news South Australian internet service provider Adam Internet has reiterated the company’s commitment to the South Australian market, subsequent to the surprise $105 million acquisition of fellow SA-based ISP Internode by long-time rival iiNet; expressing confidence about the company’s future in the National Broadband Network (NBN) environment.
The acquisition will move iiNet into third place among Australia’s fixed broadband players and cut down on the number of major Australian ISPs following iiNet’s earlier purchase of other ISPs such as AAPT, Netspace and TransACT. Internode managing director Simon Hackett said Internode’s inability to gain sufficient scale to compete in a National Broadband Network world was a core reason why he decided to sell the company. Hackett has previously publicly criticised NBN Co for its pricing model, which he claimed would not allow even medium-sized Australian ISPs to compete effectively on a national basis.
Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has said that the buyout proved that the NBN’s policy was killing competition by pushing small- and medium-sized ISPs out of the market instead of enabling a level playing field.
Adam Internet is smaller again than Internode, but speaking on behalf of the company’s managing director Scott Hicks, Adam executive chairman Greg Hicks said in a statement that his company welcomed the new National Broadband Network as it would ensure high-speed internet access was available to more Australians.
“As a significant player in the South Australian market, we feel confident about our future in the NBN environment,” Hicks said. “Since our foundation, we have dedicated ourselves to keeping South Australians at the forefront of internet developments, and this is no exception.”
Internode had been a “worthy adversary” for Adam Internet, Hicks said. He wished Internode well under the new management during the transitional period.
Hicks stated that Adam Internet had, since its establishment, stayed dedicated to keep South Australians at the forefront of internet development. “We were early to market with ADSL2+, with Naked DSL, and with WiMAX services, and our customers range from residential through small business to government and corporate. Our most exciting development for 2012 will undoubtedly be the Adam Business Cloud, our latest new frontier, giving customers a new flexibility to scale as needed and pay only for what they use,” Hicks said.
To win customers’ confidence that their critical business information and data are stored locally, Hicks assured present and future consumers that the Adam Business Cloud would be hosted in Adelaide. The executive viewed this a strategic effort to take advantage of the company’s investment in Adam Data Centre infrastructure.
Internode’s exit from independent ownership and into iiNet’s arms will leave Adam as the major independent ISP in South Australia, competing with major public companies such as Telstra, Optus, TPG and the Internode/iiNet conglomerate. “We are in a strong position to deliver on the future of internet for the state and want to take this opportunity to thank all our customers, staff and South Australians and to wish you all the best for Christmas and the New Year!” Hicks said.
This seems entirely consistent with what Simon Hackett has said… regional specialty RSPs will be the way that small players will survive.
Internode is a national player… Adam is not. I don’t even think Adam service the state as so much as they service Adelaide. (Happy to be wrong).
I think Simon has implied that INternode may be reduced to a regional RSP if fell south of minimum numbers.
Reduced to a national ISP? Internode only service 3% of the exchanges directly in the country as is, they are not national now, hell, even Telstra only services some 40% of exchanges – noone is currently a ‘real’ national RSP, and Simon has suggested that under the NBN he believes there would have been 5 ‘real’ national RSP’s – I see that as a _massive_ improvement, and feel we should focus on that.
I feel the expectation for there to be mountains of ‘national’ ISP’s is unrealistic.
Stop using the figure of number of exchanges, its incredibly misleading
There are thousands of exchanges that are spread throughout Australia that service an insignificant amount of people due to the areas being regional. Australia is massive, and due to the USO Telstra/PMG was forced to put up exchanges in the middle of nowhere to service tiny towns
Those 3% of exchanges probably service 40%+ of Australias population, especially if they are the ones in the cities (which, knowing internode, they are)
So internode only covered 40% or thereabouts by your own estimation, so they aren’t/weren’t “nationwide” after all, as you claimed previously?
Internode sell Telsta ADSL as well so yes it is nationwide as much as Telstra (BigPond) is nation wide.
So you are saying deteego is wrong, it’s not 40%, it’s 100%!
Sure, so we consumers will be no worse off, competition wise. As I see it, in fact, better off.
To reiterate comments made at a previous Delimiter article, we will still have the smaller bit players in various locations (as we do now) reaffirmed by Adam, but the bigger players will, via NBN, have a nationwide footprint.
More examples can be found here. http://www.nbnco.com.au/getting-connected/certified-service-providers.html
This will give those who already have many choices, the same choices perhaps consolidated somewhat. Remembering though, for example Internode will still remain a standalone company, run by Simon, but owned by ii, so the competition there has lessened at all, regardless of the claims made by MT.
Don’t forget too, if smaller bit players merge, then they will be able to extend their footprint, giving more people more coverage/choice/competition.
But more importantly the NBN will give ‘nationwide coverage’ and therefore, those who are now ‘forced’ to use Telstra or nothing, will have the choice of Optus, iiNet, TPG, and any others who may decide to amalgamate and become a national player.
The problem is that under the NBN the concept of regional niche ISP’s as we know it today we be a lost species because they no longer have the advantage of having their own DSLAM’s with their own cost controlled plans.
When the NBN rolls into SA exchange areas serviced by ADAM every ISP selling NBN plans is a ‘niche player’.
Didn’t you tell us that DSLAM’s isn’t true competition anyway?
Manipulating the responses as usual RS, I said DSLAM’s were not true infrastructure competition.
Plus I don’ t know what your response has to do with what I said here anyway.
I was surprised you didn’t accuse Abel too. Again I refer you to the phrase “the boy who cried wolf”.
No manipulation required, as you supply the already manipulated, inimical comments, plentifully. It is overt that you quote on the fly, without authentication and say whatever is required to fulfil the objective, even if it, as it regularly does, refutes everything claimed antecedently.
You have claimed hitherto, that DSLAM’s aren’t true competition, also stated with pure contempt, that those who use or don’t use their own DSLAM’s, are sponging from Telstra and claimed they should build their own complete networks. Then turnaround and say poor ISP’s will be a lost species because they won’t have their own DSLAMs under the NBN.
So once and for all, are DSLAM’s good or not?
Let me refer you to another modern saying which I think is now appropriate. “I’ll try to be nicer, if you try to be smarter”.
That doesn’t make any sense, mixed in with content made by other posters for good measure, then going off onto weird tangents that have nothing to do with the discussion itself.
‘So once and for all, are DSLAM’s good or not? ‘
‘ the boy who cried wolf’
“I’ll try to be nicer, if you try to be smarter”.
umm what are you on about??
Ok, I’ll omit the witty stuff, which has you dumbfounded and leave it simple.
Are DSLAMs good or not?
Malcolm Turnbull should face reality, iinet being allowed to buy ISP left, right and centre including his own Ozemail.
Is killing competition by pushing small- and medium-sized ISPs out of the market instead of enabling a level playing field.
The difference is the reasons why they were sold
Ozemail was sold for financial reasons (Malcolm wanted to make money out of it)
Internode was sold because it wouldn’t survive in the NBN world
There is a difference between being dangerously close to the “minimum cut off” and “won’t survive”, which is an absolutist statement. You would do well to note the difference between the two.
And deteego Posted 29/12/2011 at 4:30 pm there is no different of who bought them, as both was bought or merged with the one company yes that is right iinet.
Now anything you need help with deteego?
Now that iinet has bought Adan, this proves iinet are more interested in wasting money buying other ISP then using the money to greatly improve customer service like being given wrong information and having 3 goes to sign up a mobile, improve poor billing system like claiming I used $300 in 2 days in mobile costs, etc etc etc
Comments are closed.