news The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission today warned a clause in Telstra’s $13 billion contract with NBN Co prohibiting Telstra from marketing wireless technologies as an alternative to fibre broadband could be “detrimental to competition” and should be investigated further.
When Telstra unveiled its NBN contract in late June, it revealed a segment of the contract stated that part of the NBN deal is that it “may not promote wireless services as a substitute for fibre-based services for 20 years” from the commencement date of the contract.
Telstra chief executive David Thodey has maintained the clause isn’t an issue, with Telstra planning to shift customers onto fibre, as well as bundled fixed services with wireless. However, the issue came to the fore again last week in a separate submission made by NBN Co to the ACCC. In the submission, NBN Co acknowledged wireless broadband could compete with the predominantly fibre-based NBN, and noted limitations on Telstra’s ability to transfer customers onto wireless broadband were “integral to the viability” of NBN Co’s business case.
In a discussion paper released today in response to Telstra’s structural separation proposal filed earlier this month, the ACCC raised the issue again.
“… there remains the potential for these provisions to be detrimental to competition in the markets for the supply of wireless voice and broadband services,” the regulator wrote. “Similarly, these provisions may also reduce a potential source of restraint upon NBN Co’s supply of voice-only services and potentially very basic broadband services. If so, these provisions could lead to detrimental outcomes for consumers.”
The ACCC notes in its paper that Telstra has indicated the wireless restrictions are only a very limited constraint on its operations, and that it intends to continue to provide wireless services as complementary to fixed line services, even in an NBN world.
However, the regulator noted, it was possible that wireless services could provide consumers with speeds of 12Mbps — in order words, equal to the initial entry level services which the NBN will offer on its fibre network.
The extent to which Telstra’s wireless restriction would result in detrimental impacts for competition or consumers would depend, the ACCC wrote, on a number of factors, ranging from the extent to which Telstra was prohibited from marketing wireless, how it would impact on Telstra’s competitive activities in supplying wireless voice and broadband services, and any other “likely detriment” that would arise in the marketplace.
Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull immediately jumped on the ACCC’s wireless comments, as well as the regulator’s concerns about the interim measures to be put in place while the NBN is rolled out.
“In pursuing these policies, Senator Conroy once again put the political interests of the Government and the ALP ahead of the national interest. The ACCC rightly called him on this. It is now up to NBN Co, Telstra and the Government to address the ACCC’s concerns,” said Turnbull in a statement.
opinion/analysis
And there we have it: Again, it’s in black and white. As I wrote last week:
“There we have it — in plain black and white. The natural movement of the telecommunications market would see many customers switch exclusively to mobile broadband, if Telstra were allowed to promote it. But the Government’s NBN plan will work against that natural movement, artificially focusing those customers towards the fixed broadband infrastructure of the NBN.”
In short, NBN Co’s attempt to restrict Telstra from promoting wireless services as an alternative to the NBN is an artificial constraint on the market, and the ACCC has been forced to recognise this fact. You can be sure this section of its discussion paper today gave at least one or two of its staff some sleepless nights. It knew with what dynamite it was playing.
The problem here, for everyone concerned, is that the wireless issue goes to the heart of the Government’s promises with respect to the NBN. Just about everyone acknowledges now that the growth of wireless technologies has the potential to affect the NBN’s business case. The restriction on Telstra represents an attempt by NBN Co to mitigate that issue.
If the ACCC won’t allow that restriction to pass (and it is unclear yet whether this is the case), then NBN Co and the Government will need to do some fast thinking about the extent to which NBN Co’s business case definitely has to remain intact. I suspect many Australians wouldn’t be too concerned if it turned out the NBN wouldn’t quite make a profit over the 30 years it’s planning for. Like much public infrastructure, it may be OK that the Government spends money on it that it won’t get back.
But Communications Minister Stephen Conroy will need to admit that, at some point. And for a Minister that was as late as last Friday afternoon denying wireless had any potential to harm the NBN … such an admission would be damaging indeed.
Image credit: Telstra
The thing is, artificial constraint or not, Telstra agreed to it. The ACCC have stated that it doesn’t comply with The Act, not that it cannot be resolved.
(EDIT: typo)
The thing is, it has to go through ACCC (the separation), and the ACCC have stated they cannot support the separation with such an agreement in the clause
“The thing is, artificial constraint or not, Telstra agreed to it.”
The thing is also the shareholders have yet to ratify the agreement, the comments from the ACCC coupled with the comments from the ACCC about the Telstra structural separation agreement is muddying the waters for shareholders in making a clear decision which they should vote.
I am sure the Telstra Board would have preferred to go into the October vote on the NBN agreement without the ACCC comments clouding the issue.
The thing is, artificial constraint or not, Telstra agreed to it. The ACCC have stated that it doesn’t comply with The Act, not that it cannot be resolved.
(EDIT: typo)
*It knew with what dynamite it was playing.*
God, that’s a horrible sentence.
I’m a frustrated novelist tosh, what you do want :)
Or “do you want”…whatever come what may…
I want cake
“The cake is a lie.”
-Portal
well, it reads like it was spat out from translate.google.com
“it knew it was playing with dynamite.”
simple, legit grammar.
The line seems pretty straight forward to me. Nothing is stopping Telstra from promoting wireless. If Telstra are unable to sell their service with that exception of claiming a fibre substitute then that is a failing on Telstras part or the technology itself.
Yes but the agreement meant that Telstra could not advertise wireless as a substitute to fixed line, which for many of the light users, such a substitute is more then appropriate, which is why the ACCC jumped on the issue as it was harming competition
This is hardly surprising though, even if such a clause could ever happen, it would be next to impossible to viably enforce it. Telstra could still heavily promote wireless as an alternative to NBN outside of pure TV/Radio advertising, and it would be incredibly difficult for an agency to prove that Telstra was advertising it as a substitute (as opposed to just heavily promoting wireless)
It does limit some marketing options. Eg, Telstra couldn’t run an ad campaign based on “save money, switch to mobile broadband”
The summary released to the ASX – (couple of months ago?) – in regards to the deal stated something along lines of – (paraphrasing) – “may not promote wireless AHEAD of fibre as the preferred premises connection”.
That in no way stops a potential customer from saying – “nope, I want wireless” – it is just a case of Telstra – (and they agreed to it) – offering fibre as the first choice, over and above wireless, fixed or mobile.
Ultimately, the clause is vague. In an extreme case, the ACCC may force NBN Co and Telstra to remove the clause.
They might also just ask them to provide more specific language and/or examples of circumstances to which this would apply, and remove the vagueness.
Its going to be next to be impossible to make the statement any less ‘vague’ without creating more pressing issues.
And as I said, in many cases its more then appropriate to advertise wireless ahead of fiber as a preferred premises connection if the user is a light user and values mobility over a purely stable connection
And as I said earlier, the clause would have been incredibly difficult to enforce and/or watch over
The extreme case you talk about will be the most likely case, it will most likely end up getting removed altogether
You may well be right – (wonders never cease) – but nobody is trying to stop a customer who “values mobility over a purely stable connection” from obtaining a wireless service.
Nothing whatsoever.
Yes, but that only covers the case where the customer knows all the advantages of fiber vs wireless.
This however is not the majority of cases, and many people when signing up and/or change their internet service, they will ask the ISP (which in this case would be Telstra) in regards to what Telstra would recommend, and its in the case it would cause a problem, because Telstra is being (vaguely) prohibited from promoting wireless for a fixed line option, even though it might be a much better option for that customer. A lot of sales happen like this
To be honest, this was obviously going to happen, the ACCC as an independent organisation would never accept such a clause
I don’t agree that they would never accept it. They have asked for clarification on how Telstra and NBN Co see that it would work in practice.
It may need to be taken out. It may need to be clarified and/or made more specific.
Neither you nor I know what will happen.
Its not an issue regarding clarification, its the entire premise of the clause. This is the same reason in the 61 points outlined by the ACCC, they had an issue with Telstra being prevented sell broadband services on the HFC
Such clauses are highly anticompetitive by nature, its what they are designed to do, so it would be incredibly unlikely for ACCC to endorse such laws
Where do you see the ACCC not accepting the clause? In the discussion paper, they simply state:
“The ACCC is seeking further information in relation to these matters.” (page 65)
If you read the whole document, the issue is that such clauses can have legislative issues (i.e. be declared illegal) which would require a law to be passed or simply the separation to be changed
“but nobody is trying to stop a customer who “values mobility over a purely stable connection” from obtaining a wireless service.”
Well it depends on which one of those two you classify as the ‘stable connection’ and it makes you wonder why they sell ADSL modems with a 3g connection and 3g auto fallback if the ADSL fails.
I am sure residences in flood or fire situations are glad of their wireless connection.
Sorry I meant advantages/disadvantages
The government simply needs to entice people to see a reason to take up the fixed NBN service, like for I don’t know, legit media streaming perhaps, and other things that take up a crap load of bandwidth that a mobile connection couldn’t sustain.
This of course would mean AFACT coming to the party and providing a legit means of getting said media.
Maybe AFACT, NBN Co, and the government should sit down and discuss.
AFACT is just an industry copyright enforcement watchdog — it doesn’t determine sales marketing policies of the various corporate interests it represents.
that’s like saying the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) should sit down with the various political and community interest groups and discuss legalising drugs to eliminate criminal activity revolving around trade of contraband — DEA is just a policing entity, it doesn’t design or set legislation.
Actually to quote the AFACT website.
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft was established in 2004 to protect the film and television community, retailers and movie fans from the adverse impact of copyright theft in Australia.
AFACT works closely with the film and television industry, government and law enforcement authorities to achieve its aims.
So while they are there to enforce copyright laws, they also would have the capability to go back to the parties they represent with strategies to reduce copyright breaches aside from simply attacking copyright violators. Whether these strategies are implemented would be up to the media owner, but coming up with them in the first place is definitely within AFACTs mandate.
Also your DEA (and I think you really mean AFP, since the DEA is in the USA) analogy would only be appropriate if I was suggesting that the copyright breaches AFACT go after were legalised, this wasn’t and isn’t the case.
AFACT are just a front for the MPAA
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/11/08CANBERRA1197.html
“(AFACT is essentially MPAA’s Australian
subcontractor; MPAA/MPA have no independent, formal presence
here), acting on behalf of the six American studios involved.
MPAA prefers that its leading role not be made public.”
That cable has points backing what I was saying ..
Media reaction to the case has been mixed. It
includes some predictable criticisms of AFACT’s resort to
legal challenges as doomed to be ineffective, and
exhortations that the best way to combat piracy is for the
movie and TV industries to adapt to the digital age and make
their products more readily available for download at
reasonable prices and conditions.
Ellis and MPAA see this as a major test
case, and not necessarily their final legal move in
Australia, which does have very high rates of illegal movie
and television show downloads, in part because of the
sometimes long gaps between their release in the US and their
arrival in Australian theaters or on local television.
But this is starting to get off topic, my point was that in order to get as many people as possible to take a fixed NBN connection over a wireless connection from a telco would be to provide a service that the wireless connection might have trouble maintaining the connection for, media distribution (ignoring the required legal involvement to get it available) would be a primary example.
it doesn’t back what you’re saying. the reference to suggestions in the media that “movie companies should facilitate more digital downloads” is just media reporting of populist opinions (mirroring yours) among some sections of the community on this topic.
you’re invoking a circularity.
look, even the local subsidiaries of Apple and Microsoft (which are actually part of the respective global corprorate organisations) have no say about local product price-setting and other uniform marketing policies.
to suggest that an external copyright advocacy group, esp. a small, foreign off-shoot watching over a relatively small market, has a “mandate”, or even the attentive ear, of large US media corporations, in terms of how they go about managing their product distribution strategy and marketing channels is nothing short of fanciful.
Apple and Microsoft provide distribution platforms, I’m confused about your point here, or are you just throwing out random statements now?
Mandate – an official order or commission to do something.
AFACT are there (whether they just be a front for the MPAA or whatever) to reduce copyright breaches, you seem to be arguing that isn’t their job?!?!?
Anyway, as per above, this is going off topic, this isn’t a discussion on copyright, this is on encouraging people to have a fixed NBN connection instead of just a wireless connection from a telco, and providing media distribution would be one way of doing it.
AFACT’s job is to prosecute and raise public awareness of copyright infringement (be it hitting individuals directly or the unwitting facilitators such as ISPs) in Australia.
if AFACT was to get on the phone and ring up the head honchos at Sony, Paramount, Universal, etc and say to them, “you know what? if you actually made movies available for download at cheap prices, we wouldn’t have to deal with so much copyright infringing activity at this end”, the big bosses in the US would tell them: “do your f—— job, and leave the marketing strategy to us!”
when Steve Jobs tried to convince the big music companies to play ball on iTunes, he didn’t approach RIAA, he made direct intonations to the record companies. this is commonsense. MPAA, RIAA, AFACT, etc are just hired guns to perform a specific, narrow and unpopular role of wielding the big stick and using legal means to get people to play by the (copyright) rules and protect the media companies’ traditional distribution channels.
imagine if you hired a security company to install an extensive alarm monitoring system in your mansion, and the guys turn up and said to you: “why don’t you store your jewellery, gold bars, Treasury bearer bonds and other valuables in a safe deposit box instead?” you’d look at them in amazement and tell them to “f— off and do what i’m paying you to do!” (and, no — analogies aren’t perfect.)
tosh… as Terry already stated:
AFACT works closely with the film and television industry, government and law enforcement authorities to achieve its aims.
The actual words they are using to describe themselves imply they have a bi-directional discourse with the industry (Read: “the guys at the record companies”).
In reality, I agree 100% with you on how it actually works. AFACT is just a way of deflecting the hatred off the actual brand names.
(AFACT SUES SINGLE MOTHER makes less bad press than SONY SUES SINGLE MOTHER). Even though it amounts to the same thing.
AFACT’s job is to prosecute and raise public awareness of copyright infringement (be it hitting individuals directly or the unwitting facilitators such as ISPs) in Australia.
No AFACT’s job is to work with the industry, the government, etc, to reduce copyright breaches. There is no fixed path on how to do this and there are many ways it could be achieved. Though I will agree with you that the prosecution angle is the only one they seem willing to take, at this stage at least.
Anyway, this is really off topic for this article, probably would be better over in the Wikileaks cable one now.
I’d suggest that NBNCo are seriously worried about loyalty the 50% of customers that are predicted to sign up to the cheapest 12/1Mbps plan. They are already predicting that 13% will choose wireless because it is cheaper. If Telstra (with other operators) can grab 5% of NBNCo’s fibre customer base then it could do some serious damage to the business case.
Note: I have removed several comments from this thread because of legal reasons.
ACCC paper:
“Telstra has agreed that for a period of 20 years from the Commencement Date it will
not promote wireless services as substitutable for fibre services.
In addition, Telstra is not entitled to any fee for disconnecting a premises if that
premises is not connected to the NBN within six months after the Disconnection Date
and an individual at that premises contract with Telstra for a wireless service”
Without the ‘promote wireless’ bit, the Telstra strategy would be:
1. Disconnect customer from Telsta fixed-line service
2. Actively refuse or disconnect customer from Telstra wireless unless they sign up to NBN with any NBN vendor
3. A few months down the track after Telstra gets the ‘migration’ payment, initiate ‘targetted’ campaign to convert customer to Telstra wireless service
Problem with that is? I mean if its cheaper for Telstra to put someone on nextG then they will do so
Telstra stands to make much more from the lumpsum upfront disconnection fee than wireless contract.
this clause could actually incentivise Telstra to deny wireless to a customer that refuses to buy NBN service. in reality, it’s not possible because wireless subscriptions are not tied to residential premise. you can nominate a false (or proxy) name and address for billing purposes?
but, if this was the case, how can NBNco ascertain whether a particular non-NBN premise is subscribing to Telstra wireless or not (for the purposes of disqualifying the disconnection fee)?
you gotta love the lengths Labor is prepared to go to distort market outcomes in order to prop up the fragile viability of NBNco.
Wireless contracts are legally binding documents. You shouldn’t be able to get away with a fake address on a credit check, its basically fraud
And I should note that its in Telstra’s interest to do a specific and targetted campaign on NBN users only to convert to wireless. They would want to avoid at all costs existing copper users converting to wireless early (and they can’t prevent them going to Optus/Voda/Vivid wireless).
*You shouldn’t be able to get away with a fake address on a credit check, its basically fraud*
i was thinking more along the lines of say, a father getting his son (who lives away from home) a mobile/wireless device and paying all the bills. no doubt, a contrived situation. how about wireless devices which are issued by your corporate employer? is there anything in wireless contracts that say you must state who the actual user is and what his/her fixed address is?
basically, Telstra is “hedged” against all market outcomes because they are both a “fixed” and a “wireless” player, whilst NBNco has all its eggs in the “fixed” basket.
the ownership of the CAN actually acts (to some degree) as a constraint on Telstra actively developing and marketing wireless products that would cannibalise its “fixed” customer base.
if you assume that the NBN will be rolled-out to completion, and factoring in how expensive the long-term cost of NBN access is and how it will absorb/kill any retail margins, Telstra’s long-term commercial interests are now totally aligned with “wireless”.
if the NBN can be rolled-out in 12 months, then there is no risk to Telstra getting its disconnection payments for all current active premises. since NBNco has bent over backwards to make initial NBN pricing comparable to ADSL, premises won’t suddenly go 100% wireless just because fibre is being rolled-out.
however, because the NBN is a decade-long project, some portion of these projected “disconnection payments” will probably never arise anyway. that is to say, even if the NBN wasn’t being built, some of the “line rental” revenue that Telstra is currently getting may disappear in any event a decade from now due to underlying secular trends of fixed-to-wireless substitution.
but, there’s no doubt, stripping Telstra of its pecuniary stake in “fixed infrastructure” will only embolden it to pursue “wireless” with renewed zeal.
by putting all its eggs in one basket and sinking $50bln+ into *one* technological platform (for 93% of the pop.), NBNco is undoubtedly the riskiest/undiversified “player” in the market. to the extent that some premises go “100% wireless” in the futue, Telstra will still claw in some margin from the “wireless business”. but, for NBNco, it’s a complete death sentence.
if wireless indeed becomes an increasingly viable alternative over the next decade, Telstra won’t have to actively promote it as a substitute (or they can free-ride from their wireless competitors’ marketing efforts). they will lose the “disconnection payments”, but these can be viewed perversely as an “insurance policy” that wireless doesn’t take-off.
The problem with that is Telstra taking the payment for transferring a customer to the NBN then trying their hardest to remove that customer from the NBN. The payment is meant to ensure the customer stays as a paying customer of the NBN
@Thrawn
“Without the ‘promote wireless’ bit, the Telstra strategy would be:”
You know this is what ‘the Telstra strategy would be’ how?
Do I know for sure, no.
I’m just looking at what restrictions and rewards are placed on Telstra and think about what strategies Telstra might do to maximize profits.
Oh ok so it should be:
“Without the ‘promote wireless’ bit, the Telstra strategy might be:”
It is interesting the ACCC indicates that the wireless clause could be ‘detrimental to competition’ but the shutting down of competitive working infrastructure such as HFC is ok.
the ACCC was never known for “consistency” ;)
ACCC follows legislation. Legislation gives an explicit escape clause for buying out HFC. Wireless doesn’t have the same treatment (yet)
The ACCC as one of its mandates is all about promoting competition and making sure a sole supplier that has the dominant position does not abuse that dominant position in the elimination of competitors.
The NBN Co and Conroy require all competitor fixed line infrastructure to be shut down to ensure the NBN monopoly FTTH has a client base that justifies the massive multi billion dollar CAPEX of the NBN in the first place.
The concern from the ACCC about one little clause in the Telstra agreement about how they cannot market wireless product pales into insignificance when you look at the bigger picture of how the NBN Co will dominate even more than Telstra ever did the wholesale fixed line market.
the old hfc competition furphy resurfaces.
again I ask as I did previously, for no answer, when you mentioned telstra and optus only having hfc and choosing not to wholesale.
which is the better for competition and therefore better for the consumer?
the status quo, telstra and optus hfc, resold by telstra and optus and available only in several major cties? or an nbn available to everyone with many different rsp’s reselling?
Nothing whatever to do with the point I made, left of field goal kick and a miss.
sorry how silly of me, we have been through this just a few days ago haven’t we? when I was corresponding with dean about ‘certain’ forum dwellers.
i said to dean that, ‘it is apparent some ‘other’ people, consider their own supposedly ‘credible’ comments, to only be credible for a short disposable period of one discussion. after that all bets are off and what was said, possibly even earlier that very morning in another discussion, was firstly never said and then when shown to have indeed been said, it is then of course, being taken out of context and totally inadmissible in this or any future discussions’.
so again my question, which clearly pertains to hfc competition, even if you are unwilling to recognise it.
which is the better for competition and therefore better for the consumer? the status quo, telstra and optus hfc, resold by telstra and optus and available only in several major cties? or an nbn available to everyone with many different rsp’s reselling?
I’ll answer the question for you pepe, the answer is easy.
A NBN available to everyone with many different providers is better for competition. The alternative that is various closed networks is not.
+10 for me!
thanks hubertcumberdale256.
as opposed to those other cynical nbn forum dwellers and their strange need to argue over absolutely everything, it’s a refreshing change not only to obtain an actual answer, but actually a sensible answer.
+11 i’d say.
The comedy double act RS aka Rizz aka R.S. aka Julia Abbott aka Pepe & Hubert Cumberdale aka HC aka Hubert Cumberdale256 mutual benefit society response still has nothing whatever to do with what I said, but carry on, the name changes alone are a vast source of amusement.
“A NBN available to everyone with many different providers is better for competition.”
You mean just like Telstra exchange based LSS ULL and competitor DSLAM based ADSL from multiple wholesalers today?
The NBN will be the sole wholesaler, but that is somehow magically ‘better for competition’ because umm err it just is.
“The alternative that is various closed networks is not.”
Who is proposing a alternative BB plan that involves ‘various closed networks” ?
That’s funny, alian just answered, he could have directly answered pepe and said he disagreed with him but chose to answer only after the question was already answered…
I would like a HFC plan from iiNet please.
RS provided a predicable opinion not a answer, and your response still doesn’t answer the question.
Who is proposing a alternative BB plan that involves ‘various closed networks” ?
RS provided a predicable opinion not a answer, and your response still doesn’t answer the question.
Who is proposing a alternative BB plan that involves ‘various closed networks” ?
Which you responded to but only after someone (me) had already provided an answer proving that you couldn’t actually answer the original question instead opting to be contrary and argumentative…
Actually it does but if you are not happy with it you should realise I’m not obliged to answer any of your questions considering you dodge most of the ones directed at you, pepi asked you a simple question and you refused to answer it, instead you chose to whine about my response instead. (yes I read the reply that was deleted)
I would like a HFC plan from Internode please.
no alain not like telstra lss ull at all.
a competitor to telstra, if not denied access, using a dslam in a telstra owned exchange and accessing a telstra owned network.
just because you fit a saas steering wheel to your ford falcon, it doesn’t make it a saas falcon.
the old hfc competition furphy resurfaces.
again I ask as I did previously, for no answer, when you mentioned telstra and optus only having hfc and choosing not to wholesale.
which is the better for competition and therefore better for the consumer?
the status quo, telstra and optus hfc, resold by telstra and optus and available only in several major cties? or an nbn available to everyone with many different rsp’s reselling?
Wireless will never have the latency of a fixed connection like FTTH or even ADSL2. As a gamer latency is more important than downstream connection speed therefore Wireless in its current form will never be a viable alternative for me.
LTS (i.e. 4G) in America (Verizon) has an average latency of 50, and in Sweden (TeliaSonera) it is 20.
LTS (i.e. 4G) in America (Verizon) has an average latency of 50, and in Sweden (TeliaSonera) it is 20.
10gb for $80 & 30gb for $73, awesome where do I sign?
“bubububu deejay said gaming!!!!!”
Maybe he is a gamer that does other things besides just gaming.
“bubububu no one needs more than 30gb, the average people use is less than 20gb!!!!!”
Great. So you’ll have no problem with Exetels 50gb 100/40mbps plan which costs $59.50.
“bubububu exetel are crap and no one needs that speed!!!!!”
Great. Internode have a 30gb 12/1mbps plan for $59.95
“bubububu I get more speed on ADSL2+!!!!!!!!!”
Great. Internode also have a 30gb 25/5mbps plan for $69.95
“bubububu I get 400gb for $69.95 now”
Great. Goto line 1.
“And for a Minister that was as late as last Friday afternoon denying wireless had any potential to harm the NBN … such an admission would be damaging indeed.”
Well he can say anything he likes in August 2011, because by around 2025 he will be just a distant memory as the Minister for the NBN taxpayer fed sinkhole.
so the nbn isn’t a monopoly then?
so the nbn isn’t a monopoly then?
err what???
nice answer!
The ACCC have already stated the NBN is a monopoly, which you know because you asked the exact same question of me before and got the exact same answer with the link – your point is what?
i didn’t ask the ACCC.
but my point is the old buck each way.
$1 on the nbn needs to close all competing networks and monopolise our telecommunications. we are doomed
$1 on nbn will perish because of the feverish wireless competition.
rofl
Pepe, I think you are missing the point that NBN is a fixed line monopoly, not a monopoly on all internet connections
Its at least a good practise to be accurate when making arguments.
@deteego, missing the point according to who?
who’s right and wrong? Is there a right and wrong?
what you overlook is the strange compulsion of some to claim nbn monopoly – no choice, and then even in the same discussion, also claim nbn unviable, due to aggressive wireless competition.
can’t have it both ways, but thank you for the advice and my advice in reply, please, heed your own advice.
Why make that distinction? I think pepe has the right idea here. We’ve been told that more people are using wireless, that it can perform just as well as fixed line and that wireless networks will be competition for the NBN, in other words they are competing for the same market, so if that were true then any wireless network should negate any fixed line monopoly in place… wireless networks are cheaper to build right so any private enterprise wanting to enter the market and compete head to head with the wholesale monopoly called the NBN would be wise to go with this option and bingo no more monopoly… or are you arguing that people specifically require a fixed line connection?
“I think pepe has the right idea here.”
Wow! who would have ever thought you would say that, if your mate RS said the earth was flat you would agree.
” We’ve been told that more people are using wireless,”
Yes spot on with the statistical worldwide fact so far.
” that it can perform just as well as fixed line”
No, no one has said that.
” and that wireless networks will be competition for the NBN, in other words they are competing for the same market,”
Yes that’s true, every $1 spent on wireless data is a $1 less the NBN doesn’t get, and of course the reverse applies.
” so if that were true then any wireless network should negate any fixed line monopoly in place..”
No because first of all there are multiple suppliers of wireless infrastructure Australia wide and there is only one fixed line monopoly Australia wide the Telstra copper exchange network under the legislative control of the ACCC classified as a designated service and has been for the last 15 years and the eventual replacement for the Telstra copper exchange network the NBN Co monopoly FTTH rollout which is once again under the legislative control of the ACCC.
” wireless networks are cheaper to build right so any private enterprise wanting to enter the market and compete head to head with the wholesale monopoly called the NBN”
Wireless network suppliers are competing with other wireless network suppliers for customers, they are not primarily rolling out wireless to compete with ADSL or FTTH. The fact a residence might decide to go wireless only or not have a NBN connection at all is the individual resident’s decision based on need.
“would be wise to go with this option and bingo no more monopoly… or are you arguing that people specifically require a fixed line connection?”
You argument is spurious and going no where, the NBN is a monopoly declared a such by the ACCC because there will be no alternative fixed line BB suppliers, not even HFC.
A monopoly is all about being the sole supplier of a product, the NBN Co will be the sole supplier a ISP/Telco has to use if they want to sell fixed line broadband to a residence that has only one fixed line connection inside the home, and that box is the exclusive property of the NBN Co.
If ISP’s want to sell wireless as well they can then choose from multiple suppliers.
And that product is the transfer of data, 1’s & 0’s, a wireless network can do this right?
“every $1 spent on wireless data is a $1 less the NBN doesn’t get”
I can’t believe you’re still spouting this nonsense after all we went through last time: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/26/turnbull-wireless-complaints-getting-tedious-conroy/
Yes, but that’s not how you define a monopoly, it’s all about supply of goods and services and the choices you have or not have in the case of a monopoly.
OK so what you are basically saying now is there should be a variety of different wires coming into peoples homes to mirror the choice available to people who are increasingly ditching fixed line for wireless?
No.
You said:
So with the NBN I will not have choice how my fixed line data gets to me (which is bad right) So to break that monopoly there should be more than one wire coming into peoples homes so they have a choice and can swap between them on a whim just like they would with a wireless network.
@hubertcumberdale256
i love the ideologues here who scream nbn monopoly, we need network competition.
in their need to pursue, what ever it is they pursue, they ignore their own highly prized past practice, business principals.
lets remember, in a lot of these wonderful democratic enterprises, there is still a ‘sole distributor’ of certain products or brands. they distribute only to retailers who are the avenue for fierce competition in their endeavour to sell to the public. the public of course can visit, ring or shop online to obtain the best price from many retailers.
but let’s be truthful here, no one cares who the distributor is or if they have the sole monopoly of a particular product or brand. we want or need product x and negotiate with one of many retailers to buy that product, we do not deal with the distributor.
same with the nbn from my perspective, which is a vast improvement on the current situation, where one company not only has a vast distributorship, but also retails in competition to their other retailers.
I have lost track where you are going with all of this, I just put forward basic economics 101 of what defines a monopoly and why it will apply to the NBN Co post Telstra copper shutdown.
If you are trying to argue that wireless demand nulls that monopoly definition you have to make a case that multiple wireless suppliers is the equivalent and a viable alternative of one fixed line supplier, good luck with that one, if it was going to happen it would have happened long ago with existing fixed line, argue that with the ACCC not me.
I am only reiterating the ACCC’s position on the monopoly NBN Co, also endorsed by Parliament.
@alain, yes the accc say the nbn is a monopoly.
but the accc do not also claim wireless competition will make the nbn unviable and a white elephant.
but some here do.
And based on your definition NBNco is not quite the monopoly Conroy was claiming.
I’m not necessarily saying that at all, I’m asking you to clarify your position on the topic as you have a history of placing a buck each way and this is no different. Wireless = Competition for NBN one minute. NBN = monopoly the next. If there is any network competing with the NBN then it’s not much of a monopoly is it?
As I said take your argument up with the ACCC, they make the decisions on what is a monopoly or not, not me.
@alain, i don’t have an argument to take up with the accc.
particularly the new boy on the block, who like cartman, simply wants to stamp his authoritah.
but because i question a few people here, relating to their strange double standards, it doesn’t mean i necessarily disagree with the accc.
you are now defensively jumping to conclusions, because you are unable to answer this monopoly conundrum. a conundrum invented by a few cynical forum dwellers and an opposition on a mission – mr turnbull, if you are listening, please feel free to use that slogan, ‘opposition on a mission’, during the next election campaign.
my only argument is with a few here who keep claiming the nbn to be both a monopoly by definition, while still suggesting wireless will be an aggressive competitor.
how can that be?
please have the final word, because i am now shattered to discover that you aren’t the one who dictates monopoly :-(
There is no monopoly conundrum.
Apparently there is else we wouldn’t be asking you to clarify your position on this. Since you are at odds with yourself I dont expect a straight answer however your attempts to rationalise it with an ‘Appeal to Authority’ have been most enlightening and entertaining.
There is STILL no monopoly conundrum just because you and RS say there is, the NBN Co and the ACCC do not agree with you, sorry about that.
are you still carrying on with this alain, surely not?
yes, again yes, once more, yes? the accc says the nbn is a monopoly. that half of the topic is covered and i agree with you, that’s what they say. so in case you missed it, yes.
but that’s not the ‘entire point’ we are discussing. what about the other half, you ignore?
while the accc says the nbn is a monopoly, where do they also say that wireless will be such a fierce competitor to the monopoly nbn, that it will make the nbn a white elephant?
*** the accc don’t say that at all, do they? you do.
so the accc are wrong then? they must be according to you?
herein lies the ‘entire point’, not the half point, you seem to recognise and which we even agree on, but the ‘other half you choose to ignore.
all you are doing by saying the accc says the nbn is a monopoly, but knowing the accc do not agree with your wireless – white elephant claims, is prove that there is a conundrum. but just that the conudrum is not coming from the accc, it’s coming from a few cynical forum dwellers and the opposition.
just as i said, about 180 degrees back around this continuing circle of excuses you keep running around.
Once again asking you to clarify YOUR position, not what the ACCC or NBNco said.
I agree with both the ACCC and the NBN Co.
That only answers half of the question. Try again.
Could this be the worst wireless gotcha moment ever. Lets get this straight.
Telstra has agreed with the NBN Co to transfer customers, but the ACCC is concerned that Telstra could lose it’s market dominance by the transaction it has agreed to. WTF!
So, the ACCC whose life has been spent limiting Telstra’s power is now concerned that Telstra’s power might be limited by not being able to promote wireless as a substitute for fibre.
Alice! We are in wonderland.
Whoever deals with the Telstra response would be having a good giggle.
Perhaps Telstra will write that they will be happy to see Telstra’s competitors advertise wireless as an alternative to the NBN, and while Telstra is flattered that the ACCC thinks that unless Telstra promotes it consumers will lose out, they are more than happy to promote both fibre and wireless services without judging how they will be used.
Mountain meet molehill.
ACCC protects consumers, not Telstra. Telstra losing market share in this manner is arguably anti-consumer.
An analogy would be if some big multi-national tries to buyout both Coles and Woolworths it’d be rejected by ACCC, even though historically both Coles and Woolworths have too strong a marketshare. Things can be worse.. and its ACCC’s job to make sure it doesn’t happen.
I think you are spot on there, it’s not about Telstra the company but more about the wording of the clause and its draconian lockout for 20 years until 2031 the ACCC is interested in looking into further.
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
Business with http://www.luckyvogue.com ,you can earn more money or enjoy your shopping life.
————– http://www.luckyvogue.com/ ———–
a leading worldwide wholesale company (or ucan say organization). We supply more than 100 thousand high-quality merchandise and famous brand name products all at wholesale prices.
Cheap wholesale NFL,NBA,MLB,NHL,Jerseys,Nike air Jordan shoes, Nike dunks SB shoe,Nike Shox shoe. Nike shoes with discount jersey, High quality T-shirts,ED hardy t-shirts,ED Hardy hoodies, ED hardy Jeans GUCCI shoes,LV Handbag,Chanel Handbag……and so on
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $38,Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35,Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $38,Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16……and so on
Accept Credit card and paypal and westernunion and bank wire.
Safe and Fast.What are you waiting for?Come on,Let’s buy or business now.
┏☆━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━☆┓
website: http://www.luckyvogue.com
┗☆━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━☆┛
Comments are closed.