blog We couldn’t help but be perplexed by this blog post on The Punch by Liberal MP and Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services Kevin Andrews, which appears to imply that Australia doesn’t need the National Broadband Network, because of the strong adoption of mobile phones. Writes Andrews:
“Mobile phone services have grown rapidly over the last 10 years. At the same time fixed-line telephone services have stagnated. This growth in the take up of the mobile phone has coincided with a rise in the number of household consumers who do not access to a fixed-line telephone service. The choice of not having a fixed-line telephone service seems to be driven by age and living arrangements.”
What Andrews appears to not understand that well is that the NBN is not being rolled out because Australia needs better telephone services. The NBN is designed to upgrade the nation’s broadband infrastructure. Sure, the NBN will also be used for telephone services, but it would be drawing a very long bow indeed to suggest that’s what it will mainly be used for. Data, not voice, is the way of the future.
Image credit: G Schouten de Jel (photographer’s website), royalty free
Palm meets Face.
At some as-yet-uncertain point in the future voice will simply be another form of data…
That point is rapidly approaching …
Most inter-exchange traffic is already…
Well, I wish I was actually surprised by this.
“Mobile phone services have grown rapidly over the last 10 years. At the same time fixed-line telephone services have stagnated. This growth in the take up of the mobile phone has coincided with a rise in the number of household consumers who do not access to a fixed-line telephone service. The choice of not having a fixed-line telephone service seems to be driven by age and living arrangements.”
the points that K Andrews raises are very pertinent.
the current reality is that Australians spend as much on fixed voice services as on fixed internet services. there are more than twice as many fixed voice SIOs than fixed internet SIOs.
hence, NBNco will be heavily reliant on demand for fixed voice services to generate much needed revenue. this is precisely why they’re bundling voice and internet, as they need consumers to spend on both a fixed voice service and a fixed internet service to survive. bear in mind, the new fibre network will be oodles more costly than the current copper network, and the latter is still largely serviced from fixed voice revenues.
the crucial and valid points that K Andrews is making are:
(i) NBNco’s building a hugely-expensive network that will be heavily-reliant on fixed voice revenues;
(ii) gross consumer spend on fixed voice products is declining rapidly;
(iii) the fixed broadband market is almost saturated – the growth in consumer outlays on fixed internet products is slowing rapidly (i.e. the fixed internet sector is already highly mature, viz. the ongoing consolidation of ISPs and falling prices of fixed internet products);
(iv) instead, consumers are directing their extra spending dollars on wireless products (i.e. the wireless sector is where the real growth is).
all in all, there just isn’t the revenue upside that would justify spending $50bln on fixed-line infrastructure. instead, all the market characteristics and consumer spending trends are totally opposite and completely undermine NBNco’s entire investment strategy.
if you factor in the inevitable cost blowouts associated with rolling out a massive, decade long, nationwide infrastructure project, NBNco will go bankrupt faster than you can pronounce Q-U-I-G-L-E-Y.
I think you’re out on a limb here, tosh, labelling Andrews’ comments as “crucial and valid” ;)
Exactly Renai… “crucial”…????
All this does is “once again” demonstrate (as I have inferred previously) IMO… tosh’s “political agenda”, rather than anti-NBN agenda (per se`)!
Gee, I think we all agree Mr. Filter Conroy has NFI (although I will give him credit for the NBN) but Andrew’s…ffs…
Isn’t he the guy who put the word idiot, in village idiot!
Crucial…LOL!
@Renai LeMay
“I think you’re out on a limb here, tosh, labelling Andrews’ comments as “crucial and valid” ;)”
Well they are on at least equal footing as anyone else commenting in this blog, obviously you thought they had some validity otherwise why did you bother to make it a article in the first place?
‘”This growth in the take up of the mobile phone has coincided with a rise in the number of household consumers who do not access to a fixed-line telephone service. The choice of not having a fixed-line telephone service seems to be driven by age and living arrangements.”
You cannot disagree with that statement, and the point is quite valid, it is only stating a world wide trend that is affecting incumbent fixed line Telco’s repeated at a somewhat slower rate in Australia.
I really have to say I think the logical leap you are making here is a bit of a stretch.
Although you make some valid points they are very loosely related to the subject of this article.
essentially, if NBNco was confident that consumers would spend extra on broadband or data, they should be willing to unbundle “voice” and “data” (i.e. split the $24 AVC charge into “$10 voice” and “$14 data”).
those consumers who don’t need a fixed voice service would then turn around and spend the “$10 of voice savings” on “extra data” (i.e. there’d be no overall loss of revenue for NBNco).
instead, they’ll clearly terrified that consumers will take the “$10 of voice savings” and spend more on wireless services (or a new pair of shoes, etc).
Actually I don’t think NBN Co is afraid of much right now … that’s the advantage of being a government-mandated monopolist. Perhaps they are afraid of the Coalition taking power ;)
Agreed Renai. NBN Co should be scared of the Libs taking power. The thing is though that the Australian public should also be very scared of the Libs taking power on the comments form this senior minister (amongst others) who simply dont get it. They have no eye tot he future and no concept of the problems right now. They couldnt put up a decent comms policy in the 13 years they were in power, and the embarrassment they offered up 2 days before the last election, so no one had time to laugh hard about it in the media, shows that they still cant put together a comms policy.
NBNco is just a “public corporation” with a balance sheet and loads of debt. don’t be fooled by those glossy “annual reports” – a company has no heart and knows no “fear”.
should there be a change in the political winds, the current bunch of incompetent clowns running the show will just take their millions in compensation and quietly slip away into another fat-paying corporate job leaving the billion dollar mess for taxpayers to mop up (as usual).
that’s what happens when politicians write billion dollar cheques and hand it to a bunch of expiring corporate has-beens/also-rans, saying, “here, incompetent people, take the $50bln and have a party… blow it on your favourite contractor buddies.. don’t worry about nasty things such as “due diligence”, “investment risk”, “realistic cost surveys” or “revenue potential”… just start digging and organise some photo-ops at schools with smiling kids…”
whoaa… take a look at that*:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ALU&t=my&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
these guys sure know how to destroy shareholder value… perfect candidates for running a political show-project ;)
*see the bit at the bottom? “stock splits = none” ;))
I tend to agree with your first two paragraphs…toshP300
Particularly – “should there be a change in the political winds, the current bunch of incompetent clowns running the show will just take their millions in compensation and quietly slip away into another fat-paying corporate job leaving the billion dollar mess for taxpayers to mop up (as usual)”.
Although I may have portrayed it a little more eloquently, yes they will…
However, your biggest problem IMHO is that you just don’t realise and have some adolescent adulation for, the “next bunch of equal but opposite (ideologically) incompetent clowns”, whom you strangely believe will be different…!
The sooner you come to grips with politicians – “period”, rather than Labor = bad, Coalition = sun from ar**, the sooner we may be able to actually take your incessant anti-NBN comments more seriously…
Umm Tosh you do realise there is no expense what so ever in the delivery model that accounts for the “voice” aspect as it is treated as just another form of data, so you can’t do that $10/$14 split you’re refering to?
So instead you are just asking them to provide a “no frills” low (150kbps) bandwidth high QoS pipe for those who want voice only?
Sure, they can do that, and if you’ve followed the debate, the ACCC has been in charge of ensuring that they can provide a reasonable price. The figures I saw thrown around were $24/m all up, but if it’s such a big deal I’m sure someone will bring it up with the ACCC.
Since it is so important to you, tosh, why don’t you?
*Umm Tosh you do realise there is no expense what so ever in the delivery model that accounts for the “voice” aspect as it is treated as just another form of data, so you can’t do that $10/$14 split you’re refering to?*
in this respect, this is no different to the CAN in that it doesn’t cost Telstra any more to transport “voice” along the low frequency spectrum of the copper pair as it does to transport “data” along the high frequency spectrum.
revenue for the NBN will similarly be split along the lines of “voice” and “data”. the “voice product” is distinct from the “data product”. that’s why you have specific “voice” and “data” ports on the NTU. that’s why you have different “traffic classes (1 to 4)” with different CIR, PIR, QoS, etc provisioning. that’s why there’s a separate, additional charge for accessing the second “UNI-voice” port on the NTU. that’s why you need to acquire additional “traffic class_1” capacity for multiple voice products. hence, the “voice product” is entirely distinct from other “data products” such as “internet access”.
as a crude simplification, the average household is currently spending $30 on “voice” and $30 on “data” (at the retail level). if NBNCo was confident that they will get the $30 voice revenue for the majority of household connections (or, at least, recover it from higher consumer spend on data), there’s no reason why they can’t “unbundle” the two products and let the “minority” of households who don’t need a fixed voice product separately spend an additional $30 on a better, faster internet (data) product.
instead, they’re bundling the two because they know there’s a high risk (nay, certainty) of revenue leakage into other categories of household spending (higher utility bills, more expensive mobile plans, faster mortgage repayment, etc). take a look at the chart on p.35 of the “NBNco Corporate Plan”. you’ll observe three facts:
(i) “fixed voice” products account for 70% of total fixed line revenues;
(ii) overall revenues from “fixed voice” products (including VoIP) are shrinking rapidly;
(ii) growth in “fixed broadband” revenues is slowing.
the real growth in the fixed-line sector isn’t in the residential arena but in large enterprise/corporate data usage. there’s already plenty of dark fibre (or existing fibre rings) in the major capital cities to service large business needs. more importantly, they’re exempted from the cherry-picking provisions.
quite frankly, if you really understand what’s going on, the “business case” for NBNco is a complete and utter joke.
*So instead you are just asking them to provide a “no frills” low (150kbps) bandwidth high QoS pipe for those who want voice only? Sure, they can do that, and if you’ve followed the debate, the ACCC has been in charge of ensuring that they can provide a reasonable price. The figures I saw thrown around were $24/m all up, but if it’s such a big deal I’m sure someone will bring it up with the ACCC.*
“homeline budget” is currently $20 retail? if you package a baseline $24 wholesale AVC into a purely voice service, you’re already looking at $30+ retail just for a phone. the essential difference between the current ACCC/Telstra pricing regime and the future NBNco pricing regime is that:
(i) with copper, you can either have “voice only” or “internet bundled with voice”, and
(ii) with fibre, “voice” will always be bundled with “internet”.
so, consumers are unambiguously worse off in terms of choice and flexibility.
Labor’s NBN stinks to high heaven.
[more importantly, they’re exempted from the cherry-picking provisions]
….hence, NBNco does not benefit from the one segment of the fixed-line market that is actually growing in revenue.
@Nightkhaos
“So instead you are just asking them to provide a “no frills” low (150kbps) bandwidth high QoS pipe for those who want voice only?”
Sure they will have to do that, post the forced Telstra customer migration both retail and wholesale the expectation of residences will be that the voice service will work EXACTLY like the PSTN service including the frequency of the dial-tone :), and with all the equivalence of the current Telstra Homeline plans, especially the cheapest Homeline Budget being $20.95/mth (less if Pensioner), with Home Messages, Call waiting and Call forward.
If a bog standard NBN voice service cannot offer that equivalence or less residences will quite rightly ask why did you bother?
@Alain and @Tosh
Both of you failed to read my post didn’t you.
The part near the end when I mentioned the ACCC setting wholesale costs.
It’s important to note that Telstra are the only ones capable at current able to offer services without making a loss because the WLR price is $20.50 as low as HomeLine Budget.
So with that in mind it is up to the ACCC to ensure that pensioners and low income families are not charged more than is reasonable. You have a problem take up the pricing with them.
In fact I suggested that directly to you Tosh.
Yes I realise the role of the ACCC, but their deliberations so far seem to be all about Telstra and pricing, they are conspicuously quiet about the forthcoming NBN monopoly.
The bottom line pricing benchmark as it stands today is that the NBN pricing regime needs to be able to allow the retailers and that includes Telstra to be able to provide a basic voice service + calls at $20.95 or less.
Of course the wholesale price to retailers needs to be less than that, anything less will incur a massive consumer backlash which the Coalition will run with big time.
The NBN rollout so far is in the honeymoon period with honeymoon pilot pricing to the point of giving it away, I look forward to the NBN competing with existing infrastructure on its own commercial pricing terms supposedly next month, but I bet it is extended, which says a lot about the NBN if they do (i.e. postpone commercial pricing) if it cannot gain customers in its right unless they virtually give it way courtesy of the taxpayer purse.
Look, I have always stated the funding and pricing model is less than ideal and likely will cause damage to the industry if it is not recified, but you seem to think you can’t pay for the NBN any other way.
You are not alone in such thinking, and honestly, if you and the likes of Mr Turnbull put all that thinking into better payment and pricing models you might find that the NBN is an important step forward.
Get past this stupid short term thinking. So it’s expensive, can we do anything to reduce the cost? Yes. Can we do anything about the pricing? Yes. Can we do these two things without throwing out the plan entirely? Yes.
Tell me Alain, do you have Australia’s best interests at heart when it comes to Broadband? Because I don’t think you do. I don’t think you know what it is Australia should do. You just know that what is currently on the table isn’t good enough.
And I’m with you in that. I don’t think anyone here blindly accepts the NBN, we all have concerns. But how about you try being constructive, just once, and attempt to offer a useful ammendment.
+1 NK…
I know I cop some flak for my facetious yet determined NBN support… But even I have said many times – “the NBN IS NOT perfect (nothing is) but taking “everything into account”, imho, it is the best option we have, by far”!
as far as ‘NBN monopoly’ is concerned, until NBNco have a controlling share of lines (i.e. copper cut over to fibre, at something over 50% of residences and businesses) there is effectively still a two player market, yes? and Telstra is the current monopolist incumbent? (being that there are precious few, if at all, non trial customers?)
hence the ACCC focus on Telstra is apt and warranted. they are laying in policies in a lead-in fashion to the point that happens – and not that i agree with everything either, in terms of the 5Y period of pricing – but until such time as NBNco have an ACTUAL and not potential ownership of market Telstra absolutely should be where the focus is at.
NBNco being a few bucks more for a voice service shouldnt be a concern for Telstra supporters surely? they are ahead on price in a competitive market right? :P if $24 is pricing ‘at the point of giving it away’, regardless of any extension, what does that make the Telstra offering, anyway? considering theyve owned the copper net for…ohh how long now? methinks the gentleman complains too much.
as RS says no it aint perfect. and like NK i dont believe it to be a fixed affair either. there will be changes down the track; i certainly dont expect test market pricing to be the last word of the affair either.whether it be Voice charges or CVC or data caps and charges, or even the speeds on offer. its going to be a constantly evolving affair, so i think the argufying about the NBN pricing model at this stage is probably a tad premature.
*as far as ‘NBN monopoly’ is concerned, until NBNco have a controlling share of lines… there is effectively still a two player market, yes?*
*whether it be Voice charges or CVC or data caps and charges, or even the speeds on offer…. its going to be a constantly evolving affair*
in other words.. i can see the train coming… but until it hits me, i’m going to pretend it doesn’t even exist….
No, more like the biggest threat is Telstra, so I’m going to try and deal with them before I deal with this emerging threat that might not even occur just yet.
We can only hope ;-)
Once again for someone who heralds private entterprise, it seems you have no idea about private enterprise alain…
Introductory offers are used widespread throughout the commercial world. Why remember back when… just after the NBN was announced and all ISP’s knew the party was over, your precious Telstra initially reduced the prices of their 25G (iirc) Liberty plan from $89.99 to $49.99 for a limited time to entice patronage…!
Umm, it’s a marketing ploy, grown-ups use… got it now?
Regardless, according to you, why would the NBN need the ACCC to intevene anyway? Well, it only 7 (mainland) customers…has minimal uptake and will fail like HFC…!
Oh but of course you also claim (to suit your agenda at other threads) that HFC is fantastic and shouldn’t be decommissioned…sigh!
And of course you also said “you betcha the NBN will will be a success”…
Scrumptiously, seems your/ the stupidest comment I have ever seen from anyone, is the only factual comment you have ever actually made..I.e “Before roads there were no roads”…LOL!
So to repeat my earlier suggestion to you (stolen by you and then quoted back to me…OMG)… Please keep ’em coming tiger, as you and your FUD are a real NBN asset…
What has any of that agenda driven off topic drivel got to do with a discussion about a basic retail voice service priced at $20.95 on the NBN?
Nothing, so why don’t you give us tomorrows weather forecasts, at least that would be useful.
I’ll spell it out for you… alain.
You mentioned honeymoon period and I gave you examples that are used by “grown-ups”…simple.
The rest is exactly what YOU said, but now distance your self from, because of how utterly ridiculous and contradictory YOUR comments were.
So I take that as you agree alain…good!
@RS
“Telstra initially reduced the prices of their 25G (iirc) Liberty plan from $89.99 to $49.99 for a limited time to entice patronage…! ”
Yes funny how you can get 50 gig for $49.95 cable or ADSL2+ off BIgpond today, and it is a permanent feature of their plan options and has been for awhile, you point falls into its usual hole.
Maybe that should tell you something about the NBN pricings in the future eh alain…? Can’t see it, no I thought not.
But too reiterate, as I clearly said “initially”, the Telstra offer was an interim offer, which lapsed, was extended (iirc)… ended.
According to you its now been reintroduced, which doesn’t change what occurred and just proves the dramatic “positive affect” the threat of the NBN has had on pricing for us the consumers… you agree then…good!
Ooh the reason I know… I was on that plan and changed over and you ought to know, surely… you work for Telstra, don’t you?
Ooh sorry… the weather forecats just for you alain…
Of course… “the sky will fall”…!
The point that many sceptics don’t understand (or acknowledge) is that Wireless technologies rely heavily on fixed fibre networks for backhaul. The real long term value of the NBN is probably going to be as the backbone of next generation wireless networks.
Could the government have left the mobile operators to beef up existing infrastructure to support new technologies? Sure – but it would have taken a long time and it would only happen on their terms.
riiigggghhhhttttt….. so we need to push fibre to (almost) every residential premise to provide backhaul for wireless… that’s like saying the airport tarmac should extend up to everyone’s private driveway/garage…. interesting logic.
and, nooooooo…. mobile operators haven’t invested in new infrastructure for yonks… of course not… we need Conroy to exhort Telstra, Optus and others to ditch CDMA and invest in 2G, 3G, 4G, etc…..
and, you know what? if only Apple was nationalised, we’d have iPhone and iPad decades earlier… instead it’s taken such a “long time”… y’know? how Apple will only invest “on their terms”…. it’s all bad.. *tsk tsk*..
riiigggghhhhttttt….. so we need to push fibre to (almost) every residential premise to provide backhaul for wireless… that’s like saying the airport tarmac should extend up to everyone’s private driveway/garage…. interesting logic.
Ignoring the obvious point that he meant backhaul for mobile wireless was another use for the NBN infrastructure and not the sole reason to do it (he was demonstrating the diverse nature of applications the NBN can furfil), and ignoring again that VHA have expressed interest in being able to use the NBN for this very purpose, that isn’t a valid analogue at all.
The supreme irony of course being that if wireless backhaul ends being the major revenue component of the NBN then the likes of Telstra, Optus and Vodafone can thank the Australian taxpayer for enhancing their networks for them.
They can then concentrate on marketing 4G and beyond and taking the cream of data revenue ARPU’s away from the NBN.
But they do say there is a sucker born every minute.
Given the stated goal of the NBN is the improve broadband for Australia I don’t see how this is a bad outcome.
Unless you’re trying to say that the NBN will be used almost exclusively for this purpose, which is reductio ad absurdum, and not an outcome backed by the data. I again point you the ABS Stats on Broadband usage and the lack of decline in fixed line broadband subscribes.
@NightKhaos
“Unless you’re trying to say that the NBN will be used almost exclusively for this purpose,”
No it is not, this is what I said.
“The supreme irony of course being that if wireless backhaul ends being the major revenue component of the NBN”
That’s not ‘exclusively’, read what is said rather than working out your answer first to how you want it to be said.
>that’s like saying the airport tarmac should extend up to everyone’s private driveway/garage…. interesting logic.
I quite like that idea. Though every driveway might be a bit extreme and we wouldn’t necessarily want jet engines everywhere, cyclists and pedestrians have enough problems now. Perhaps to every suburb and perhaps using a secondary propulsion system – sort of a tarmac to the node, maybe even built on rails. So long as we could get from the node to home easily it might just work.
Sadly toshP300, if it were up to those like you, all tarmacs would still be dirt anyway…!
I’d comment but article is pretty self explanatory. As for Tosh/Alain, I think NK summed it up best. NBN has its issues but if Coalition want to be useful then they should start talking about how to improve it, that includes both of you. Tosh’s assumptions about NBN finances are amusing. They will be getting 3-4 million customers on the NBN directly from Telstra/Optus and then there are the rest of the ISP’s so I don’t think viability will be an issue as long as they don’t cost themselves out of the market. Your figure of $20 is overly optimistic however.
@Kevin Davies
“They will be getting 3-4 million customers on the NBN directly from Telstra/Optus and then there are the rest of the ISP’s so I don’t think viability will be an issue”
Well viability is already a issue, to gain those customers the Government has to gift billions to Telstra and Optus to ensure they get the two biggest Telco’s customer bases and get them to rip out their HFC and copper networks to ensure the NBN FTTH has no fixed line infrastructure competitors.
That’s being ‘viable’ is it?
” as long as they don’t cost themselves out of the market. Your figure of $20 is overly optimistic however.”
If the NBN cannot allow retailers to match the Telstra Homeline Budget figure it is stuffed, and the Coalition will romp the next election in at a canter only having two Milo tins and a piece of string as their Comms policy.
Well viability is already a issue, to gain those customers the Government has to gift billions to Telstra and Optus to ensure they get the two biggest Telco’s customer bases and get them to rip out their HFC and copper networks to ensure the NBN FTTH has no fixed line infrastructure competitors.
Show me the deal between Optus and NBN Co. There isn’t one, there might not even be one.
Look, we have explained to you why they are doing this, time, and time, and time, and time again. Get it through your thick skull, redundant infrastructure is bad. I don’t mean redundant in the terms of fault tolerance, that is good, I mean redundant in terms of replicating similar services via different means as a means of facilitating competition. It only serves to push up prices of all involved media.
I would personal love to see FTTH in direct competition with HFC and watch both Optus and Telstra cringe under the ever increasing migration to the better technology (FTTH) as the higher expense and limitations of the HFC based connections become increasingly pronounced, and who knows, we might even see that with Optus vs NBN Co given how the “deal” seems to be getting no where, but honestly, so and painful deaths of technology are about as fun as watching paint dry.
If the NBN cannot allow retailers to match the Telstra Homeline Budget figure it is stuffed, and the Coalition will romp the next election in at a canter only having two Milo tins and a piece of string as their Comms policy.
Telstra doesn’t even allow retailers to match the “Telstra Homeline Budget” figure given there WLR price is $20.50. The only company I have seen go below the $29.95 a month figure TPG, who, if there use WLR to do it, clearly make a loss on the $1 line rental, and only allow you to get it that low if you sign up to their Broadband.
So given that, why does the Homeline Budget exist in the first place, the only thing I can think of is apart from the obvious screw you to the competition is the ACCC mandated it to help low income families have a phone, and if this is the case, I don’t see any reason why the ACCC won’t put in place a mandate to NBNCo to ensure the exact same thing happens under the NBN.
(In fact you’ll note TPG have stopped offer that $1 a month line rental deal).
“Show me the deal between Optus and NBN Co. There isn’t one, there might not even be one.”
ok there isn’t one.
http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/optus_on_brink_of_nbn_customer_transfer_5A3cfqZ3iuCmFLGdmkg4RO
“I would personal love to see FTTH in direct competition with HFC and watch both Optus and Telstra cringe under the ever increasing migration to the better technology (FTTH)”
Well you might but Conroy and the NBN Co don’t, they know the only way the NBN will even have a chance of being viable is to shut down all competing fixed line networks.
“Telstra doesn’t even allow retailers to match the “Telstra Homeline Budget” figure given there WLR price is $20.50.”
Yes I know that, I was referring to the NBN Co offering a Telstra Homeline Budget wholesale equivalence, that’s what the residences who are using it today will expect.
“So given that, why does the Homeline Budget exist in the first place”
Because consumers want it being as it is the cheapest retail landline rental out there.
” the only thing I can think of is apart from the obvious screw you to the competition is the ACCC mandated it to help low income families have a phone,”
Well there is the low income aspect, there is also the fact that millions of BB users are coupling HLB with a ADSL/ADSL2+ plan from a non-Telstra ISP and obtaining VoIP from yet another supplier as the most cost effective and flexible combination.
“I don’t see any reason why the ACCC won’t put in place a mandate to NBNCo to ensure the exact same thing happens under the NBN.”
Well they are notoriously quiet about it so far, I guess in the freebie NBN honeymoon pilot period they don’t have to worry about it yet, the shit will hit the fan when Telstra HLB residences are forced migrated and such a retail deal equivalence is NOT in place.
ok there isn’t one.
http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/optus_on_brink_of_nbn_customer_transfer_5A3cfqZ3iuCmFLGdmkg4RO
Yes, I saw that, but please, note the following two pieces of information:
NightKhaos
Posted 13/06/2011 at 12:53 pm
PUBLISHED : 15 Jun 2011 00:03:00
Come back a week later just because there happens to be a change to rub it my face? Real mature now Alain.
Also the deal is much less than you were trying to make us believe, proving the the majority of the expense in the NBN deal with Telstra was in fact, as we asserted, for use of the ducts. See:
Optus to is about has on the brink of a deal will with NBN Co the worth between $500 million chief NBN and $1 billion after Labor tax to shut the upgrade down its cable to he network and a transfer fixed customers to the NBN’s sc which national broadband have network.
Well you might but Conroy and the NBN Co don’t, they know the only way the NBN will even have a chance of being viable is to shut down all competing fixed line networks.
We’ve gone over this. Wanting a deal to ensure viability does not equal needing a deal to be viable. Why does a government entity have to give a competiting infrastructure a fair go? Sportsmanship? Remember the whole reason they want to do this in the first place is the market has failed to deliver innovation to everyone in the fixed broadband sector, and you want to rely on the market to determine the best choice for Australia? Your view of the world is so short sighted in this respect it’s a wonder you support any government action at all.
Yes I know that, I was referring to the NBN Co offering a Telstra Homeline Budget wholesale equivalence, that’s what the residences who are using it today will expect.
And according to the NBN Government Website the following question is present in the FAQ:
Will my landline phone cost more if I connect to the National Broadband Network?
No. The government is committed to the continued availability of voice only services for those who need it, at no greater price than they pay now.
So, as stated, and the above seems to back it up, the ACCC will likely be there to ensure that there is “budget pricing” available.
Well there is the low income aspect, there is also the fact that millions of BB users are coupling HLB with a ADSL/ADSL2+ plan from a non-Telstra ISP and obtaining VoIP from yet another supplier as the most cost effective and flexible combination.
That’s complete bullshit, and if it isn’t, I would love to see some figures to back it up. The majority of people I know if they have a VoIP service they go Naked, why would you pay for a phone service twice?
Also, I might as well point this, with the majority of carriers, you get a bundling discount of about $10 if you sign up to their PSTN voice service, and in general this is enough to justify using their voice service over HomeLine Budget.
Well they are notoriously quiet about it so far, I guess in the freebie NBN honeymoon pilot period they don’t have to worry about it yet, the shit will hit the fan when Telstra HLB residences are forced migrated and such a retail deal equivalence is NOT in place.
They’re quiet for one or two reasons: they have bigger fish to fry, or it isn’t a problem. Based upon the FAQ entry above, and the fact their recent policies seem to be focused on Telstra Wholesale Pricing rather than the NBN, I’m inclined to think it’s both.
If you have a problem, why don’t you kick and scream about it to the papers? Chances are someone will post an article, and NBN Co will respond with what they want to do about it. Then you’ll have your answer. Instead of just trying to paint a bleak picture which holds little alignment with reality.
“The choice of not having a fixed-line telephone service seems to be driven by age and living arrangements.”
That is the pertinant of his comment. The fact is most “younger” people and people that change accomodation regularly will not pay the charges Telstra want to have a fixed line connected, so they rely on their mobiles.
Years ago when I lived in the US getting a phone connected was a matter of going into the phone company’s office and paying a months rental – in return I was given a phone to plug in when I got back home – and guess what – the service was on when I got back home. Try that with Tlestra!
Having said that, Kevin Andrews obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about – but that seems common for a lot of pollies!
one of the reasons i am looking forward to the NBN. the way it is designed you wont have many of the steps needed to ‘turn on’ a line’ the copper net does, and inherent to that, the cost involved. moving houses, particularly as a renter should be less painful and much easier to stay with your chosen provider. rather than being forced about by whoever has a DSLAM in the nearest exchange (or who no longer does). if you have NBN all the companies serving over NBN can serve you, and changing provider should be a whole lot less painful not needing to move physical jumpers etc.
it will be a lot more attractive retaining fixed line voice service in that world vs the hoops one has to jump through today. its not just the fact of an analog world moving to a digital/ data world that Andrews is wrong on, but all those other little step-changes the NBN introduces. in that light im not at all concerned about the growth in mobile use. (nor the $24 initial price bitching upthread, for that matter).
@Alan
Speaking of the USA you should have read this piece in the linked blog this article is all about.
“The Australian data reflects trends elsewhere. The Economist reported in August 2009 that an estimated 25 per cent of households in the USA rely entirely on mobile phones, a share that was expected to increase rapidly. “If the decline of the landline continues at its current rate, the last cord will be cut sometime in 2025,” reported the paper.”
Perhaps you did but it got all a bit awkward eh?
Mobile phones over fixed landline telephony? Hmm… and how does Broadband fit into this again, given that we a building a National Broadband Network?
*Mobile phones over fixed landline telephony? Hmm… and how does Broadband fit into this again, given that we a building a National Broadband Network?*
look, NBNco Head Cheerleader, take a gooooood look at the chart on p35 of the NBNco Corporate Plan:
FACT #1: FIXED TELEPHONY revenues currently comprise ~70% (SEVENTY PERCENT) of total fixed-line revenues
FACT #2: FIXED TELEPHONY still accounts for > 50% (FIFTY PERCENT) of total fixed-line revenues towards the end of NBNco’s forecast horizon.
FIXED TELEPHONY revenues MATTER for NBNco’s financial viability.
here’s a final interesting point:
FACT #3: NBNco’s chart implies that TOTAL basic fixed-line revenues will show ZERO growth over the forecast horizon.
retarded Labor politicians want to spend $50bln on a market that shows ZERO overall revenue growth (voice + data).
*FACE-PALM*
*DERP*
look, NBNco Head Cheerleader, take a gooooood look at the chart on p35 of the NBNco Corporate Plan:
Oh, I’m the head cheerleader even through I recently ripped apart NBN Co for stating they could only provide latency as good as 3G on wireless? I’m head cheerleader even through I have a problem with the CVC charges possibly being to much?
FACT #1: FIXED TELEPHONY revenues currently comprise ~70% (SEVENTY PERCENT) of total fixed-line revenues
Thanks. I did read the business plan.
FACT #2: FIXED TELEPHONY still accounts for > 50% (FIFTY PERCENT) of total fixed-line revenues towards the end of NBNco’s forecast horizon.
If you look at Exhibit 9.5 on page 112 of the business plan you will note approx 50% of revenue is from CVC and AVC for PIR charges at the end of there revenue forecast.
FIXED TELEPHONY revenues MATTER for NBNco’s financial viability.
See above. If that were the case the AVC for CIR for far exceed the approx 10% we see from Exhibit 9.5.
FACT #3: NBNco’s chart implies that TOTAL basic fixed-line revenues will show ZERO growth over the forecast horizon.
Awesome, that’s probably accurate considering.
retarded Labor politicians want to spend $50bln on a market that shows ZERO overall revenue growth (voice + data).
Well, see again Exhibit 9.5. They seem to be basing it on the growth of data services if you look at the ever increasing CVC component and AVC (PIR) compenent.
*FACE-PALM*
Quite.
mate, i question the accuracy of their forecasts in Exhibit 2.8 from FY12F to FY15F…. let alone FY15F onwards…
but if you’re willing to gobble up their Nostradamus-cross-Pollyanna FY2015-FY2027 crystal-ball gazing… be my guest…
you know what the growth curves in Exhibit 9.5 remind me of? Chinese “national accounts” data…. so unbelievably smooooth, *perfect* and exquisitely-balanced… just like the airbrushed pages of Playboy ;)
lol.
hook.. line… and sinker…..
Wait, you attempt to use their own forecasts to hang them, and when I point out what there forecasts actually say you come back and say they’re not good forecasts at all?
Fine, whatever. Do what you want. Theur forecasts aren’t perfect, but where are yours Tosh?
Exactly NK…
These FUD clowns are the contradiction kings, as I have pointed out many times previously!
They will say (as one did) the NBN Corporate plan/Business case is toilet paper… but to suit their idiocy, will then use the very same CP/BC figures (e.g CVC) they previously referred to as toilet paper, to say… there see, the NBN CP/BC says so..FFS!
Exhibit 2.8. – total basic fixed line revenues in FY2010A = $11bln
Exhibit 9.4 – total NBNco revenue in FY2028F = $9bln
okay, let’s make the aggressive assumption that the retail (broke-ass consumer) market can absorb a further 50% “retail value-added” on top of NBNco’s exorbitant “wholesale take” of $9bln (which is almost as big as the current “retail take”).
so, it’s $11bln in FY10 —-> $13.5bln in FY28….
that’s mind-blowing growth in total fixed-line revenues of $2.5bln over 18 YEARS….
or annualised growth in revenue of a GRAND 1% p.a. over almost two decades…
that’s breathtaking……
i can really see the value of blowing $50bln of taxpayers’ hard-earned income on this “1% growth” turkey (using aggressive assumptions)….
yikes… even the French economy has better growth rates than that…
*how embarrassing*
dude, i don’t need to read NBNco marketing charts to know that FIXED TELEPHONY revenues are ERODING faster than Labor’s “economic management” credibility…
or that fixed broadband ARPU growth is tepid at best… while wireless ARPU is ZOOOOMMMING ahead…
Telstra has been SHOUTING it out off the rooftops every 6 MONTHS….
lmao.
the only clowns not catching on are the socialist idiots running this country.
the illustrious NBNco executive committee know full well…. like bees to honey, they just can’t resist the temptation of wetting their beaks with the BILLION-DOLLAR taxpayer-funded NBN GRAVY TRAIN….
can’t blame them… they’re only human… who doesn’t want a few extra mil. to renovate the waterfront mansion or refurbish the 50ft private yacht…
screw taxpayers… all the telcos, engineering contractors, other vested interests, etc are laughing all the way to the bank…
I rest my case (for now) re: your agenda/credibility toshP300… all this political BS in just ONE comment…
“ERODING faster than Labor’s “economic management” credibility…”
“the only clowns not catching on are the socialist idiots running this country”.
“the illustrious NBNco executive committee know full well…. like bees to honey, they just can’t resist the temptation of wetting their beaks with the BILLION-DOLLAR taxpayer-funded NBN GRAVY TRAIN.”
“screw taxpayers… all the telcos, engineering contractors, other vested interests, etc are laughing all the way to the bank…”
Go on try to tell us that you aren’t (imo) a subservient Liberal sheep… go on!
Kevin Andrews wouldn’t know a stick if it was thrown at him.
Is the guy nuts?
This is no Doctor Who’s Phone box here!
Fixed Line cannot, will not, and never be outperformed (the stability, flexibility, and speed) of Fibre.
@Daniel
“Kevin Andrews wouldn’t know a stick if it was thrown at him.”
Is followed by this gem….
“Fixed Line cannot, will not, and never be outperformed (the stability, flexibility, and speed) of Fibre.”
err Fibre is fixed line, here I have a stick especially for you.
I think you mean Wireless Broadband will not outperform Fibre?
It depends what you mean, revenue or speed.
Failing to read again aren’t you alain?
…cannot, will not, and never be outperformed (the stability, flexibility, and speed).
Also, I wasn’t asking you.
Yes I thought you would like that one, for me I’m off studying wireless ARPU’s vs fixed line ARPU’s world wide, not just in the Telstra and SingTel financials.
BTW both those companies especially want the NBN to get out of the freebie pilot phase, they need all that taxpayer subsdised fibre backhaul goodnesss for their wireless rollut ASAP.
When the great copper switch off occurs they will have a avalanche of migrations to their wireless plans to take care of.
I think this is what he meant:
Fixed Line cannot, will not, ever be outperformed [by anything else] (e.g. the stability, flexibility, and speed of Fibre).
And yes, it was very bad grammar, but it sort of gets the point across.
Majority of mobile phones in the next few years will have voip integrated into them so that they switch between the mobile wireless service or the wifi to make calls. When using Wifi it will be utilising VOIP. Mobiles phones will have the ability to roam from a telco mobile cell to a wifi zone and switch between both VOIP and traditional mobile calls. Currently hand phones can detect an existing wifi and switch to using it for internet services. There is an Iphone app called viber which makes calls over the internet.
The fixed line service at home will link up to the wifi router as usual. More free calls and cheaper mobile calls.
“Majority of mobile phones in the next few years will have voip integrated into them so that they switch between the mobile wireless service or the wifi to make calls.”
Perhaps … but I’ve tried VoIP over 3G, and it’s not that great … the latency is the killer.
Latency is the number one enemy of VoIP – (or any service that needs to be “real time”) – it’s why there will be no native voice services over NBN wireless or satellite services.
I believe he is saying when 3g is available you use it for voice calls, and when wifi is available, you use VOIP for calls. We all know how sucky 3G is for any real time use, so pointing that out does little to discount his point about using wifi for VOIP.
Of course what he fails to mention is how well the networks are performing (yes even Telstra’s).
At the moment they perform horribly and are no subsitute for fixed line broadband.
Wow I can 1 mbps on my wireless v 100 on my cable connection.
The only thing I use my wireless connection for is checking email, facebook and web surfing.
It’s useless for everything else.
Maybe he should stick to talking about something he knows about.
“Maybe he should stick to talking about something he knows about.”
Well he does in reality, he is actually quoting statistics to support his argument, I know that is a complete novelty to the majority of pro-NBN posters who shoot from the hip usually at the messenger rather than the message and hope emotion and lots of CAPS and !!!!! will help the cause.
From the blog link:
“Market research by Roy Morgan, on behalf of ACMA, has found that proportion of household consumers, aged 14 and over, with access to a fixed-line telephone has declined significantly in recent years.
Between June 2005 and June 2010 the proportion of household consumers with access to a fixed-line service declined from 95 per cent to 86 per cent.
In June 2010 there were 2.3 million persons without access to a fixed-line telephone, up by 35 per cent from 1.7 million in 2009.”
@ alain…
Interesting that you are able to find and equate figures which suit your incessant FUD and even project them into the future to assume wireless usage. However in relation to actual speeds and data usage, as outlined by Moore, Nielsen etc and historical trends clearly demonstrate, you refuse to acknowledge that they will keep increasing and that we need to prepare…
Of course wireless has increased. Not so long ago, maybe 10-15 years, a 4 member family would have one mobile. Then two, now 4 member families have 4 (sometimes more) mobiles… This suggests that wireless (which imo, is complementary to fixed) will tend to plateau, imo. Bit like PC sales. They boomed in the naughties, as every home needed a PC/Mac, but now that most homes have a computer, they have to depend on offering improvements and enticing updates (see any technology trends there too)?
So alain, again you talk about the competitive forces of wireless on the monopoly NBN… think about that conundrum… a monopoly with a true competitor… LOL, more contradictions.
And AGAIN I ask you alain (so you can squirm and weasel) , “do you depend totally, upon wireless technologies for all of your needs”?
Now refer to between the brackets, where we can discuss something you actually know, ready ( ) … there done!
Of course skirt around the issue, talk about anything else, go off topic, pad up the response with ‘state the bleeding obvious’ stocking filler which has nothing to do with the basic assertion of this article supported by ACMA statistics.
Fixed line connections are on the decline.
@ alain…
AGAIN…
“Do you depend totally, upon wireless technologies for all of your needs”?
All getting a bit much for you RS? – you hate contradictory stats to your agenda with a passion, I can almost see the whites of your eyes in your frantic desperation to try and drag the subject into off topic totally irrelevant BS.
*rofl*
Hilarious.
This article pretty much sums up why an argument with Alain is an exercise in futility.
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
Thanks Marlon, that was very interesting indeed…
I have read a bit about confirmation bias (Tolstoy’s) in the past, but this is another step again…!
Seems like who ever said those immortal words “don’t feed the trolls”, knew exactly what he/she was talking about…LOL!
@Marlon
“why an argument with Alain is an exercise in futility”
Not that you have ever tried Marlon, I guess the easiest and laziest option is just to insert a searched Google link to a totally off topic ‘exercise in futility’ then exit stage left with a one post wonder.
Oh it’s the Delimiter matinee comedy act, I wondered where Beavis and Butthead had gone to.
Interesting line of reasoning, in that he didn’t have a word to say about the growth of fixed line broadband services. You may draw some implication from the decline in fixed line phone services – but I can’t see that it says anything about the demand for fixed line broadband. I guess that’s why Mr Andrews didn’t mention it – because demand for fixed line broadband is still growing
Of course the basis of the article is the increasing number of households that are disconnecting from a fixed line connection and are totally reliant on their mobile for voice and or data.
If you are asserting that the number of NEW fixed line connections is more than countering the exit figures please provide some statistics to support that argument.
*facepalm*
ABS Stats on Broadband. Remember those Alain?
@NightKhaos
Yes I know exactly what you are referring to because we discussed them at great length previously, which is why I asked about the rate of NEW (hence the emphasis with caps) fixed line connections vs fixed line disconnections.
I also remember quoting the last two Telstra financials fixed line disconnection figures both retail and wholesale in which fixed line disconnections were increasing at a rapid rate and it seemed to indicate there was a lag in the ABS figures reflecting the disconnection figures from Telstra.
ABS reporting periods are not necessarily in sync with Telstra’s reporting periods to the ASX and their shareholders.
Suffice to say I look forward to the next updated figures from Telstra and the ABS where the lag has hopefully been updated.
My money is on disconnections being greater than NEW connections.
*sigh* Whatever I really don’t care anymore.
Update:
By way of explanation of the lag I was referring to the current ABS statistics reflecting December 2010 figures was not published until 1/4/2011, the next ABS update which will be for June 2011 will not be published until 28/9/2011.
Okay, that I can’t let go. When we last had this arguement it was prior to the December 2010 figures being released and you tried to assert that they would show a fall in fixed line Broadband connections.
They don’t, they still show an increase. How long are you going to keep this up!
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0/
We have flogged this to death before, where are the disconnection figures?
Absolute number of subscriptions has gone up. What more do you want? You’re trying to prove a theory you don’t have any data for. Either get the data, or accept that the data you have does not support your theory.
Indeed NK…
The disconnection figures are of no consequence, if over all subscriptions have increased.
It may mean that (pluck a figure) 500,000 disconnections have occurred (which of course alain would say, ah-ha, there)… BUT if subscriptions have increased it simply means that “regardless of the 500 000 disconnections, more than 500 000 new subscriptions have also occurred”… pretty simple really!
Look it’s something I haven’t really looked into because, as I said before, wireless (especially mobile phones) will imo, plateau, as they are artificially high due to everyone in a family now wanting/having a mobile, whereas in times gone by, there was one or two per family…
Regardless wireless won’t imo, overly affect the NBN, especially when the average person, who may not currently understand the advantages, actually sees what fibre can offer!
@NightKhaos
“What more do you want?”
Well like I said fixed line disconnection figures reflected in the ABS figures, you can actually say no you don’t see them listed either, it won’t hurt.
*hands Alain a spade* You know, if you want to keep digging that hole, it might be worth using this.
As already inferred: the figure you seek does not exist in the ABS stats, nor is recorded anywhere. The data we do have, which states that there was a net increase in the number of fixed line Broadband connections of approximately 240 thousand connections (up from 80 thousand in the previous period from December 2009 to June 2010 and assuming the number of Satalite connections remained stable for this period), which does not support your asseration that there is a significant percentage of people migrating to “mobile only” households in terms of Broadband (althrough there is data to support this is happening in the telephony field, which I have never denied), because if if there are they are out numbered by the number of new people connecting to fixed-line broadband connections by a very significant degree.
In fact the fact that there were 240 thousand new fixed line connections in this period is signifcant in that is up 200% from the last 6 month period. I don’t understand, when faced with this data, you can even begin to assert what is you are trying to assert. The data shows, quite clearly, that the fixed-line connection is alive and kicking.
And that is when we completely ignore the fact that once again the amount of data downloaded over fixed line connections is approximately 10 times the amount of data downloaded over wireless, which is even more telling of market trends.
@ NK, I’m not meaning to attempt to speak on your behalf or associate myself with you, my apologies…! I’m just backing what you say (which imo is correct), in the face of typically strange criticism! Cheers.
@ alain. You have the “end result” – subscriptions have “increased”, according to NK and his supporting data. That’s it…DONE!
Sadly, you now wanting half the information only, disconnection stats which suit you, but not the new connection stats, simply reeks of bad sportsmanship… a`la, knowing the full-time footy score, after your team loses, but rather than graciously accepting defeat, you instead demand the other team supply the half-time score (which you know, favours your team) so that you can vainly say, well… we won the first half!
Seriously…!
Au revoir alain…
RS, no apologises needed.
@NightKhaos
“As already inferred: the figure you seek does not exist in the ABS stats, nor is recorded anywhere.”
I guess that is near as you will allow yourself to almost gag and say no the disconnection figures are not there.
“The data we do have, which states that there was a net increase in the number of fixed line Broadband connections”
Hang on a sec that’s just customers signing up for DSL on existing lines, I was referring to NEW fixed line connections vs fixed line disconnections, but then you know that because I emphasised what I meant twice even putting the word NEW in caps, but you ignored all of that and went off on your own agenda twisting it to how you wanted to respond (again).
You also totally ignore this ACMA commissioned research quoted in this blog article at the head of this discussion:
“Between June 2005 and June 2010 the proportion of household consumers with access to a fixed-line service declined from 95 per cent to 86 per cent.
In June 2010 there were 2.3 million persons without access to a fixed-line telephone, up by 35 per cent from 1.7 million in 2009.”
A decline in percentage to a fixed line service includes fixed line broadband, this trend is accelerating not remaining stable or in even in decline, and tis trend is reflected worldwide.
BTW Here are some more facts for you to digest from this great article based on ACMA statistics.
http://www.whistleout.com.au/blog/no-dial-tone-on-landline-growth
“Even though the population is increasing and more homes are being built, new fixed line connections are being offset by the decline in people cancelling their fixed line telephone service.”
Which is what I was asserting, read it again and let it sink in.
I guess that is near as you will allow yourself to almost gag and say no the disconnection figures are not there.
Why do you need them? What part of NET do you not understand? You take the number of new connections, and then you substract the number of disconnections. That is the result you get, if the NET is postive it means there were more connections than disconnections, and the NET is negative it means there were more disconnections than connections.
So yes, we aren’t given the number of disconnections, but we know that it must be less by the fact the net number of connections is postive, i.e. the number of absolute connections have gone up, than the number of connections made in the same period.
Hang on a sec that’s just customers signing up for DSL on existing lines, I was referring to NEW fixed line connections vs fixed line disconnections, but then you know that because I emphasised what I meant twice even putting the word NEW in caps, but you ignored all of that and went off on your own agenda twisting it to how you wanted to respond (again).
Are you even listening to yourself here? Let me spell it out for you in Decemeber of the year Twenty-Ten Anno Domini there were Two Hundred and Forty Thousand more Fixed Line Broadband Connections, be it cable, DSL, or Fibre, than there were Six Months prior to this point. This means that in this period, in excess of 240 thousand households that otherwise did not have a fixed line broadband connection at June 2010 signed up to a broadband service.
That Broadband service could have been Naked (without a telelphone line, thus contributing to the decrease in fixed-line telephony connections as quoted by ACMA blog if the person had one previously), that Broadband service could have been Cable or FTTH, both of which do not require a fixed-line telephone connection. I should know, I’m on cable, and we do not in our household have a fixed-line telephone. In fact the only reason we had one in our previous household is so that we could get ADSL Broadband.
A decline in percentage to a fixed line service includes fixed line broadband, this trend is accelerating not remaining stable or in even in decline, and tis trend is reflected worldwide.
No, it doesn’t. That ACMA blog was refering only to fixed line Telephony services. You want to know why I know this? Because the ABS stats for the period of June 2010 to December 2010 show a net increase of 240 connections which directly contridicts the assertion that this decrease is Broadband services inclusive.
“Even though the population is increasing and more homes are being built, new fixed line connections are being offset by the decline in people cancelling their fixed line telephone service.”
That is again refering to telephony, not Broadband. In fact the article you linked is only talking about telephony. In fact did you not notice in that very article the following: “The National Broadband Network is only going to increase this decline with VOIP services.”
Clearly if Broadband based VoIP services are counted as a disconnection then an active Broadband connection is not being refered to here by the definition of a fixed-line service they are using.
We are talking about, the statistics you were linked to, and in fact this article, is all about the National Broadband Network. Get that through your thick skull.
@alain
http://www.rysavy.com/Articles/2008_12_Rysavy_Spectrum_Demand_.pdf
QUOTE:
“Similarly, users are starting to use mobile broadband connections to the Internet as an alternative to wireline connections such as DSL. If people are already paying for wireless Internet service, they are reluctant to pay separately for wired Internet. Nielsen asserts, “Clearly, Internet access is the next frontier of wireless substitution.”23 Morgan Stanley makes the following statements, “We are also starting to see the early signs of wireless data substitution, as laptop cards and smartphones proliferate. The rollouts of WiMAX and LTE will make wireless data substitution even more compelling. Sweden & Austria have seen a significant impact on DSL adds from mobile broadband. Mobile broadband accounted for more than 70% of total broadband adds in Austria last year.”24”
23 Nielsen, “Call My Cell: Wireless Substitution in the United States,” September 2008.
24 Morgan Stanley, Telecom Services “Cutting the Cord: Voice First, Broadband Close Behind.” October 1, 2008.
*lul’z*
*high-five*
Cool – a study published three years ago – (from research probably done four years ago) – in another country.
If the United States went and jumped off a cliff, would you jump off the cliff too?
Unfortunately, this trend does not seem to be occurring apparent in Australia, there is still significant growth in the fixed-line Broadband market.
I’m sorry, but the data we have for Australia does not agree with data for the United Stated from a couple of years ago.
Yes, there is significant advantage to mobile broadband from some customers, yes there are likely customers who won’t have a fixed line connection for any reason, however for some reason, there is still growth in this market, why is that? If people were really dropping their fixed-line connections, or, as the article puts it, “reluctant to pick up a fixed line connection”, the market would be declining, or at best, stagnate.
@NK
thanks for the ABS link… it corroborates global trends unsurprisingly..
2009/10 growth:
DSL – +6.7%
wireless growth – +49%
*lul’z*
exactly what’s happening overseas… wireless eating into DSL market share…
jack-up the fixed-line broadband cost structure with the $50bln NBN, and the “+6.7%” will inevitably turn into “-10%”… net attrition…
the writing’s on the wall….
the Gubmint is blowing $50bln chasing fixed-line revenue when all the growth is happening in the wireless sector…
*lul’z*
Heh!
Growth on $1000 of 6.7% is $67.00.
Growth on $100 of 49% is $49.00.
$67.00 > $49.00…statistics can be made to say anything you want them to.
2010:
DSL connections: 4,458
mobile wireless: 4,230
“2009/10 growth:
DSL – +6.7%
wireless growth – +49%”
You do know there is more people than there are houses right and that ‘wireless’ internet has only recently become popular in the last few years, where as DSL has been around for ages and so less new connections.
Also DSL is still growing, just slowly, but then again it takes what 6months or more for a new house to be built?
2010:
DSL connections: 4,458
mobile wireless: 4,230
More people than houses, and plenty of people with more than one device. There are five mobile wireless devices our home, spread over two people.
How many people have a mobile phone, tablet device, and a USB dongle all with 3G access? There’s three devices per house, without counting other people in the house.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
you were arguing that the differential growth rates are due to “base effects”….
i was just showing that the DSL / mobile subscriber bases are comparable… and definitely not 1000:100..
talking about changing the goal posts… actually, it’s more like changing games from footy to netball
*lul’z*
Thanks for demonstrating my point… *lulz*
i have no idea who invented “group think”…. but NBN proponents must have invented “group delusion”.
*lul’z*
Haha…you’re best response is to personally attack is it?
*FAIL*
sorry, you had a point?
lul’z.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
@NK/alain
i think alain’s more pessimistic reading of the data might be closer to the truth.
essentially, what we’re interested in is the overall # of fixed-line connections (whether it be “phone only”, “narrow/broadband only” or “phone & narrow/broadband”).
(i) ABS 2010 data
looking at the ABS data:
# dial-up: -184
# DSL: +280
# mobile wireless: +1,392
# total connections: +1,496
of the total increase in internet connections of 1,496, mobile accounted for 1,392 and some form of “fixed” accounted for the remainer of ~100.
within “fixed internet”, you have a compositional shift or migration from “dial-up” to “DSL” (~200 connections) as “DSL” becomes more widely available and (probably, most importantly) cheaper relative to dial-up.
hence, net growth in “fixed internet” is only 100. this is the relevant # when comparing fixed to mobile.
so, according to ABS data, actual %growth in “fixed internet” is only a measly 1.6%.
(ii) Telstra 2010 data:
looking at Telstra’s financial data:
# PSTN SIOs (retail + wholesale): -358
so, we have 358K phone disconnections. in order for these physical lines to remain active, it must be still be used for internet at least via ULL access since LSS is bundled with voice.
# ULL SIOs: +133
so, according to Telstra data, there’s a net fixed line disconnection of (358 – 133) = 225K.
which implies net fixed-line attrition of -2.5% after taking into account naked ADSL.
either way, both sets of data hardly paint a flattering picture of growth in the fixed-line sector.
@Michael
that jury of “5 year olds” of yours is getting restless…
time to head out for an ice-cream run ;)
@NightKhaos
so, the ABS internet data is essentially a subset of Telstra’s fixed-line data (which considers both voice and internet). both sources reconcile and are not contradictory:
(i) over the 12 mths to June ’10, there was a net 100K new fixed-line broadband connections on existing or new fixed-line connections,
however,
(ii) the overall number of fixed-line connections (either voice only, internet only or voice & internet) DECLINED by 225K.
well that finally settles the long-running debate on the trend in # of fixed-line connections.
First of all when Michael starts pointing out to you that you can’t compare Wireless and Fixed-Line Broadband figures for various reasons, including by not limited to the multiple connection problem (a household will have one connection of fixed-line but will likely have as many mobile connections as their residences, and in some cases in excess of this), the emerging technology problem (being a new and popular technology the technology is current in it’s rapid growth stage, a stage which fixed line Broadband has long since surpassed) and the difference bases problem (which although is not applicable now, was very applicable in earlier statistical points).
And your response is to insult him with something about “group think”. Smooth. Really? That’s not a good argument to make. But that aside let’s actually look at the arguments you have made
which implies net fixed-line attrition of -2.5% after taking into account naked ADSL.
Okay, as pointed out, Cable Connections and FTTH connections do not require an active PSTN connection. Have you taken account these figures in your calculations?
so, the ABS internet data is essentially a subset of Telstra’s fixed-line data (which considers both voice and internet). both sources reconcile and are not contradictory:
Not it’s not. It’s just another set of data. It doesn’t take into account cable and FTTH connections for one thing. Because the National Broadband Network is about Broadband the 8153 Statistics from the ABS are far more relevant to us than Telstra’s. Would you ask for statistics about motorbikes if you were buying a car?
well that finally settles the long-running debate on the trend in # of fixed-line connections.
Well sure, if you say so, it definitely settles it. You are completely correct, I don’t know what I was thinking.
@NightKhaos
YOU GUYS ARE UNBELIEVABLE.
*First of all when Michael starts pointing out to you that you can’t compare Wireless and Fixed-Line Broadband figures for various reasons*
this whole farking debate (which has been repeated umpteen times on various other threads) is about whether the total number of fixed-line (copper) connections is increasing or decreasing. you’ve been arguing all along based on ABS internet data that the # of fixed-line connections is still increasing and not decreasing.
when i mention the fact that the ABS statistics show that DSL connections are growing at 6.7% while wireless internet connections are growing at 49%, Michael tried to play down the high growth of wireless internet on the basis that the “current wireless subscriber base is *small*, hence, relatively small absolute line gains results in large percentage growth rates”. that’s what Michael was trying to infer with his rubbish post.
instead, this is not the case at all. the ratio of fixed to wireless internet subscriptions is nothing like the “1000:100” ratio he tried to imply. in fact, wireless internet connections have almost caught up with fixed internet connections. hence, the 49% growth rate in wireless connections is highly significant and not merely a statistical artifact of “small base effects”.
*And your response is to insult him with something about “group think”.
insult him? make him look silly? i don’t need to… he’s doing a FINE job all by himself.
*Okay, as pointed out, Cable Connections and FTTH connections do not require an active PSTN connection. Have you taken account these figures in your calculations?*
the whole NBN debate revolves around replacing the copper last mile with fibre. the whole argument about the number of fixed-line connections is about the performance of the CAN. what the fark has cable and greenfield FTTH estates got to do with this?*
*Because the National Broadband Network is about Broadband the 8153 Statistics from the ABS are far more relevant to us than Telstra’s.*
ABS DATA IS DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM TELSTRA’S CORPORATE DATA. HOW MANY FARKING COPPER NETWORKS ARE THERE ASIDE FROM THE TELSTRA NETWORK?
*Would you ask for statistics about motorbikes if you were buying a car?*
NIGHTKHAOS, YOU’RE A TOTAL DICKHEAD (once again).
what’s the point of debating with someone who NEVER concedes a point even when it’s been comprehensively demonstrated to them that they’re wrong.
you win the GOLDEN TWIT award for FORUM LAWYERISM and disingenuousness.
i challenge you to reply to @alain admitting that you are wrong after all about the trend in fixed-line connections, but i know you won’t swalllow your false pride. prove me wrong.
*just to humour you, the ABS data shows that the number of new FTTH connections of 13K is oodles less than the annual DECLINE in PSTN connections (net of new ULLs). the number of PSTN connections (net of new ULLs) declined by 225K. there’s 635K active cable connections. do you seriously think the # of cable connections increased by ~50% over the space of one year?
lol Tosh, I think you had better get a Twitter account pronto. We need more ranters like you there :)
Hmm. Think I might get some popcorn!
@Tosh
Since you’ve chosen to denegrate the debate into shit slinging…*ahem*…
You are too much of a “DICKHEAD” – (to use your own vernacular) – to realise that quite simply you can’t compare fixed line service numbers with mobile service numbers, simply because:
(a) there are a great many more people in Australia than there are premises.
(b) there are actually more mobile connections in Australia than there are people.
If you want to statistically compare premises with fixed line services (each of which are generally limited to one per premise) with people with mobile services (which technically has no limit – there’s nothing to stop me from buying 100 mobile phones), you have to factor into your thinking that the market dynamics are completely different.
The number of POSSIBLE fixed line services is artificially limited to approximately the same number of premises. Do you propose installing an ADSL connection inside a cow in the middle of a paddock?
But I could sit on the back of a cow with a wireless mobile connected device.
Anyone with a brain can see that mobile devices have the potential for more numbers, simply because they aren’t limited to premises.
Just because all this just doesn’t happen to marry up to your argument, well – as that Indian chick said on 60 Minutes all those years ago:
“Tough Titties”
@Michael Wyres
*you can’t compare fixed line service numbers with mobile service numbers*
why not? why isn’t the following observation:
“the rate of growth of wireless internet subscriptions is faster than fixed internet subscriptions”
a valid, useful and informative observation?
revenue = #SIOs x ARPU
as an investor, i’d be interested in knowing the rate of growth of fixed internet SIOs as it directly determines revenue growth potential in the fixed-line space. replace “fixed” with “wireless”.
*The number of POSSIBLE fixed line services is artificially limited to approximately the same number of premises.*
REALLY?
oh… so one premise can’t have more than one telephone line?
boy, oh boy… ignorance & stupidity has no bounds….
I think ToshP300 just demonstrated exactly what Tony Abbott was thinking but couldn’t say, during the infamous, head wobbling, 30 seconds of nothingness…!
@Tosh
Oh, hilarious art thou…
…given almost everyone has some kind of copper based service – (at very least a POTS connection and/or a DSL services) – it’s actually REMARKABLE that they can still get 6.7% growth, given they are currently limited to about 11 million locations.
…there are approximately 22 millions “people premises” in Australia in which a mobile connection can be “installed”, and with no barrier to how many can be “installed”. Since the average Australian has more than one mobile connection, that means there are at least twice as many active mobile services in Australia than POSSIBLE fixed services.
YOU CANNOT COMPARE THEM ON RAW NUMBERS – they are “different”.
And since the NBN will allow for six separate and distinct services to be be pushed into each premise, there’s plenty of room for growth in NBN World.
Go suck on your lollipop if you like, but I know who is being honest and realistic with the comparison between the two. I’m off to bed, and I shan’t be losing sleep worrying about how wrong I’m not.
Okay, let’s backtrack the thread a little bit… the orignal post by Chris was:
…in that he didn’t have a word to say about the growth of fixed line broadband services. You may draw some implication from the decline in fixed line phone services – but I can’t see that it says anything about the demand for fixed line broadband.
Notice that he was conceeding that fixed-line phone services are declining. I never, ever, attempted to contridict this in any of my replies. When Alain mentioned it, I didn’t contridict it, but I again pointed out the point I was countering him against was with Broadband. See Alain’s orignal post this was all stemed from.
Of course the basis of the article is the increasing number of households that are disconnecting from a fixed line connection and are totally reliant on their mobile for voice and or data.
Notice that phrase, “totally reliant on their mobile for voice and or data”. Now, he’s correct in the voice department, my family and I fit directly into this catagory, but not the data part because there is still an increase in fixed line Broadband. Do you understand now?
In a more detailed retort if you would prefer:
this whole farking debate (which has been repeated umpteen times on various other threads) is about whether the total number of fixed-line (copper) connections is increasing or decreasing. you’ve been arguing all along based on ABS internet data that the # of fixed-line connections is still increasing and not decreasing.
No, the debate has been about weither or not the fixed line disconnections of telephony services (there, I conceed it, happy, althrough I don’t understand why I need to directly conceed this point because I have never contridicted it) is significant towards the viablity of the NBN.
Since the NBN’s primary focus is data services, that is Broadband, I am asserting that given their is growth in this market, that this does not impact the viablity of the NBN. It does however bring into question the finances if the majority of the reveune is coming from telephony-services, but you’ll note I have stated for about as long as you have been posting here that I don’t think the funding model is correct, however I still think that FTTH is a needed expense.
The methods to which I think this should be done I am still exploring, and yes, if I cannot find a viable method to do this within the current NBN framework of FTTH to 93% of the population I will of course come to the conclusion that interim technologies must be deployed or the roll-out be scaled back. However I would rather not discuss these at length just yet.
the whole NBN debate revolves around replacing the copper last mile with fibre. the whole argument about the number of fixed-line connections is about the performance of the CAN. what the fark has cable and greenfield FTTH estates got to do with this?*
Did you forget the part with the Telstra and Optus deals that HFC cable customers are going to migrated and also the fact that Greenfields estate FTTH projects have to be open access and thus exist in the same “open market” framework of NBN? Althrough they may be a fringe case, the Cable and Greenfields estates are still very much a part of the NBN Legistrative Framework.
Yes, Cable and Greenfields are not as signifcant as the CAN network, however they do have something to do with the bigger picture, and cannot be ignored in any anaylsis.
ABS DATA IS DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM TELSTRA’S CORPORATE DATA. HOW MANY FARKING COPPER NETWORKS ARE THERE ASIDE FROM THE TELSTRA NETWORK?
You are correct in that there is one copper network, however the Telstra Corporate Data has other data that was reduantent in the context of the argument we were having. My orignal point is that Alain has continuely misrepresented the situation by attempting to state there is a decline in fixed-line broadband connections and users are subsituting these for mobile wireless. This is true for telephony, but not broadband, as there isn’t a decline in fixed-line broadband services. It is not a complex arguement. X applies to Y, but not Z, even through Y and Z are related.
what’s the point of debating with someone who NEVER concedes a point even when it’s been comprehensively demonstrated to them that they’re wrong.
A question I have been asking myself while debating the NBN for quite some time actually. However hardly as frustrating as a misunderstanding between two closely linked subjects with drawn conclusions that seem to contridict each other, have evidence for both points, and the arguement that results from this.
Picking apart the pieces is a slow and painful process. Look at this thread, it took us this long to determine that the arguements we were making are in fact different ones, and apparently both true. I deeply apologise for the misunderstanding here, and the obvious frustration I have caused you.
i challenge you to reply to @alain admitting that you are wrong after all about the trend in fixed-line connections, but i know you won’t swalllow your false pride. prove me wrong.
The vailed insult in here aside, one of many, I do of course conceed that I have wronged you and Alain, not in that the information I have presented was untrue, but in that I did not state my arguements in such a way that they could not be confused with the closely linked subject of telephony disconnections.
I also conceed the point that telephony connections are in fact decreasing, as is the number of physical connections on the CAN. This concession, althrough not in contridictiion to my arguement, is obivously important for your understand of my arguement, and I see no evidence that disproves it.
I smell poopy.
In what respect?
*smirk*
time to change your diapers.
The mentality of the anti-NBNer, here for all to see in just a few short words…
Congratulations… nice job TP!
You spelt “nappies” wrong.
@alain…
As one who is inferring that the NBN will be greatly harmed (even unviable) due to those fleeing fixed… you have been asked many times…
“Do you your self alain, rely totally upon wireless technologies”?
In other words, do you walk the walk, or just talk the talk…? So as you bluntly refuse to answer. It is therefore obvious the answer is “no – you just talk”… (feel free to say yes now, just for sh**s & giggles)!
I also now add once again, that I find the anti-NBNers, big bad NBN monopoly, with no competitor argument at one thread and the Wireless will be such a “huge competitor to the NBN”, it will make the NBN unviable at another thread… once again, humorously irrational and (you guessed it) contradictory!
As such imo, you are again coming across most hypocritical (just to bag the NBN) trying to convince us enough “average Aussies” will ditch fixed, that it will cause the NBN to be unviable! When not even you, perhaps the most ardent anti-NBNer of them all, could, but wont, ditch fixed him self and ergo doesn’t even practice what he preaches, let alone “truly” believe his own words!
I have never said wireless BB is a total substitute for fixed line BB, and I repeat it is not, your off topic questioning about if I use wireless only, HFC or even dial-up! is therefore totally irrelevant and serves no purpose.
It’s like me asking you off topic irrelevancy like if you love the NBN so much why don’t you move to Tasmania, Armidale or Brunswick so you can use it?
Yes, that’s why I said you “inferred” (I too can play your word game)”… alain!
So you admit that “you talk, but do not walk”…good.
Now, since you finally agree with me (phew) that wireless IS NOT a substitute (you actually just clearly defined something for once… thank you… now don’t do your usual trick by contradicting your self) so please stop “inferring” that wireless will make fixed unviable…
Good boy tiger!
But let’s get one thing clear wireless voice and data revenue will increasingly eat away at NBN FTTH revenue, just like it has been eating away Telstra PSTN revenue for at least the last decade, it may be a complimentary for many residences but it is also increasingly for many a total substitute.
@ alain…
Gee we agree again (twice in one day)… it’s amazing when you are “caught out”, you will, once you have to, see reason…
Yes of course some people have gone totally wireless, no one said they hadn’t, so moot point!… But many MORE have not (including both you and I, partner) and are still with fixed! So fixed isn’t dead and isn’t likely to be any time soon, if ever! Yes there may be a reduction, but who knows once fibre is installed and people understand the superior capabilities (capabilities, I’m sure you’d agree) fixed may again boom.
Interesting as I pointed out previously too, in relation to stats, that mobile phones especially have taken off, because rather than one per family as was the case say 15 years ago, it’s now one per person, so this initial boost in numbers, probably isn’t sustainable…Sellers will need to entice updates/upgrades, etc, rather than first time users.
Bit like once fibre is rolled out, the initial numbers will of course be high, as this will be the first time numbers (minimum/0 previously v.s 93%/or thereabouts, dependent upon the opts, once completed)… as such stats aren’t always genuine, which is why they can in many instances, be interpreted just as one wishes!
Anyway… again I simply request, as you have now for once, clearly admitted you were inferring (I wont say WRONG or spreading FUD, oops just did) fixed to be unviable when it clearly isn’t (thank you)… please stop doing so!
Au revoir alain!
I don’t know all about age and other social factors, but I’m 83 years old and we ditched our fixed line phone over 7 years ago, when we found that we could have two mobiles, wireless internet and VOIP for less than Telstra had been charging for the fixed phone alone.
In our heavily populated suburb, we can’t have naked ADSL, due to Telstra’s compulsory bundling monopoly, and they can’t get their cable past our 1 metre concrete path, so we’re doing fine with mobile phones, wireless internet and VOIP – and saving money in the process, by escaping the exorbitant cost of a fixed line.
I don’t know whether an NBN connection will be better or not, so we’ll just have to wait and compare prices, if they can get fibre past the path.
Whilst I think the rollout could be more intelligently done; there is two overarching reasons why it needs to be.
1) Copper is EOL. Period. Not from a technological standpoint (FTTN would of sufficed in this regard), but from the standpoint that copper is degrading and needs to be replaced. Its cheaper to replace copper with fiber.
2) Telstra (as a monopoly) needs to be broken up. Whilst one can argue that its simply being replaced by another monopoly – the key distinction is that NBN is a wholesale only provider, so many of the issues we face at the moment we should be able to bypass.
There are many other advantages to the NBN – such as being able to provide enough backhaul for 4G and higher wireless technologies, and actually being able to legitimately have remote offices without compromising on supporting your remote workers or paying $1000’s for a connection sufficient – but its those two major reasons why the NBN needs to be done and why it needs to be done now.
*copper is degrading and needs to be replaced.*
ooohh… that ole chestnut… “copper is degraded”… which is why when faced with a choice between government-SUBSIDISED fibre and copper ADSL, ~50% of Japanese broadband subscribers still choose ADSL…. roflmao….
*Its cheaper to replace copper [xxxxxx with fiber.xxxxx]*
it’s expensive to REPLACE copper. PERIOD.
*Telstra (as a monopoly) needs to be broken up. Whilst one can argue that its simply being replaced by another monopoly – the key distinction is that NBN is a wholesale only provider, so many of the issues we face at the moment we should be able to bypass.*
the supposed problem of the “Telstra monopoly” has been neutered with great success thanks to aggressive actions by the ACCC in implementing ULL competition that allows Telstra’s competitors to BYPASS Telstra’s AVGC charges. NBNco’s CVC charges CANNOT be bypassed. that is the key distinction.
*There are many other advantages to the NBN – such as being able to provide enough backhaul for 4G and higher wireless technologies*
riiiiggghhhtttt…. let’s see… they DON’T have a national FTTP network in the US…. yet the mobile carriers are still making massive billion dollar investments in LTE and successfully enabling other “higher wireless technologies”….
somehow, us dumb Aussies are apparently not able to put things together in the mobile space unless the GUBMINT blows $50bln on pushing “wireless backhaul” to everyone’s front door. okaaaaaaay…..
*and actually being able to legitimately have remote offices without compromising on supporting your remote workers or paying $1000′s for a connection sufficient*
so YOUR business doesn’t generate enough revenue to afford dedicated fibre connections… however, spending billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money pushing fibre to picket fences in Whoop Whoop will miraculously make fibre cheaper for you… impeccable logic….. you just invented the “free lunch”….
ooohh… that ole chestnut… “copper is degraded”… which is why when faced with a choice between government-SUBSIDISED fibre and copper ADSL, ~50% of Japanese broadband subscribers still choose ADSL…. roflmao….
Source? Nikki reports 50% of users still ADSL2+ considering consider and ADSL2+ connection a stop gap measure until they get fibre. It further went on to say only 20% were happy with their bandwidth throughput. Is that the article you are referring to?
the supposed problem of the “Telstra monopoly” has been neutered with great success thanks to aggressive actions by the ACCC in implementing ULL competition that allows Telstra’s competitors to BYPASS Telstra’s AVGC charges. NBNco’s CVC charges CANNOT be bypassed. that is the key distinction.
So, the CVC charges are bad, heard that one before, any solutions? I suggested we sink a couple of billion as a direct investment not expecting a return into NBN Co in order to allow them to bring down their prices, what about you? Any ideas?
riiiiggghhhtttt…. let’s see… they DON’T have a national FTTP network in the US…. yet the mobile carriers are still making massive billion dollar investments in LTE and successfully enabling other “higher wireless technologies”….
Only in cites, again, exactly what our Aussie providers are going to be doing with LTE. The NBN will enable cheaper backhaul to region areas, something the American companies aren’t really interested in doing, but the government will have to provide subsides to do just that so they can reclaim the 2G and 3G frequency bands.
somehow, us dumb Aussies are apparently not able to put things together in the mobile space unless the GUBMINT blows $50bln on pushing “wireless backhaul” to everyone’s front door. okaaaaaaay…..
The NBN enabling another function (wireless backhaul) does not immediately invaldiate it’s other functions. Showing diversity is a good thing as it increases viability of the project.
so YOUR business doesn’t generate enough revenue to afford dedicated fibre connections… however, spending billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money pushing fibre to picket fences in Whoop Whoop will miraculously make fibre cheaper for you… impeccable logic….. you just invented the “free lunch”….
Well, yes, his logic is a little bit flawed, but you can’t deny the NBN will run fibre to businesses that would never have had access to a fibre project at all due the provides like PIPE and Telstra being disinterested in laying fibre to them.
@NightKhaos
“but you can’t deny the NBN will run fibre to businesses that would never have had access to a fibre project at all due the provides like PIPE and Telstra being disinterested in laying fibre to them.”
Well they could have fibre except they don’t want to pay for it, the ‘free lunch’ as Tosh puts it reigns as the supreme motivator for much of the business based pro NBN argument.
So a business that has absolutely no experience laying fibre has to run their own fibre to a nearby exchange enabled for fibre in order to get access to fibre? And depending on the business that could be several hundred kilometres?
Well, I never! Those lazy businesses!
Oh come on NK you can do better than that (then again perhaps not), of course the business’s don’t do it themselves, Telstra and other licenced third party cable contractors will do it for a price, but if the NBN Co will do it for nothing which one would you get behind?
Free lunch with entree and dessert thank you very much.
Some of you seem to be crying about the NBN Monopoly but Do you realy thing it would be any worse then shitstra…. least you will get what you pay for with the NBN…. Telstra 0 chance
Well it is worse than Telstra, at least at the moment you have Optus HFC as a alternative and wholesale ADSL2+ and Naked DSL from a number of suppliers with their own exchange equipment.
Also Telstra doesn’t even wholesale a very popular BB product Naked DSL you have to get it from a non-Telstra wholesaler.
The NBN requires all of that infrastructure to be removed for it to even have a chance of it being viable.
Some monopoly eh? yeah sure, that’s just like Telstra.
Alain, do you understand what the difference between a vertically integrated monopoly and wholesale only monopoly are?
@NightKhaos
Is that answering my points or avoiding them? – how many Naked DSL and ADSL2+ type wholesalers with their own equipment are there under the NBN?
Under the NBN you as a ISP sell what the NBN Co packages up for you at price points out of your control because you don’t have your own gear anymore, but that will be all ok apparently – ‘trust us we are a Labor Government with a totally unblemished record’.
One poster pointed out that a basic phone package equivalence of Telstra Homeline Budget is not likely under the NBN, hmm don’t like its chances if that is the case
The in your face hypocrisy when to comes to comparing Government legislated monopoly NBN Co vs monopoly Telstra is plain for all objective analysis to see, but only if you want to look of course.
I was getting there, just ATQ.
But since you want to avoid my question, I’ll assume you don’t.
No, providers won’t be able to run their own equipment, but that does not matter because the NBN will provide everything they need to provide any service they want to.
Under Telstra, Telstra can compete directly with customers it is supplying, but ultimately, it is always supplying them. It may just be the copper, it may be the copper and backhaul, it may even be the copper, backhaul, and DSLAM port, it all depends on which exchange you work on.
Telstra can always, and has, undercut it’s competitors in order to keep a high market share. This is the biggest problem with Telstra.
Companies under the NBN will not have that risk, and instead will compete with each other, over a standard set of products, which they can do what they want with, including, but not limited to, providing different speeds and quotas.
Now, you have to remember, that all these “popular products” like Naked ADSL2+ are provided using at least one of Telstra’s wholesale products.
In order to change the products Telstra sells, the providers will have to go through the ACCC. In order to change the products NBN Co sells, the providers will have to go through the ACCC. So nothing changes.
Unfortunately there are a few concessions, like not being able to run your own backhaul to the GPON unit, or not being able to install your own GPON in established areas*, but ultimately, given the fact that you aren’t buying from someone who can undercut you at any minute, I think that is a reasonable concession to make.
* You can install new networks in green-fields estate so long as they are open access.
@Night Khaos
“But since you want to avoid my question, I’ll assume you don’t.”
Yes I know what a vertically integrated monopoly is, it is one where you as a Government wait until a alternative monopoly infrastructure to Telstra is being rolled to decide that you need to structurally separate Telstra even though you know it’s actual effect on ACCC controlled Telstra wholesale pricing will be 2/5 of sweet FA.
What competitors need to do to have any effect to their customer base is to separate Telstra from its advertising budget, but the ACCC has nothing to do with that!
“No, providers won’t be able to run their own equipment, but that does not matter because the NBN will provide everything they need to provide any service they want to.”
Except cost control because they don’t have their own equipment anymore, so all ISP’s sell the same vanilla flavoured NBN from the same wholesale price points as everyone else.
The likes of iiNet and TPG the two biggest value ISP’s because of the vast footprint of their DSLAM rollout will sell from the same wholesale price point product as every other ISP
“Under Telstra, Telstra can compete directly with customers it is supplying, but ultimately, it is always supplying them. It may just be the copper, it may be the copper and backhaul, it may even be the copper, backhaul, and DSLAM port, it all depends on which exchange you work on.”
Except the popular product Naked DSL of course, which is retailed and wholesaled by everyone EXCEPT Telstra , you also overlook that the only Telstra component in competitor wholesale ADSL2+ and Naked DSL is ACCC price set ULL or LSS, the DSLAM and backhaul is mainly third party or owned by the ISP.
I repeat in case you missed it, the ULL and LSS pricing and access conditions is set by the ACCC not Telstra.
“Telstra can always, and has, undercut it’s competitors in order to keep a high market share. This is the biggest problem with Telstra.’
Except most customers at the end of their BigPond contract leave BigPond for better value plans mainly with ISP’s like TPG and iiNet that have a large exchange footprint with their own DSLAM’s, it’s only relatively recently that BigPond decided that bleeding customers to competitors was not smart and started offering better value plans.
Note I said better value plans, not the best value plans.
“Companies under the NBN will not have that risk, and instead will compete with each other, over a standard set of products, which they can do what they want with, including, but not limited to, providing different speeds and quotas.”
Well they don’t have the risk now, if ISP’s like iiNet, TPG, Optus, Primus, Internode and others thought there was a risk why did they go to the expense of rolling out their own exchange gear, and as at June 2011 many are still doing so?
They did it to get a competitive edge over BigPond and it worked, under the NBN the two biggies BigPond and Optus will be alongside them all flogging the very same plans everyone gets from the mother ship NBN Co, good luck finding a competitive edge provided by non-Telstra DSLAM’s and third party backhaul in that scenario.
“In order to change the products Telstra sells, the providers will have to go through the ACCC. In order to change the products NBN Co sells, the providers will have to go through the ACCC. So nothing changes.”
ISP’s don’t have to ask permission from the ACCC to rollout exchange gear, control their costs and set their retail price points accordingly, all NBN Co wholesale pricing is the same as every other ISP..
ISP’s will have to look elsewhere to try and make themselves look different, and remember everyone can flog addons like Fetch TV!
BTW how will the ACCC have any control over the NBN Co product range? – it certainly had nothing to do with forcing Telstra to offer wholesale ADSL2+, nor forcing Telstra or Optus to wholesale HFC or wireless.
” but ultimately, given the fact that you aren’t buying from someone who can undercut you at any minute, I think that is a reasonable concession to make.”
You think the likes of BigPond and Optus cannot loss lead on their basic wholesale NBN package and make a killing with their other products in the total package, mainly wireless?
Your so called ‘undercutting’ in today’s ADSL scenario is a picnic to what the future will bring under the NBN.
Yes I know what a vertically integrated monopoly is, it is one where you as a Government wait until a alternative monopoly infrastructure to Telstra is being rolled to decide that you need to structurally separate Telstra even though you know it’s actual effect on ACCC controlled Telstra wholesale pricing will be 2/5 of sweet FA.
No, a vertically integrated monopoly is a monopoly that can abuse its position to interfere and undercut competition operating on top of it.
The reason that Telstra needs to be separated is not because it’s a vertically integrated monopoly its because it did, and has continued to abuse its position.
> “No, providers won’t be able to run their own equipment, but that does not matter because the NBN will provide everything they need to provide any service they want to.”
>
Except cost control because they don’t have their own equipment anymore, so all ISP’s sell the same vanilla flavoured NBN from the same wholesale price points as everyone else.
So RSPs will have to find another way to differentiate themselves? Diddiums.
Except the popular product Naked DSL of course, which is retailed and wholesaled by everyone EXCEPT Telstra , you also overlook that the only Telstra component in competitor wholesale ADSL2+ and Naked DSL is ACCC price set ULL or LSS, the DSLAM and backhaul is mainly third party or owned by the ISP.
Nothing stoping Telstra from offering Naked. And everyone is still using Telstra’s copper.
I repeat in case you missed it, the ULL and LSS pricing and access conditions is set by the ACCC not Telstra.
And the ACCC won’t be setting the pricing the for NBN Co because?
>
Except most customers at the end of their BigPond contract leave BigPond for better value plans mainly with ISP’s like TPG and iiNet that have a large exchange footprint with their own DSLAM’s, it’s only relatively recently that BigPond decided that bleeding customers to competitors was not smart and started offering better value plans.
Evidence for this?
Well they don’t have the risk now, if ISP’s like iiNet, TPG, Optus, Primus, Internode and others thought there was a risk why did they go to the expense of rolling out their own exchange gear, and as at June 2011 many are still doing so?
You do understand what a risk is. You don’t stop doing something because there is risk.
You think the likes of BigPond and Optus cannot loss lead on their basic wholesale NBN package and make a killing with their other products in the total package, mainly wireless?
Well good on them. Customers can and do pay more for better quality of service. Hence why Internode are successful.
Your so called ‘undercutting’ in today’s ADSL scenario is a picnic to what the future will bring under the NBN.
I disagree. I don’t have a problem with Telstra or Optus using their mobile wireless assets to provide bundle services. This is common practice in the rest of the world.
@Nightkhaos
“The reason that Telstra needs to be separated is not because it’s a vertically integrated monopoly its because it did, and has continued to abuse its position.”
If it was ever going to be effective the separation needed to be done at least 5-10 years ago, but no this Government waits until the alternative infrastructure to Telstra is being rolled out under which Telstra will no longer be a monopoly and the NBN Co takes over.
To be fair to the current Government previous Governments when it could have been more effective put it in the too hard basket as well and it’s all far too late now, the effect on ISP resold Telstra products will be zero, it’s all just Labor political grandstanding BS ( Superman Conroy takes on Telstra – blah).
“So RSPs will have to find another way to differentiate themselves? Diddiums.”
Any ideas? or are you quite happy the NBN scenario hands Telstra and Optus an increasing customer base on a plate, they already have about 70% of the retail BB between them, they need more?
“Nothing stoping Telstra from offering Naked. And everyone is still using Telstra’s copper.”
You missed the point which was deliberate on your part of course, that is Naked DSL is the ONLY product ISP’s have to gain a competitive edge over BigPond.
They don’t really mind BigPond or Telstra Wholesale doesn’t sell it!
“And the ACCC won’t be setting the pricing the for NBN Co because?”
I didn’t say they won’t, you deliberately avoided referring to the point about wholesale ADSL2+ and Naked DSL from wholesale suppliers OTHER than Telstra again.
“Evidence for this?”
Telstra financials for at least the last 5 years, and the recent cut back in the flow of customers leaving BigPond at end of contract and not coming back.
“You do understand what a risk is. You don’t stop doing something because there is risk.”
umm – your argument is what?, it doesn’t even make any sense in the context of the point I was making.
“Well good on them. Customers can and do pay more for better quality of service. Hence why Internode are successful.”
I was referring to life under the mother ship NBN Co, not life now, Internode have their own DSLAM’s and product differentiate because they do control them technically with enhancements like Annex M, under the NBN they will flog the same bog standard NBN FTTH product like everyone else.
“I disagree. I don’t have a problem with Telstra or Optus using their mobile wireless assets to provide bundle services. This is common practice in the rest of the world.”
You ignored what I said about them both being ugly and big enough to loss lead on the bog standard NBN product and make a killing from the extras just to gain customers, they also have the billions in the cash drawer given to them by Conroy to shut down their fixed line networks to draw on, I would spend it on enhancing wireless, especially all that cheap NBN fibre backhaul running at low capacity waiting on extra commercial wholesale buyers to justify its existence.
They should be able to pick it up at really bargain basement pricing.
@ alain
“You missed the point which was deliberate on your part of course, that is Naked DSL is the ONLY product ISP’s have to gain a competitive edge over BigPond.”
sooo now they will all have a chance? because only naked dsl will never make them huge… only big so they will never catch up to telstra… But now they just might have a chance…
So iiNet and TPG especially would be just as big today if they had just flogged bog standard Telstra Wholesale ADSL/ADSL2+ and PSTN and not Naked DSL, VoIP and ADSL2+ from their own cost controlled DSLAM’s? – yeah right.
Your argument is based on the assumption you cannot product differentiate using the NBN product range, which is a simplist view at best and down right retarded at worst.
Since iiNet and Internode offer pretty much exactly the same products to the majority of customers, at very similar price points, how come a healthy competition exists between them?
Alright, I just cleaned up this thread a bit; pipe down with the insults RS, or I’ll chuck you in the sin bin again.
Ok Renai, whatever…
But how about, instead of being the local ref who comes down on the home team to show just how impartial he is, you do the same to the others too eh?
I actually don’t usually look at who made offensive posts until after I’ve deleted them, RS — actually I don’t care who posted them, I’ll delete wherever I see posts which have no point but insults. Maybe you should try mixing in some more actual commentary with your insults, that way I will overlook them more ;)
You can delete mine underneath this please, it has lost its context now.
LOL…alain, exactly my point… why wasn’t that totally off topic rubbish/attack of yours, deleted previously?
Delimiter NBN articles…the comments keep you entertained for hours one end
Some of these politicians may have not been realised that their wonderful wireless mobile network devices are actually transceiving wireless RF signals from networks of multiple mobile base stations which are connected directly into networks of fibre that send infinite number of voice and data packets through to the digital telephone exchanges and inter-exchanges and then to other fibre networks to reach the destination whether it’s voice or data services. The NBN fibre network may cost a lot now but it will create endless possibilities for the future of the Australian telecommunication market. One day it may even be possible for us to host our own voice and data wireless access point like the Femtocell device connected to the NBN fibre network allowing us to charge back to the telcos for hosting such services that relay packets of voice and data to anyone that travel pass our front yards.
show me $50bln and name your game… and i’ll show you a good time with “endless possibilities”…
any fool can spend money – it takes a wise man to understand “value”.
Indeed Tosh…
Your comment “any fool can spend money – it takes a wise man to understand “value”, obviously explains why several FUDsters here do not understand the value of the NBN…
Renai, another fine bit of bait for trolls you’ve created. How do you do it? What a fun romp that was! Now pass the Panadol….again.
I would never give up fibre for a shitty high-latency wireless connection!
Some will forsake the NBN for the purpose of making a political stand. But then, they will wonder why people immeadiately want to drop the price value of the house due to the fact they will have to pay to bring the fibre in because the current owner turned down the free provisioning. Anyone in their right mind will have it provisioned and then connect to the world in whatever way they choose. Only the fools would not.
“Some will forsake the NBN for the purpose of making a political stand.”
The NBN decision itself is ‘making political stand’ made by a political party, but that’s a better sort of political stand I take it?
“But then, they will wonder why people immeadiately want to drop the price value of the house due to the fact they will have to pay to bring the fibre in”
So houses that don’t have a HFC connection are cheaper than those don’t?
Houses in Greenfield estates that have decided not to take the developer/Telco provided FTTH are less in value than those that do?
Houses in the Tasmanian pilot areas that have not taken a NBN connection are of less value than those that have?
” Only the fools would not.”
Well that’s assuming your fantasy musing about value is correct, history shows us it is not, so who is the fool here?
So are you Alain, going to refuse the NBN being installed at taxpayers expense when it comes to your door? Or will you get on later by paying install costs yourself? Or will you inflict that cost on the next owner?
Seems a logical choice if you ask me, since you are paying for it, no matter what, as a taxpayer.
I tell you what you arrange the appropriate rebate off my tax bills every year, say for the next 30 years or so with the ATO and you have a deal,
All valid points TechinBris… +1
@ alain, no one, not even the dumbest of dumb FUDsters (no names need mentioning) is stupid enough to actually believe that if there isn’t an NBN we will pay less tax or receive any greater benefits are they?
Comments are closed.