NBN Co already acting like a monopoly, says Optus

116

news Optus chief executive Paul O’Sullivan has accused NBN Co of attempts to cement its monopoly over the telco sector that “would make a Telstra executive blush”, in a fiery speech in Sydney this afternoon in which he also opened fire on traditional Optus target Telstra and even the Federal Opposition.

O’Sullivan told the audience that in the creation of the National Broadband Network, Australia was re-establishing a government-owned telecommunications monopoly at a time when “the rest of the world is taking them apart”. “It may only be a wholesale monopoly but it will still be a monopoly,” he added. “It would be foolish to trust a monopoly to do the right thing.”

Despite the fact that the company had only been established several years ago and is currently only a small way through its planned fibre rollout, O’Sullivan said NBN Co had already started acting like other monopolies. It’s often the case that monopoly companies will attempt to entrench their power in the face of market competition. Optus and most of Australia’s other major telcos are currently negotiating with NBN Co over the terms of the company’s wholesale services agreement — a contentious document which some ISPs have declined to sign at points.

The Optus chief cited several examples where NBN Co had taken what he saw as an inappropriate approach — such as the company’s proposal to implement only a small number of points where other telcos could connect to its network. The proposal was supported by smaller telcos like Internode but opposed by Australia’s dominant telcos Telstra and Optus, and ultimately rejected by the ACCC.

In addition, O’Sullivan said NBN Co’s special access undertaking filed with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission contained inappropriate ideas. “Some of the things which NBN Co asked for … would make a Telstra executive blush,” he said.

The Optus chief said NBN Co would probably eventually be “one of the most powerful monopolies ever in Australia”. Because of this, he argued, it was vital that the company was subject to appropriate scrutiny.

O’Sullivan called for the company to have the same transparency controls imposed on it as the Reserve Bank of Australia — with its board minutes to be published, a register of contacts in existence between it and the Federal Government, and public consultations held before changes in its strategy. In addition, the ACCC should have a strong ability to constrain the company, there should be a cap on the price changes which NBN Co could carry out, and it should be made to outsource portions of its operations which became inefficient over time, O’Sullivan argued.

Lastly, the Optus chief also argued NBN Co should have quality of service and innovation targets build into its operations. The company’s “current wholesale contracts provide no service or performance guarantees to customers,” he said.

Despite his criticisms of NBN Co, O’Sullivan still made it clear he supported the policy overall because it was about building a better Australia and providing a level playing field for fixed-line telecommunications in general. Optus has long been seen as a strong proponent for the NBN policy, as it brings about a policy aim which the company has long agitated for, in the restraint of Telstra and the winding back of the telco’s vertically integrated structure.

The Coalition and Telstra
The Optus chief also had harsh words for the Coalition, which has over the past few months sketched the outlines of a new telecommunications policy under Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

O’Sullivan said he was encouraged by the focus which the Coalition’s plan appeared to place upon the separation of Telstra — a long-time policy goal of Optus and other players in the telecommunications marketplace — but said Turnbull’s side of politics needed to say how it would force Telstra to cooperate with such a proposal.

The current Labor Government has enacted legislation which would see Telstra’s commercial abilities in the mobile and other spaces severely constrained if it did not cooperate in separating its operations and shifting customers onto the NBN infrastructure as it’s rolled out. The effort was ultimately successful, but the negotiation process with Telstra has drawn out over several years.

“We’ve seen how much effort it has taken the current [Communications] Minister to get them to sit down,” said O’Sullivan. Under the Coalition’s plan, “there is no proposed legislative instrument which would force Telstra to cooperate. We need to see that stick — it is critical to forcing Telstra to separation.”

And for Telstra itself, O’Sullivan also had a few words. It is a common occurrence for the Optus executive to make light of his competition during his regular speeches to the industry.

The first draft of Telstra’s structural separation undertaking draft filed with the ACCC was “weak” and “absolute nonsense”, said O’Sullivan, noting that another chief executive in the industry had described it as giving “the middle finger” to the industry. Telstra is in ongoing talks with the ACCC over the document and the associated migration plan. The two documents will govern how Telstra migrates its customers onto the NBN and provides competitive access to its infrastructure over the next decade.

“The improved version,” said O’Sullivan, “has even more red tape and even further restricts the ACCC. We call on the ACCC to very publicly reject Telstra’s submission.” The regulator, O’Sullivan noted, should ensure Telstra and the industry were treated the same. “It’s time for the ACCC to be supported in that; it should not compromise,” he said.

And of softly-spoken Telstra chief executive David Thodey, who took the telco’s reins from his fiery predecessor Sol Trujillo several years ago? Telstra still said one thing in public then did another in private, said O’Sullivan, but Australia had witnessed a “kinder, gentler Telstra” in recent times.

“Not as entertaining, but easier on the eye.”

A full copy of O’Sullivan’s speech notes are available online here in PDF format.


Update: We’ve received the following statement in response from NBN Co:

“NBN Co will lodge it’s special access undertaking with the ACCC in the next few weeks. It is designed to ensure that we are building the network as efficiently as possible

In our published corporate plan we have stated our intention to reduce prices as take-up and usage of the network increase. We have already seen, with seven service providers announcing retail pricing so far, significant value improvement for consumers in many of the plans based on the National Broadband Network.

We note that Optus recently released its NBN plans and said in this context there was a “a new era of competition”. As an open-access, wholesale-only network operator, we will continue to work with the industry to see an enhancement of competition at the retail level.”

Image credit: Delimiter

116 COMMENTS

  1. Some of O’Sullivan’s rhetoric sounds a little cliched, but some of his suggestions – as far as making NBNCo more transparent and trying to counter some of the inefficiencies that breed in monopolies – sound great.

  2. *“NBN Co will lodge it’s special access undertaking with the ACCC in the next few weeks. It is designed to ensure that we are building the network as efficiently as possible*

    and what is “cost efficient” about pushing fibre to the rural bumpkins living in Whoop Whoop when the majority of commercial businesses in the major capital cities can’t even afford or justify the expense of getting a fibre connection?

    *In our published corporate plan we have stated our intention to reduce prices as take-up and usage of the network increase.*

    translation: if consumer spending on broadband doesn’t increase (in terms of wholesale ARPU), NBNco will jack up prices instead. (otherwise, they won’t achieve their required revenue growth profile in their business case and will go bankrupt.)

    and please, stop pushing rubbish nonsense about “middle-class Aussies love to spend on electronic gadgets, Bali holidays, etc”. instead, here are the relevant facts:

    i/ fixed-line revenue in the major overseas telco markets are flat to declining (and most of these markets have already upgraded to some form of NGN, but crucially still unable to extract a pricing premium over ADSL);

    ii/ Foxtel made substantial losses over the first ten years of its operating history and still has pityful market penetration relative to platform reach because of a lack of consumer interest (pay-TV delivery is one of the main revenue generators or ways of monetising or justifying NGN investments).

    *We have already seen, with seven service providers announcing retail pricing so far, significant value improvement for consumers in many of the plans based on the National Broadband Network.*

    and how much losses are NBNco racking up at current “giveaway” wholesale fibre pricing rates? doesn’t the universal failure to extract a market premium for faster broadband speeds in overseas markets mean that NBNco’s “business case” is a complete load of baloney?

    *As an open-access, wholesale-only network operator, we will continue to work with the industry to see an enhancement of competition at the RETAIL level.”* [MY CAPS]

    yes, very well qualified… at the RETAIL level. the problem is, in the arena of telecommunications which is a very capital intensive business, it’s the WHOLESALE cost element that has the biggest impact on bottomline consumer affordability. and there will be ZERO competition at the wholesale level, which means Australian consumers will be stuck paying off Mike Quigley’s DUD 90% fibre-to-Whoop Whoop insanity and bullshit economics for generations to come.

    roll on the next election so we can get rid of these lying, crony corporate vested interests.

    (oh, btw, when is Singtel submitting its proposal to the Singaporean regulator to structural separate and exorcise itself of the “evils” of its “vertically-integrated” nature? i’m waiting….. )

    • roll on the next election so we can get rid of these lying, crony corporate vested interests.

      And vote in a different bunch of lying, crony corporate vested interests? I don’t disagree that vested interested are everywhere, but you’re being naive if you think the other side of politics is any better.

    • “and what is “cost efficient” about pushing fibre to the rural bumpkins”

      You confuse profitable with cost efficient…profitable means making as much as you can, no matter how you do it. Cost efficiency is making the rules you set for yourself (i.e. creating a ubiquitous network that enriches ALL Australians) as profitable as possible WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RULES (in this case, the rules are that everyone is to benefit).

    • So instead of a wholesale only company you’d prefer a hybrid retail wholesale company to continue to screw everyone over? My company was quoted over $2000/m for 2mbps fibre – a few providers, similar price. Optus just said no, not available (enquiring in person at an Optus shop ~200m from our office). Is this what you want everyone to pay? That is what the free market has given us.

      NBN may not be perfect but it is a LOT better than Telstra and what we have currently. There have been 7 RSPs release pricing and they have been fairly different. As time goes on there’ll be even more differentiation! People are just complaining because they can, they actually have to do work to stay relevant.

      We don’t want what the USA has. Local monopolies, variable pricing and quality and no choice.

    • Basic premise fails here though; those other NGN networks aren’t monopolies, they are trying to compete with ADSL.

      Right now, ADSL is “good enough” people aren’t going to pay a premium for something better than ADSL **right now**.

      the NBN is not going to compete with “good enough” internet, it is going to be the “good enough” internet, and also retain the capacity to become “significantly better” than what we have now. (ie become the “good enough” for tomorrow).

      This is why you can’t *directly* compare the NBN with other NGN networks. (what you should really do, is look at the total revenue of all broadband networks in Australia, and see if THAT money is adequate to payoff the NBN investment).

      • *Basic premise fails here though; those other NGN networks aren’t monopolies.*

        oh really? so, some Japanese telco has duplicated NTT’s entire fixed network footprint in Japan?

        *what you should really do, is look at the total revenue of all broadband networks in Australia, and see if THAT money is adequate to payoff the NBN investment*

        according to NBNco’s own corporate plan, after the roll-out is completed, NBN WHOLESALE revenue will need to be approximately the same size as curent industry revenue at the RETAIL level, in order to recoup the capital investment plus interest. (and, this is assuming they can build it at what they claim.)

        so, in short, the answer is: “NO”.

        • “if consumer spending on broadband doesn’t increase (in terms of wholesale ARPU), NBNco will jack up prices instead”

          You mean total revenue…and not in terms of todays revenue, in terms of the expected minimal customers. That’s why they chose a worst case scenario prediction like 50% of the users being on 12/1 (which is silly). I think they are pretty safe assuming that data speed and volume will increase upwards from that, thus increasing their ARPU. That’s a no-brainer!

          “fixed-line revenue in the major overseas telco markets are flat to declining”
          But data for fixed line is increasing…

          “Foxtel made substantial losses over the first ten years of its operating history ”
          Which they expected since they decided to duplicate all of Optus’ efforts and cut their profits in half. The object wasn’t to make money, it was to maintain as much of the monopoly as possible…

          “how much losses are NBNco racking up at current “giveaway” wholesale fibre pricing rates?”
          Probably the most short-sighted statement of all…they are doing trials for God’s sake!
          That’s like saying Mercedes is going to go broke because they are losing all their newest cars to crash tests…

          “there will be ZERO competition at the wholesale level”
          Current price competition already shows this to be complete BS…and production is only in the first few weeks. Wait till they start getting competitive with triple play and all the other goodies that the NBN makes possible.

          • Sorry, correction. You are correct that there won’t be competition at the wholesale level. Of course there never has been before either. Telecoms are well known to be a natural monopoly the world over, because of their exhorbitantly high barrier to entry.
            That’s why AT&T was a monopoly, NTT was a monopoly, BT is a monopoly, KT, etc…

            So what’s your point?

          • Of course there is competition at the wholesale level with Telco/ISP’s offering wholesale ADSL2+ and Naked DSL products off their exchange gear coupled with a back haul package deal out of the exchange.

            ISP’s today sell a multitude of wholesale products from the likes of Telstra, Optus, iiNet, etc, in fact wholesale Naked DSL is a product not even Telstra Wholesale sells either does BigPond.

            Under the NBN everyone sells the the same vanilla flavoured products from the same vanilla flavoured NBN Co price book.

            The NBN requires all existing competitor fixed line infrastructure to be shut down so that residences are forced onto the NBN, that’s the sort of monopoly Conroy likes.

          • “The NBN requires all existing competitor fixed line infrastructure to be shut down so that residences are forced onto the NBN”

            The coalition FTTN patchwork requires existing fixed line infrastructure to be kept operational so that residences are still forced to use outdated copper connections.

          • Of course the analogy is totally flawed because the Coalition plan doesn’t require existing infrastructure to be shut down, and that includes any NBN FTTH already rolled out.

            If you going to attempt analogies at least make an effort.

          • Don’t know if you noticed but that wasn’t an analogy . That was stating a fact. Residences will still be forced to use outdated copper connections under the coalition FTTN patchwork plan. FACT.

            If you going to attempt to use the word analogy at least make an effort to know the meaning of the word.

          • “Don’t know if you noticed but that wasn’t an analogy .”

            LOl get’s caught out with a dud analogy than tries to backtrack.

            ” That was stating a fact.”

            No it’s not stating a fact.

            ” Residences will still be forced to use outdated copper connections under the coalition FTTN patchwork plan. FACT.”

            Except that is not fact, the two words being ‘outdated’ and ‘patchwork’ both of which is just HC repetitive droning agenda driven mantra, facts are never a feature of that relentless whine.

          • “LOl get’s caught out with a dud analogy than tries to backtrack.”

            Like I said it wasn’t an analogy at all. No backtracking, just your failure to understand what an analogy is.

            “No it’s not stating a fact.”

            Apparently it is a fact. Residences will still be forced to use outdated copper connections under the coalition FTTN patchwork plan. Are you disputing this? Will there be a fibre or HFC option for those on FTTN under the coalitions patchwork plan? Yes or No?

            “Except that is not fact”

            Once again. Are you disputing this? Will there be a fibre or HFC option for those on FTTN under the coalitions patchwork plan? Yes or No?

            “relentless whine.”

            Indeed. You keep whining about the same things over and over… “boo hoo hoo I want to keep my copper! It has sentimental value for me me me me me me me meeeeeeeee!”

  3. Gee I live in the city, but I’m not elitist and suggest rural areas, whoop whoop and also suggest fellow Aussies (traditionally supporters/members of your precious Libs, coalition partner Tosh) are a lesser class of Aussies who don’t deserve decent comms…!

    “roll on the next election so we can get rid of these lying, crony corporate vested interests”.

    So that we can install a different bunch of liars, with even greater crony corporate vested interests (including reps from so called whoop whoop who don’t deserve decent comms) who will hand b’s of non returnable $’s to these interests, “cause we ain’t commies, boy”…!

    But iirc (and I may be wrong – unlike the NBN nay sayers I will admit when I am wrong) aren’t Optus owned by Singapore Telecoms, who are owned by Temasek, who are owned by the Singaporean Government?

    More commies eh…!

  4. “Under the Coalition’s plan, “there is no proposed legislative instrument which would force Telstra to cooperate. We need to see that stick — it is critical to forcing Telstra to separation.”

    i asked this question in my post relating to previous article on Citibank’s valuation of FTTN at $17 billion or so. my question them was why will telstra agree to seperation without any compensation? there is no stick from the Coalition, so the carrots will be in the order of $11 billion. so why not go with NBN which will cost a little more than $28 billion ($17+$11billion) under the Coalition?

    Does this make sense? or they don’t need to get $11 billion? slightly less perhaps? how much will that be?

    • *i asked this question in my post relating to previous article on Citibank’s valuation of FTTN at $17 billion or so.*

      the cost of FTTN is not $17bln. that $17bln figure includes many things including greenfields FTTH ($4.7bln) and fixed wireless ($3.3bln). the cost of FTTN itself is only $6.1bln for 40% of population. this is a reasonable estimate by Citigroup.

      this is where the report gets really sloppy and lazy.

      instead of coming up with an independent estimate of the cost of 93% FTTH, Citigroup just takes all the costing data in NBNco’s corporate plan on face value as a given without any attempt at questioning or reconciling the figures provided.

      for example, it’s well known from overseas deployments, that FTTH can cost up to 5 times as much as FTTN. if we assume that 40% FTTH only costs double that for 40% FTTN, we arrive at a low-ball estimate of only $12bln for FTTH for the first 40 percentile of the population. however, NBNco’s estimate of 93% FTTH is $22.6bln.

      this implies that the cost of laying FTTH to the remaining 50% percentile of the population is only $10.6bln.

      does this even make any sense? how can the cost of FTTH deployment for the sparser, outlying population ($10.6bln for 50%) be cheaper than for the densely-packed, metro population ($12bln for first 40%)?

      this just goes to show that NBNco’s cost estimates are complete baloney and nothing more than a political fiction.

      *so why not go with NBN which will cost a little more than $28 billion ($17+$11billion) under the Coalition?*

      using Citigroup’s figures:

      Coalition policy: $16.7bln + $11bln = $27.7bln

      NBNco = $35.9bln + $11bln = $47bln

      that’s a difference of almost $20bln! (certainly, not just “a little more”.)

      and this is assuming that NBNco hasn’t deliberately underestimated the cost of 93% FTTH.

      • i thought the $36 billion included payments to Telstra?

        well, if only 40% gets FTTH, my house better be in that 40%. i am not puttin up with this copper c**p anymore. whatever its going to cost, just put the fibre in and forget about it for the next 50 years or so. Liberals will make me vote for otherside again, just because of their broadband policy. why not just accept NBN and neutralise the debate. so we all win.

        • The $36 billion is capex, the payments to Telstra (being around 11 billion) are ontop of that, which gives the figure of of around 48 billion dollars in expenditure (which was a figure being sprouted around by many news sites)

          • Yes but you cannot include payments to Telstra (or Optus) because it makes the total cost to the taxpayer look a shocker, so therefore you are not allowed to.

            You are also not supposed to use the NBN Co words used in their draft SAU submission to the ACCC, that the rollout faces ‘demand uncertainty’, when I ever I bring that up you can almost see the rapid eye -blink-blink- from the pro-NBN glee club and the ‘Detour this way’ signs are rapidly planted everywhere.

          • No one is ignoring demand uncertainty at all, alain. This is just you and your relentless fairy tales and tunnel vision.

            It’s those who hand pick words from NBNCo like “uncertainty” and say there… but totally ignore the crux, as NBNCo have also said the NBN will be an improvement, will cost consumers the around the same (but for a vastly improved product) and will pay itself off by 2034…

            Yet you believe the word uncertainty ONLY and ignore the rest… So just how hypocritical that makes your above comment, is pitifully laughable…!

          • Ok deteego, let’s ignore recognised accountancy practices, regarding cap/op ex and talk about “both networks, total costs”… since you mentioned totals.

            Just remember if the opposition win the next election, you want the total FTTN cost too, regardless of anything else…

            1. So cost of FTTN roll out

            2. Cost of using Telstra, pits, ducts for the fibre roll out

            3. The cost of accessing or purchasing Telstra’s copper network for use as part of FTTN network…

            4. Possible compensation factored, for Telstra’s competitors, in relation to node cutover!

            Not to mention the associated start up costs (again) and maintenance costs, particularly relating to the decades old copper!

            Then of course, what about the costs when FTTN reaches it’s limits (remember the copper, designed for telephones decades ago, which is a paramount part of FTTN) and the learned politicians from the current opposition finally realise that we do then need another upgrade to FTTP?

            So, wanna make a rough estimate of the actual total costs of the vastly inferior FTTN…? You know I wouldn’t be surprised if they were in the same ball park (an Americanism I’m sure you’ll appreciate)…straight up. But by the time you include copper upkeep and future upgrades etc, FTTN will IMO, be vastly more expensive…

            And ROI…???

            Don’t forget too, that FTTN will be paid for by handouts of non refundable subsidies to private enterprise to run and own our network, equalling “no ROI” and “no asset ownership” for Aussie taxpayers.

            Whereas unlike FTTN the NBN will repay itself (by 2034 according to NBNCo – remembering you guys quote their claims religiously when it suits, so…) so Aussies will not be out of pocket build wise (yes, yes, we will have to pay to use it alain… sigh) and again unlike FTTN, we will have a multi $b network which can be sold…!

            So really…

        • We can get off copper without a new telstra. I really dislike country people crying about broadband.

          Its like city people crying about small properties. People should pay the relative cost of delivering a service.

      • Which will be better network, which will relinquish Australia of Telstra dependence and most importantly for the financially anal, which will have the better RETURN for the taxpayer …?

        Answers

        1. NBN – FTTN is dependent upon superseded/ill-equippedcopper
        2. NBN – FTTN is dependent upon Telstra’s (superseded/ill-equipped copper)
        3. NBN – FTTN will be gifted to private enterprise with NO ROI for tax payers

        Ooh that’s right, but you are happy with us using the superseded and ill-equipped copper (as long as it’s built by the Libs). You want (prefer) Telstra dependence and the NBN will go broke…

        How lovely…!

      • The amount of money spent is not the whole story. You need to look at the results as well. $300,000 spent on a house is worth more than $30,000 spent on an extravagant holiday.

        So, looking at your figures:
        Coalition policy: $16.7bln + $11bln = $27.7bln
        result – the government owns nothing at the end of spending $28B and must continue subsidising regional areas to the tune of up to $1B yearly.

        NBNco = $35.9bln + $11bln = $47bln
        result – the government owns a very valuable asset which, if past experience is any guide, would return a very healthy financial dividend, even ignoring non-financial benefits. In addition, continuing subsidies are no longer required.

        So which spending looks better now?

        • Uh, where did you pull that 11 billion from?

          The 11 billion is payments to decommission the network and for a separate company to use Telstra’s ducts, neither of which would happen under the coalition plan

          • Good point deteego.

            $11B is peanuts, compared to what Telstra will actually demand of any future coalition government, when the copper is actually needed, to fulfil the current oppositions comical broadband plan…!

            So the numbers are graphically flawed in FTTN’s favour…

            Nicely spotted, even more damning evidence :-)

          • CORRECT.

            if Telstra builds FTTN as a vertically-integrated entity (just like all the FTTN builds by vertically-integrated telcos in major overseas markets), the cost of 40% FTTN to the Coalition Govt will be a BIG FAT ZERO.

            the Fed Govt would only have to shell out $3.3bln for fixed wireless. (there’s absolutely no need for government intrusion into greenfields FTTH deployment which is already happening.)

            on the other hand, if Telstra is forced to spin-off the CAN into a separate “Network Co” (which is a very complicated process), then the Fed Govt will most likely have to fork out $6bln to upgrade the CAN to FTTN and inherit an equity stake in the upgraded network.

            the various options can be simply tabulated as follows:

            i/ Telstra builds FTTN as vertically-integrated entity

            cost to taxpayer: $3.3bln for for fixed wireless

            ii/ Fed Govt upgrades spun-off Network Co’s CAN to FTTN**

            cost to taxpayer: $6bln (equity stake in FTTN) plus $3.3bln (fixed wireless)

            iii/ Fed Govt acquires CAN from Telstra and upgrades to FTTN

            cost to taxpayer: $6bln (FTTN capex upgrade) plus $3.3bln (fixed wireless) plus $XXbln (CAN acquisition)

            take your pick.

            **if Telstra is forced to spin-off the CAN, they will try to extract as much value as possible from the transaction by loading it up with debt, i.e. Network Co. will not have the financial means to upgrade the CAN.

          • Tosh, Tosh, Tosh, how your yearn for the past and dream…

            FTTN rolled out by your precious Telstra, WAS Telstra plan circa 2005/6 when your hero Sol was there…

            Alas, at the 11th hour, TELSTRA (no one else) decided against the roll out and withdrew, because they demanded maximum ROI, a renewed monopoly and minimal regulations, from the ACCC (even though the ACCC were still willing to negotiate)!

            Monumental blunder 1 from Sol, imo…

            BUT…

            Telstra were given YET another chance, with the RFP’s (remembering previously, Sol the Republican from the USA with ties to presidential candidate McCain and Conroy/Rudd the Labor pollies from OZ – so strange bed partners, were all palsy, because your bud Howard was going to gift $1B to OPEL) and the Labor RFP was later, ergo designed for Telstra to win (imo).

            But AGAIN silly Telstra played silly games and submitted a NON-CONFORMANT bid (the sequel – monumental blunder 2) … and of course to prove it was all about Telstra, no one won…gee what a surprise and Sol took off, another (not such a ) surprise…

            This in it’s most basic form, is why we are here where we are now…

            So… in hindsight I thank Sol for his arrogance and Telstra for refusing to play the game, because we will now (unless your party ***ks it up totally, Tosh) get a vastly superior network and we (even governments) will never be held to ransom by Telstra again…!

          • Interesting idea. Though why do you think Telstra would build a FTTN network, even as an integrated monopoly, when they’re shown no interest in upgrading their network for the past 10 years? Hell, they only started installing ADSL2+ DSLAMs in their exchanges after their competitors had started doing it.

          • *Though why do you think Telstra would build a FTTN network, even as an integrated monopoly, when they’re shown no interest in upgrading their network for the past 10 years?*

            that’s not true at all. go look at their investor presentations on their corporate website – they have been trying to build FTTN since 2005, but couldn’t get the regulatory (pricing) certainty they needed to proceed with a $5bln investment.

            they had already done all the engineering and financial analysis and even took out national advertisements in major newspaper saying they could start rolling out FTTN within weeks, if ACCC would guarantee them pricing certainty for a certain period after roll-out to recoup their investment.

            *Hell, they only started installing ADSL2+ DSLAMs in their exchanges after their competitors had started doing it.*

            that’s not true. Telstra’s competitors were the first to “switch on” ADSL2+, not the first to install them in Telstra’s exchanges. again, Telstra was hesitant to switch on ADSL2+ for fear of ACCC declaring WDSL.

            all these problems are caused by heavy-handed and unintelligent bureaucratic (government) intervention.

          • More information about the price certainty that Telstra wanted:

            “Telstra’s 2006 plan was to build a fibre-to-the-node network (FttN) to connect 55 per cent of the people in the country at an end-user price of $85 for a 512Kb/s service. That plan also included a request for a 13-year regulatory holiday. This plan was rejected by the Liberal Minister Helen Coonan for two reasons: it was far too expensive for customers and it would kill any competition.”
            http://technologyspectator.com.au/nbn-buzz/oppositions-nbn-handbrake

            “Telstra’s Phil Burgess mumbled a few weeks ago that it was in the mid-80s that is, around $85 per month per service, wholesale access. He then changed his mind and said the entry price is more like $60.”
            http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/leapfrog-fttn-and-howard-goes-to-top-of-the-class/2007/05/15/1178995155898.html

            So if we had gone with the Telstra FTTN solution, we would be paying ~$100/month for entry level broadband now, running at pathetically slow speeds. Unfortunately, the coalition seems to want to push us back on to that path.

          • “$85 for a 512Kb/s service.”

            $85 for a 512Kb/s service? hmmmmmmmmmm… So a 5mbps service by comparison would be quite EXTRAVAGANT.

          • *http://technologyspectator.com.au/nbn-buzz/oppositions-nbn-handbrake*

            this Paul Budde article is complete rubbish full of self-serving, agenda-driven bias.

            “Telstra’s 2006 plan was to build a fibre-to-the-node network (FttN) to connect 55 per cent of the people in the country at an end-user price of $85 for a 512Kb/s service.”*

            this statement, in particular, is COMPLETELY FALSE and 100% Paul Budde fiction.

            *http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/leapfrog-fttn-and-howard-goes-to-top-of-the-class/2007/05/15/1178995155898.html*

            this Alan Kohler article has been completely rubbished and ripped apart on Commsday. go look it up, i couldn’t be bothered.

          • Well…. love or loathe them, given the choice of a highly respected and credentialed Telecoms experts such as Budde, a respected business writer like Kohler and imo a totally irrationally partial Lib/Telstra loving, NBN hater.

            No need, we believe YOU Toshy (cough, cough).

          • Don’t you FTTN Naysayers and NBNCo fanboys and blind people understand!! it wouldn’t cost the tax payer a THING for this network!! BIG FAT ZERO!

            Further proof Telstra have been trying to build it for us! and instead we are spending TAXPAYER dollars?!?!?

            Don’t you understand, TAX PAYER dollars are being spent on your 50 billion dollar network!! TAX PAYERS!!

            (There you go tosh, I responded for you)

          • *Price certainty for the Telstra FTTN network was $85 wholesale per month, guaranteed for 3 years, in case anyone has forgotten.*

            first of all, the proposed pricing was subject to confidentiality agreements (even binding the Minister), so nobody really knows in full detail what the actual detailed proposed tariff structure is. a lot of the media reporting is just plain speculation and childish, anti-Telstra scare-mongering.

            secondly, Telstra was proposing a basket of products ranging from 1Mbit, 6Mbit, 12Mbit, 20Mbit to 25Mbit. there is no single “$85 wholesale price” for FTTN but a range of price points.

            also, on top of this, Telstra was also proposing a parallel range of entry-level or “basic broadband plans” at highly-affordable prices.

            there’s no point in negotiating with ACCC bureaucrats like Graeme Samuel when they publicly proclaim that they prefer FTTH to FTTN. it’s a waste of time. what’s next? the ACCC’s going to tell Qantas and Virgin Blue what kind of planes to fly and tell BHP and Rio Tinto which mining technologies to implement?

            *Compare that with the NBN price of under $100 for the fastest and largest plan from a quality RSP like iiNet. No comparison.*

            there’s no comparison because NBNco prices are bullshit, artificial prices that will drive it into bankruptcy in the absence of a Commonwealth guarantee on their borrowings.

            NBNco is not borrowing money in its own name as a stand-alone, incorporated entity. NBNco’s ongoing borrowings are rolled into the Federal Government’s broader infrastructure debt funding programme. this is because no-one in their right mind would lend to NBNco, as it is effectively a “cheap fibre Ponzi scheme”, with taxpayers underwriting “give-away wholesale pricing” for as long as the Federal Govt stands behind NBNco.

            you have to understand the Liberals are not “dismantling NBNco”…. all they have to do is just remove the Commonwealth guarantee on their funding, and Quigley & Co, Inc collapses into a heap like every other Ponzi scheme, which is destroying value and capital by promising cheap fibre manna from the heaven which, in reality, is neither affordable nor viable.

          • For confidential info, you claim to know a lot of the ins and outs, where you involved Tosh?

            Is that you Rod… (hmmm)?

            “there’s no point in negotiating with ACCC bureaucrats like Graeme Samuel when they publicly proclaim that they prefer FTTH to FTTN”… you say?

            That’s the spirit, rekindle the ghost of NWAT/Dr Phil, where the “rogue sheriff, maggot, car bomber” (and of course, those horrible foreigners from Singapore, too) were the enemy”… rather than grasp reality, sigh!

            But here’s why Mr. Samuel was against it …

            http://www.smh.com.au/business/acccs-samuel-brands-telstra-plan-an-illusion-20110615-1g3dm.html

            BTW – what he says, makes total, sense… “if you AREN’T a Telstra fanboi”…!

            And what about the new boy… oh he seems to think the NBN is ok too (with the right safeguards, of course)…

            http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/10/rod_sims_talks_sense_on_nbn/

            Seems like the ACCC are still just like NWAT said 5 years ago according to some (keep that flag flying, with VM and SL) simply their to ***k Telstra… maggots eh (rolls eyes)…?

          • “there’s no comparison because NBNco prices are bullshit, artificial prices”

            Artificial prices. Right, I understand now, it’s all becoming clear… So in your world where NBNco prices are “artificial” one would expect if the private sector was rolling out FTTH then prices would no doubt be higher “real” prices correct? Or do you expect competition would drive prices down even and of course that simply wouldn’t apply to NBNco as it is a monopoly and they can charge people “artificial low” prices to begin with. Also this brings up the Greenfields question once more because as you know the regardless of government in power Greenfields will be getting FTTH. So these residences should be forced to pay higher prices than those on copper which you believe is the real price and cost of what a FTTH plan should cost all because they don’t have a copper option?

          • Indeed HC…

            Our friend (ahem) no so long ago was telling us, because the South Brisbane exchange is new technology Telstra must charge more to recoup the costs…

            But here is is scoffing at “low NBN prices”…

            Obviously, having such double standards, he wants whats best for Telstra not what’s best for Aussie consumers…!

          • Wait, so you believe the ideal situation would be one wherein Telstra remained a vertically-integrated monopoly, but also that it has the right to set prices however it sees fit without any regulatory oversight? And you think this would result in the best outcome for all Australians (and not just those Australians who are Telstra shareholders)?

            And you accuse others of living in a fantasy world?

          • Wait, so you believe you should have the right to download pirated movies, games and porn however much you feel like while being shielded from legal prosecution and taxpayers should lay fibre to your home and subsidise your private pirating ways to your heart’s delight and anyone who dares criticise such behaviour should immediately be slurred as being a Telstra shareholder?

            And you accuse others of putting words in your mouth?

            gee, that was fun.

          • @HC

            *NBNco as it is a monopoly and they can charge people “artificial low” prices to begin with.*

            not when Tony Abbott pulls the life-support plug in the form of Commonwealth (read: taxpayer) guarantees on NBNco’s Ponzi scheme funding :-)

            *Also this brings up the Greenfields FTTH question once more…. So these residences should be forced to pay higher prices than those on copper*

            as i understand it, residences in greenfields FTTH already are paying higher prices… is $60 TPG unlimited available in these estates? :-)

          • Ah here we go, no valid arguments so you fall back to your usual “abuse people until they go away”. Very well.

          • “not when Tony Abbott pulls the life-support plug in the form of blah blah blah”

            So sure yet you are still here whining about the NBN all day long. Derp!

            “residences in greenfields FTTH already are paying higher prices”

            That doesn’t answer the question. Do you believe this is acceptable? If they don’t want to pay the higher prices should or shouldn’t they have the choice of copper? Simple question, yes or no.

            “is $60 TPG unlimited available in these estates?”

            $60 sounds like an artificially high price for something as dated as ADSL2+

          • when did i say Telstra shouldn’t be subject to regulatory oversight

            Oh right, you said “lightly regulated”. Presumably meaning less than they are now. Yeah, that’ll work out much better…

          • “first of all, the proposed pricing was subject to confidentiality agreements (even binding the Minister), so nobody really knows in full detail what the actual detailed proposed tariff structure is. a lot of the media reporting is just plain speculation and childish, anti-Telstra scare-mongering.”

            You better let Telstra know about that. Phil Burgess let the cat out of the bag in answers to question at a conference. Also Telstra proudly published it in their defunct nowwearetalking website trumpeting the fact that they will guarantee that price for three years.

          • @Dean

            “Hell, they only started installing ADSL2+ DSLAMs in their exchanges after their competitors had started doing it.”

            No they didn’t, Telstra ADSL2+ DSLAM’s were in Telstra exchanges long before competitors rolled them out into selected cherry picked exchanges.

        • Currently though it’s returning nothing and everything is being paid by the government all the trail all the freebie trail services, for the NBN to hook up 4 people in one trail it cost $380,000 and the NBN don’t see any of that money back as it’s all freebie services at full speeds so the NBN are paying full speed prices to what ever ISP has done the connections and then paying for all the data on top of the trail connection costs. that is after all the cable installing costs have been put on top.

          So a town with 10,000 and only 4 people bothered with the NBN trail, costs a fair bit after a while.

          So while the NBN decides what places to hook up all the mobile companies are already rolling out LTE services which will end up doing the same speeds as the NBN so will it be worth while waiting the 5 to 10 years before a city gets hooked up or just get a mobile service that’ll probably be far cheaper and faster than a NBN connection.

          that’s the real question.

          • @Zag,

            Not according to this (since Oct 1)…

            http://www.zdnet.com.au/nbn-co-goes-commercial-339323418.htm

            Yes NBNCo are derided by the usual suspects for their trials.

            But the flip-side is, release it to everyone without trialling and if something fails on a mass scale, then umm, they’ll be derided even more so…

            So. it’s a no win situation for NBNCo, when dealing with those who for their own selfish financial and political reasons (this isn’t aimed at you Zag…) simply don’t wanna see the NBN win…!

          • “one trail it cost $380,000”

            Source for this figure?

            “So a town with 10,000”

            What was the name of the town?

            “and only 4 people bothered with the NBN trail”

            How many were invited?

            “that’s the real question.”

            What exactly was the question? I did not see a question mark in your comment please clarify and also provide a source for your other claims.

        • *So, looking at your figures:*

          they are Citigroup’s figures, not mine. there’s no way in hell NBNco can build 90% FTTH for $22bln, if “cherry-picked” 40% costs $12bln (as a low ball-estimate).

          *Coalition policy: $16.7bln + $11bln = $27.7bln
          result – the government owns nothing at the end of spending $28B and must continue subsidising regional areas to the tune of up to $1B yearly.*

          you obviously haven’t even bothered reading the Citigroup report. this is what the Fed Govt would own under Citigroup’s hypothetical “Coalition Broadband Policy” scenario:

          i/ ownership of the upgraded FTTN copper network

          ii/ fixed wireless network

          iii/ greenfields FTTH

          basically, Citigroup’s “Coalition scenario” is complete made-up garbage. for starters, why would the Coalition invade the greenfields FTTH space when there are already plenty of private operators building FTTH in greenfield developments? that’s almost $5bln off the $16.7bln “Coalition scenario” price tag, bringing it closer to $10bln.

          *NBNco = $35.9bln + $11bln = $47bln
          result – the government owns a very valuable asset which, if past experience is any guide, would return a very healthy financial dividend, even ignoring non-financial benefits. In addition, continuing subsidies are no longer required.*

          the only “past experience” we have to go by is the build-out of FTTH and other forms of NGN in overseas telco markets where the major telcos have consistently failed to generate any pricing premium for superfast broadband over plain old ADSL.

          NBNco’s entire business model revolves around generating huge premiums for faster ports and better contention. based on overseas experience, NBNco is a walking fiscal trainwreck and would file for bankruptcy before the roll-out is even completed without ongoing Commonwealth guarantees of their debt funding.

          *So which spending looks better now?*

          DUH.

          gee, which one i wonder?

          • Err, whether FTTN is $6B or $26B the ROI to taxpayers will be $0.

            Whether the NBN is $26B or $43B, it will be repaid in full..

            So DUH

            I wonder which indeed…

          • DISCLAIMER… my figures were simply plucked from thin air, for the purpose of the exercise, much like all of your ideas and opinions, Tosh ;-)

      • “that’s a difference of almost $20bln!”

        The real difference is that $27.7 billion the coalition will be spending on a meager “upgrade” is flushed down the drain… remember when they only wanted to spend $6 billion? lol.

          • Upgrade speed maximum capacity: 12-100 megabits, HIGHLY dependant on distance from the “Node”.

            vs a non-meager upgrade speed of 12-1000+ megabits NOT highly dependant on distance from the “Node” (poi).

            One is meager compared to the other.
            This is a fact, not “according to me” or “according to anyone else”

          • No it’s not fact because you have decided what the minimum benchmark is, and that alternatives must meet before it is deemed acceptable to YOU to meet your NBN FTTH or nothing agenda.

            Of course that benchmark is a fiction and has no meaning whatever.

          • “Of course that benchmark is a fiction and has no meaning whatever.”

            False. It’s not fiction. Read the NBNco corporate plan. Eventually they will be offering 7 different speed tiers to suit different peoples needs; 12/1mbps, 25/5&10mbps, 50/20mbps, 100/40mbps, 250/100mbps, 500/200mbps and 1000/400mbps. The only thing the coalitions FTTN patchwork will be offering is slow and slower. These higher speeds are simply impossible due to their child like insistence on keeping the copper (even though they claimed they would be “technology agnostic”) thus what they are planning is in fact a meager upgrade.

          • The point which you ignored (jeez that’s unusual!) has nothing to do with what is in the NBN corporate plan at all, the assertion is that anything less than what FTTH is to be considered ‘meager’.

            Of course the benchmark is to what defines ‘meager’ is just pulled out of the air, so if you are pushing the NBN FTTH as your biased agenda in Delimiter guess what? – yep meager is defined as being anything less than what the top speeds of FTTH can deliver.

            Yet another in the long line of twisted pro-NBN analysis to suit the outcome you want.

          • “the assertion is that anything less than what FTTH is to be considered ‘meager’.”

            I didn’t assert anything. I was describing the coalitions FTTN patchwork, if you think about it it had nothing do with the NBN. The coalitions FTTN patchwork is meager and substandard regardless of the NBN.

            “Of course the benchmark is to what defines ‘meager’ is just pulled out of the air”

            False. The difference between 1mbps and 5mbps is meager. The difference between 1mbps and 40mbps is not meager. It’s really not that hard to understand.

            “Yet another in the long line of twisted pro-NBN analysis to suit the outcome you want.”

            Yet another in the long line of twisted anti-NBN analysis to suit the outcome you want.

  5. “NBN Co already acting like a monopoly, says Optus”

    The sooner it is the better.

    I’m just glad that public spirited corporate leaders forget their own agendas to warn us!

    • That is because it is (or will be) a monopoly. Fixed line telecommunications network is a natural monopoly, just like many other distribution networks such as road, electricity, water, sewage. The question to ask is not whether it is a monopoly, but which will make a better monopoly – public or private.

      That is why, despite his criticism of some of the actions of NBNco, “O’Sullivan still made it clear he supported the policy overall”. ie this is the best structural, just needs very minor tweaking, not the complete tear down that the Coalition want to do.

      • Interesting you use the term ‘tear down’ in your comment, because the NBN rollout requires the ‘tear down’ of all existing working BB fixed line infrastructure so it can get their customers.

        Australia is the only country in the world doing this, in other words we ‘need’ the NBN FTTH because we make sure a residence has no choice, so the taxpayer builds it and the taxpayer pays the corporate owners of existing infrastructure to switch it off.

        Ludicrous as a description is being kind.

        • The tear down that NBNco is doing is to remove century/decades old technology and replace them with modern equivalent.

          The tear down that the coalition is proposing is to remove the new structure of the telecommunications industry that everyone else says is a great improvement and replace it with one that has been proven to fail for the last ten years.

          • The competition infrastructure based off Copper technology.

            Copper which has been in the ground for more than 30 years.

            And the competition structure that didn’t work very well for the last 10, with one based on more exchanges (nodes) that will see more access seekers (alternative ISPs) held to ransom by Telstra even more.
            (Hard enough getting into 1 exchange, now you need to convince Telstra to give you access to a Node on every street corner – even more limited space that’s a great plan!)

          • So are you sending urgent emails to all the overseas countries that have FTTN and are currently rolling out FTTN today that you think that in 10 years they are stuffed and the internet is going to stop to FTTN fed residences?

        • Stop using other countries no one cares what there doing

          And you need to get rid of the old to put in the new….. or we could just spend billions we will never see again on something just as bad? is that what you want

        • “tear down’ of all existing working BB fixed line infrastructure so it can get their customers.”

          I’m fine with that. It means we’ll be getting much better and consistent service. btw existing “working” BB fixed line infrastructure is actually not working all that well despite what “copper is great” fantasies you may have filling up your head, besides being in disrepair did you know most people are limited to about 8mbps down on this network that is along way off from the 100mbps standard.

          “Australia is the only country in the world doing this”

          Explain the problem? Australia should be looking to other countries to solve Australian problems why?

          “in other words we ‘need’ the NBN FTTH because we make sure a residence has no choice”

          Explain the need for socket competition. Explain why YOU need the choice of copper and fibre in your home. That sounds a quite extravagant and is not very “technology agnostic” if you specifically require both but only use one.

          “so the taxpayer builds it and the taxpayer pays”

          So the taxpayer can get the profits.

          “Ludicrous”

          Indeed. That’s what happens when ill-informed people like you comment on topics like this.

          • The problem you run with getting rid of any sort of backup service is that when there is no power you’ll also have no phone line/net/TV service/other service.

            As fibre cable isn’t powered so you need to provide your own power all all units so if a booster box goes down then the whole area it serves also goes down.

            Also you’ll have to pay an install fee as by the time is even remotely gets to a metro area it’ll be a pay to install product and you’ll only have access to what ever providers there are for your area, so if that was only Telstra and you had to wait 2 years before any other provider came along then you won’t have any service or you’ll be a telstra customer for the 2 or less years.

            As once an area has NBN cable installed the copper gets ripped out straight away there’s no waiting time, bar the time it takes to rip out the old copper lines, probably to be scrapped at $10 a kilo.

            The reason is why to keep the 2 lines is all the companies that have invested in DSL tech will still be able to offer people a service if they want it, but alas currently all the DSL services would be killed off once the NBN cable is installed in the area so you won’t be able to stay on a DSL service and wait for the NBN service to come online via the provider of your choice again this will probably only be telstra and then others will come along latter.

            The tax payer doesn’t get any profits the government does.

            Be careful for what you wish for as once the NBN comes in sure it might be a faster service but it doesn’t mean it’ll be a cheaper service or even have the provider you want to be with on there either. as all new tech has to be installed first and only after that would you get kooked up with a provider and if the provider you want to be with can’t service your area then you’ll never be hooked up with them ever.

          • “The problem you run with getting rid of any sort of backup service is that when there is no power you’ll also have no phone line/net/TV service/other service.”

            OK explain this one. I have a copper connection and a fibre connection in my home. I CHOOSE to use fibre. Because I CHOOSE to use fibre and not pay CopperCo a cent there is no dial tone. Where is the backup service? Or are you suggesting keeping that line active for people using fibre regardless? Seems kind of wasteful don’t you think? Who should pick up the tab for this? People on fibre even though they don’t want copper? Or should people who chose to use copper subsidise those on fibre?

            “As fibre cable isn’t powered so you need to provide your own power all all units so if a booster box goes down then the whole area it serves also goes down.”

            So this is your argument for keeping the copper even though fibre makes it totally redundant?

            “Also you’ll have to pay an install fee as by the time is even remotely gets to a metro area it’ll be a pay to install product and you’ll only have access to what ever providers there are for your area”

            What?

            “The reason is why to keep the 2 lines is all the companies that have invested in DSL tech will still be able to offer people a service if they want it”

            They can offer NBN plans. Problem solved.

            “As once an area has NBN cable installed the copper gets ripped out straight away there’s no waiting time”

            Perhaps you should do some research as it is clear you don’t know what you are talking about. It does not get ripped out straight away.

            “The tax payer doesn’t get any profits the government does.”

            Really? and what do you think the government will be spending these profits on? Themselves or the taxpayer?

            “Be careful for what you wish for”

            I know exactly what I’m wishing for now.

            “sure it might be a faster service but it doesn’t mean it’ll be a cheaper service”

            Apparently I’ll be paying $30 less than what I am paying now so you are simply wrong.

            “or even have the provider you want to be with on there either. as all new tech has to be installed first and only after that would you get kooked up with a provider and if the provider you want to be with can’t service your area then you’ll never be hooked up with them ever.”

            What? Do you even know how the NBN works?

          • @zag
            I think you will find that the copper is being left in the ground, thats what I have heard.

          • The problem you run with getting rid of any sort of backup service is that when there is no power you’ll also have no phone line/net/TV service/other service.

            You won’t have any TV Service anyway because your TV won’t have power. Nor will your smart fridge. I’ll give you a cookie for the Phone line, except for the 4 hour battery backup they will install. (and you can always get a cheap UPS if you *really* need the internet during that time).

            As fibre cable isn’t powered so you need to provide your own power all all units so if a booster box goes down then the whole area it serves also goes down.

            What? Is this a continuation of the one above? where if power goes out .. you lose internet again? or is this .. something about powering the unpowered optical splitters so that if power goes down to the optical (unpowered) splitter .. which doesn’t use power .. then all internet goes out because the thing that doesn’t need power lost power? or .. something else. Because I suspect in the coalitions FTTN plan this will be more of a problem, since in FTTN you need power at each curbside cabinet, NOT in the NBNs FTTH.

            Also you’ll have to pay an install fee as by the time is even remotely gets to a metro area it’ll be a pay to install product and you’ll only have access to what ever providers there are for your area, so if that was only Telstra and you had to wait 2 years before any other provider came along then you won’t have any service or you’ll be a telstra customer for the 2 or less years.

            Whaat? NBN will give you a free connection, this is part of the roll-out. They will only charge you if you say “No” to your free connection, and want to get it later. (or in Victoria fail to say “yes” thanks to Teddy)

            As once an area has NBN cable installed the copper gets ripped out straight away there’s no waiting time, bar the time it takes to rip out the old copper lines, probably to be scrapped at $10 a kilo.

            The reason is why to keep the 2 lines is all the companies that have invested in DSL tech will still be able to offer people a service if they want it, but alas currently all the DSL services would be killed off once the NBN cable is installed in the area so you won’t be able to stay on a DSL service and wait for the NBN service to come online via the provider of your choice again this will probably only be telstra and then others will come along latter.
            The tax payer doesn’t get any profits the government does.

            I don’t believe this is the way the NBN will be rolled out, I believe it will be up to Telstra to remove the copper (if/when they want to / are allowed to).
            Also, Whhaaaat??!? You think they will drive the NBN truck down the street laying fibre and pulling up copper, so that when that happens they will turn off your phone and internet and you’ll have to buy Internet from … Telstra? because Telstra are the only ones selling internet on the NBN .. or something? Did you read that paragraph before hitting “Post” ??

            Be careful for what you wish for as once the NBN comes in sure it might be a faster service but it doesn’t mean it’ll be a cheaper service or even have the provider you want to be with on there either. as all new tech has to be installed first and only after that would you get kooked up with a provider and if the provider you want to be with can’t service your area then you’ll never be hooked up with them ever.

            Here is where you have shown the most confusion. Even Malone, with his doomsaying about the future of the pricing to the POIs (which I agree is not great!!) admits that there will be at least 4 or 5 companies with the scale to roll out services on every POI.

            Let me explain this to you (you seem to have trouble): This means At least 4 or 5 ISPs will offer you internet EVERYWHERE on the NBN, NOT just in some areas, You have NBN fibre? you will have a choice of 4 or 5 ISPs.

            Right now, some people have a choice of 6 ISPs DSLAM hardware. Some people have the choice of Telstra or the highway. (some people can’t get anything due to being too far from the exchange or on a Telstra Rim that is full).
            I would take 5-6 *everywhere* vs 0-6 *depending on where you are* anyday.

          • “I’m fine with that.”

            Yeah I know you are because someone else is paying for it, why do you give a stuff that residences happy with existing BB or PSTN voice service are paying for your ‘waa I need a higher upload speed’?

            ” It means we’ll be getting much better and consistent service.”

            That’s assuming existing service is not consistent, if residences are given a choice of HFC or keeping ADSL/ADSL2+ instead of NBN FTTH the risk is too high t they might say ‘shove it’, it’s best to make sure they don’t have a choice.

            ” btw existing “working” BB fixed line infrastructure is actually not working all that well”

            Well it is actually, that’s why the likes of TPG and iiNet are rolling out new exchange equipment constantly so they can market their Naked and DSL services to more of the population, you better tell their management that you think the infrastructure is ‘not working all that well’ and to save their money. LOL

            ” this network that is along way off from the 100mbps standard.’

            Who says the 100mbps is the standard, not even the UK with their Digital Britain Program and the USA with the FCC National Broadband Plan has made that the standard?

            “Explain the problem?”

            Shutting down existing working infrastructure to ensure the customers are FORCED onto the NBN FTTH is not a problem?

            “Explain the need for socket competition.”

            Obviously socket competition between HFC Foxtel and NBN FTTH is ok?

            “Explain why YOU need the choice of copper and fibre in your home.”

            You don’t .if I decide to stay with ADSL2+ I don’t have fibre in my home.

            ” So the taxpayer can get the profits.”

            Even you must have a laugh when you type that.

          • HC. “I’m fine with that.”

            alain. “Yeah I know you are because someone else is paying for it, why do you give a stuff that residences happy with existing BB or PSTN voice service are paying for your ‘waa I need a higher upload speed’?

            Beta. No alain, we are all paying for it through taxes… that’s what taxes are for! They aren’t just for your return each year…ya know…! Good thing is, unlike the oppositions ridiculous FTTN plan you support, the NBN will pay for itself… FTTN with ideological handouts, will not…

            —————–

            HC. ” It means we’ll be getting much better and consistent service.”

            alain. That’s assuming existing service is not consistent, if residences are given a choice of HFC or keeping ADSL/ADSL2+ instead of NBN FTTH the risk is too high t they might say ‘shove it’, it’s best to make sure they don’t have a choice.

            No they aren’t consistent. For example as I have explained to you umpteen times but you ignore. I am on an (up to) 20Mbps plan with your boss (Telstra) and I get an “inconsistent” 5.7Mbps. I see too, you have again flip-floppped/contradicted yourself, also for the umpteenth time, using HFC as your exhibit A, after previously telling us NO ONE WANTS HFC…

            SO alain, IS HFC REDUNDANT OR NOT???????????????????????? Apparently yes and no, depending upon the FUD required at any given time…!

            —————-

            HC. ” btw existing “working” BB fixed line infrastructure is actually not working all that well”

            alain. Well it is actually, that’s why the likes of TPG and iiNet are rolling out new exchange equipment constantly so they can market their Naked and DSL services to more of the population, you better tell their management that you think the infrastructure is ‘not working all that well’ and to save their money. LOL

            LOL indeed, again I mention my 5.7Mbps/20Mbps plan….FYI – they are rolling out infrastructure to maximise profits until the NBN is in town… that’s business…rolls eyes. What they should sit around twiddling their thumbs until the NBN is in town?

            ——————-

            HC. ” this network that is along way off from the 100mbps standard.’

            alain. Who says the 100mbps is the standard, not even the UK with their Digital Britain Program and the USA with the FCC National Broadband Plan has made that the standard?

            Conroy the comms minister made it the standard with the NBN announcement in 2009 (please pay attention). If the rest of the world chooses less, that’s their problem. But as David Havyatt highlighted over at ITNews, the Europeans are now looking at our network as the blueprint for across Europe and may be building similar. Perhaps since they recognise how comprehensive our network is, they may also use our 100Mbps standard ofr now, too…!

            ——————

            HC. “Explain the problem?”

            alain. Shutting down existing working infrastructure to ensure the customers are FORCED onto the NBN FTTH is not a problem?

            Again do you complain that you were forced to use copper and are still forced to drive on asphalt roads (waa do you want your dirt roads back?).

            —————

            HC. “Explain the need for socket competition.”

            alain. Obviously socket competition between HFC Foxtel and NBN FTTH is ok?

            So know you are contradicting yourself (LOL your very previous claim above) AGAIN, suggesting ALL networks are NOT being shut down after all, so which is it…? They will and won’t all be shut down…(rolls eyes).

            ——————-

            HC. “Explain why YOU need the choice of copper and fibre in your home.”

            alain. You don’t .if I decide to stay with ADSL2+ I don’t have fibre in my home.

            But then you DO NOT have competition and choice in networks, which you said we need… your are stuck with copper! More silly contradictions for contradiction sake…

            ——————————

            HC. ” So the taxpayer can get the profits.”

            alain. Even you must have a laugh when you type that.

            No alain, that’s what NBNCo have stated in their official plans, that people like you demanded to have when they weren’t available. But now available, you pedantically pick several words to fit your FUD and ignore the rest.

            As for laughing, I get plenty of laughs reading your daily, childish, inadvertent yet incessant contradictions, particularly as you appear oblivious to the fact your claims are complete ambiguous, contradictory and ridiculous… thanks for the laughs.

          • “Yeah I know you are because someone else is paying for it”

            False. I pay for my monthly internet bill with my own money.

            “why do you give a stuff that residences happy with existing BB”

            Get a 12/1mbps plan and stop your whining.

            “PSTN voice service”

            Get a NBN voice only service and stop your whining.

            “That’s assuming existing service is not consistent”

            It’s not consistent. Speeds vary, the further you are from the exchange the less speed you get. Derp!

            “if residences are given a choice of HFC or keeping ADSL/ADSL2+ instead of NBN FTTH the risk is too high t they might say ‘shove it’,

            So you believe socket completion is important? Why do you care so much how you get your 12/1mbps plan. That’s not being very “technology agnostic”

            “it’s best to make sure they don’t have a choice.”

            Currently I am using copper and do not have a fibre choice.

            “Well it is actually”

            Well actually it isn’t. Derp!

            “that’s why the likes of TPG and iiNet are rolling out new exchange equipment constantly so they can market their Naked and DSL services to more of the population”

            TPG and iiNet rolling out new exchange equipment = copper infrastructure working fine???

            “Who says the 100mbps is the standard”

            Everyone that chooses 100mbps. Derp!

            “Shutting down existing working infrastructure to ensure the customers are FORCED onto the NBN FTTH is not a problem? ”

            Correct. Explain why it is a problem. You want a certain speed, you get it. If you want something slower (like ADSL2+) you can get it too, everyone is happy, keeping this worn out infrastructure running for emotional and nostalgic reasons when it is redundant is a pointless waste.

            “Obviously socket competition between HFC Foxtel and NBN FTTH is ok?”

            HFC is redundant too.

            “Even you must have a laugh when you type that.”

            yeah, you are right about that, I am laughing at your idiocy though.

        • Your argument becomes sillier by the day alain, just when we (yes we) thought that wasn’t possible…

          So we are forced to drive on asphalt roads too (do you want your dirt back)?

          And what about your precious Coalitions broadband plan… will we still be forced to use Telstra copper?

          Oh no, we will have HFC too (the same HFC you told us no one wants and was/is a failure)… sigh!

  6. Kind of funny Optus saying that the NBNco are acting like a monopoly as that is the whole point for the NBN, it’s only a quick cash cow for this gov to get back into the black.

    SO it has to be otherwise the whole plan is a fail.

    • “it’s only a quick cash cow for this gov to get back into the black.”

      yeah 9 years is real quick. Derp!

      • The real derp is it takes 9 years to spend 50 billion dollars.

        That doesn’t even begin to pay off the 50 billion dollars spent.

        This has nothing to do with getting the government back into the black, and will only serve to push it further into the red.

        OTHER things are being done to (try to) push it into the black.

  7. “Value improvement” my foot… I’m about to take up an ADSL2+ plan with UNLIMITED downloads. The NBN won’t reach that kind of value for what… a couple of decades! (If ever.)

    In the meantime, the government will have the power to look up every damn thing you do. Get on their wrong side like ol’ Julian – and they’ll use your internet history to bury you, your reputation, your business, your freedom, your opinion, and if you keep it up – ruin your family.

    Stand up now and DEMAND copper to your house and in your street/town be LEFT IN THE GROUND. Because once it’s gone, so is your privacy – forever.

    The Internet is working JUST FINE – and it’s FINALLY cheap – so LEAVE IT ALONE (you stupid government control freaks)!

    • The NBN won’t reach that kind of value for what… a couple of decades! (If ever.)

      How do you know that? You read it in The Australian?

      In the meantime, the government will have the power to look up every damn thing you do. Get on their wrong side like ol’ Julian – and they’ll use your internet history to bury you, your reputation, your business, your freedom, your opinion, and if you keep it up – ruin your family.

      At least you’ve got your tinfoil hat securely in place.

    • “I’m about to take up an ADSL2+ plan with UNLIMITED downloads”

      Really? So you decided 1.5mbps wasn’t enough after all?
      http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1798364
      Funny that.

      “In the meantime, the government will have the power to look up every damn thing you do.”

      Newsflash while you will be using your “ADSL2+ plan with UNLIMITED downloads” the government can STILL have the power to look up every damn thing you do. FTTH does not magically enable it, laws and legislation do… if you think about it if anything FTTH will help people circumvent such things but if you really want to do something about this crap take your protest to Canberra and start a occupy parliament movement.

      “Stand up now and DEMAND copper to your house and in your street/town be LEFT IN THE GROUND.”

      I DEMAND the copper to my house be REPLACED with fibre.

      “Because once it’s gone, so is your privacy”

      Copper = privacy stays, Fibre = privacy gone? lol.

      “The Internet is working JUST FINE”

      The internet is working just fine, however the worn out copper network it is running on in is not.

      “and it’s FINALLY cheap”

      It’s always been cheap and there have always been more expensive options. The NBN will be no different. Do some research.

  8. For those reading the other folks saying, “I will get cheaper internet via the NBN”… Of course, there’s more to that story. That’s only the case for people who didn’t research a better plan on copper in the first place.

    Just two examples:

    1. ADSL2+ with *unlimited downloads* for $50/m *no* contract (ClubTelco).
    2. ADSL2+ with *unlimited downloads* for $40/m *with* a contract (Dodo).

    It’s like people who shop at Aldi, then rave how it’s so much cheaper than Woolworths. Of course it is, when you go from buying BRAND NAME products to Aldi products – but if they compared Woolworths homebrand with Aldi homebrand – it’s the same price. The NBN can’t even manage that kind of “match” and won’t for years – if ever. The fact is, you’ll get less on the NBN for more money, as my above two examples show. More speed? Sure, but not much for most of us. And big deal for that anyway – because even if they tripled the speed of ADSL2+ for every customer – what use is it, when you now have 10 or 20 times less download quota!?

    If you want the NBN – good for you – I DON’T. So I should get to keep my ADSL2 (or even ADSL1) – if that’s what I want. And who is stupid enough to trust our corrupt government/s with full access to everything you do online, thanks to the NBN?

    • “So I should get to keep my ADSL2 (or even ADSL1)”

      No you shouldn’t. What you should do is pay the same or less for a 12/1mbps plan and stop your whining. If you are unhappy with the slow speed you can install loads of malware, trojans and viruses (assuming you haven’t already) to emulate the ADSL2+ experience better.

    • Good analogy but wrong application. You are comparing the home brands of ADSL2+ with the name brands of NBN. Comparing name brands on both ADSL2+ and NBN shows that NBN is cheaper. So when the home brands move to NBN, guess what you will be paying.

      Besides, did you take line rental into account for ADSL2+? There is no line rental for NBN.

      • There is no line rental on Naked DSL either, best not go there eh?

        Also how much is a voice only plan off the NBN Co ONT box, I missed it?

        • The two plans mentioned are not Naked. Perhaps you could read the post you’re responding to before actually responding?

          • Well no not really because the discussion is about the ‘NBN being cheaper’, selective use of what you compare the NBN against is always a good tactic (the pro-NBN glee club love being selective) if you want to try and make that point, so diversions from that biased strategy are unwelcome I understand that, sorry about that.

          • No, the discussion is “these two plans are cheaper than what I can get on the NBN”. When it was pointed out that those two plans don’t include line rental, you tried to divert the conversion. Simple.

          • What was your point, though? That Naked DSL doesn’t need line rental? Isn’t that kind of stating the obvious?

            Though thanks for confirming that you were trying to divert the conversation.

    • Firstly Greg…

      1. ADSL2+ with *unlimited downloads* for $80/m *no* contract (ClubTelco).
      2. ADSL2+ with *unlimited downloads* for $70/m *with* a contract (Dodo).

      Fixed that…you forgot to add the phone line.

      BTW, how much are the phone calls on that plan?

      “but if they compared Woolworths homebrand with Aldi homebrand – it’s the same price”

      Except that the quality and speed on fibre is VASTLY superior, so it should be comparing Woolworths homebrand with Thomas Dux premium brands, where Thomas Dux is either cheaper or equal in cost.

    • Others have spoken to your failure of pricing. (forgetting to include line rental! imagine that we STILL have to point that out for people?? – PSST I have this great deal for you! Its a TPG plan unlimited for 29.99 per month!!!)

      The fact is, you’ll get less on the NBN for more money, as my above two examples show. More speed? Sure, but not much for most of us.

      TPG (which are very transparent about their DSLAM locations and expected speed based on measured actual-customer data) have stated that 70% of people within their DSLAM coverage area can achieve speeds of 10 megabits or greater.

      30% of people get less than 10 megabits on ADSL2+. I suspect “Most” of us will get better speeds on the NBN using a 12 megabit plan. (PS. I suspect TPG has less Dslams in regional areas, which would arguably skew these results toward a higher percentage on less than 10 megabits due to the lower density).

      Interesting. I hazard a guess that 25 megabits per second downlink with 5 megabits per second uplink is better than everyone can get on any technology. Cable might be better downlink speed wise, but 5 megabits blows everyone out of the water upload wise. And its one of the cheaper speed tiers. Not to mention the latency on fibre will be a fraction of ADSL, and at-least half that of cable.

      But don’t let facts get in your way.

  9. If only the Coalition supported the NBN then I could vote for them. As long as they continue with their rediculous policy I will have to vote labour. FTTN, what a joke!

Comments are closed.