier to manage than rolling uncertainty.

Serious risks and downside scenarios​

• Market concentration and platform power: if a small number of ad/traffic gatekeepers control distribution and monetisation, independent publishers’ bargaining power collapses and the open exchange of information narrows — with downstream effects on local journalism, niche reference sites, and the discovery of diverse viewpoints.
• Consumer data and privacy: the Commerce Commission’s proposals for a consumer data right are promising, but they also create governance questions. Who audits provider compliance? How are retention and secondary uses of identifier data controlled? Without strong safeguards, initiatives meant to improve transparency could become new data‑collection avenues.
• Unequal upgrade burden: end-of-support events can amplify digital inequality. Households that cannot afford a PC refresh or a paid ESU extension will find themselves on insecure endpoints, with higher risk of fraud and malware. Public policy and vendor trade-in/refurb programs must be realistic about the fiscal burden for low-income users.

Recommendations — practical and policy​

• For telcos: publish standardised, comparable usage and price summaries; offer exportable account data so third‑party comparison tools can operate reliably.
• For publishers: diversify revenue beyond raw display CPMs, but coordinate on industry‑wide approaches to avoid a race-to-the-bottom paywalling strategy that fragments public access.
• For regulators: consider enforceable transparency standards (coverage maps, retention disclosures) and pilot a consumer data right with strict privacy and portability guardrails.
• For Microsoft and platform vendors: provide clear ESU procurement channels for consumers and scale trade-in/refurb programs to reduce e‑waste and mitigate the forced-replacement shock.

Each of these incremental actions reduces friction and spreads the burden of transitions more fairly across industry, platform owners and consumers.

---

Tactical guidance for readers this week​

• If you’re on Windows 10: verify upgrade eligibility now; back up; plan a staged upgrade or ESU.
• If you’re reviewing mobile plans: request and archive your last 3–6 months of usage and billing, and test comparison calculators on that dataset. If switching, check contract terms and expiry windows.
• If you rely on independent web publishers: consider subscribing or donating to the sites you use; ad revenue declines directly threaten the survival of specialist sites.

---

Conclusion​

The RNZ piece with Bill Bennett placed three converging pressures into a compact frame: opaque telco billing, a contracting ad-funded web, and a hard OS deadline. Each story is important on its own; together they create a practical policy and consumer‑protection problem. The Commerce Commission’s bill review gave regulators and consumers a factual basis to demand greater transparency; Google’s court language forced a public conversation about the economics of the open web; and Microsoft’s Windows 10 sunset sets an unavoidable timetable that exposes the consequences of these market shifts.
Taken together, the policy response must be multi‑pronged: enforceable transparency standards for telcos, regulatory attention to platform power and publisher sustainability, and pragmatic vendor programs to ease consumer transitions. For users, the immediate priorities are simple and concrete — backup, check eligibility, archive bills, and, where possible, pay for the news sources and services you value. The era of frictionless browsing and easy plan comparison is eroding; the practical work now is to stop that erosion from becoming a permanent cost paid by the most vulnerable.

---

Source: RNZ Tech: Phone plan transparency, 'open web' in decline, and more