• Enjoy the freedom to innovate and grow your business


    [ad] With Microsoft Azure you have hybrid cloud flexibility, allowing your platform to span your cloud and on premise data centre. Learn more at microsoftcloud.com.

  • IT Admin: No Time to Save Time?


    [ad] Do you spend too much time patching machines or cleaning up after virus attacks? With automation controlled from a central IT management console accessible anytime, anywhere – you can save time for bigger tasks. Try simple IT management from GFI Cloud and start saving time today!

  • Free Forrester analysis of CRM solutions


    [ad] In this 25 page report, independent analyst house Forrester evaluates 18 significant products in the customer relationship management space from a broad range of vendors, detailing its findings on how CRM suites measure up and plotting where they stand in relation to each other. Download it for free now.

  • Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites


  • Reader giveaway: Google Nexus 5


    We’re big fans of Google’s Nexus line-up in general at Delimiter towers. Nexus 4, Nexus 7, Nexus 10 … we love pretty much anything Nexus. Because of this we've kicked off a new competition to give away one of Google’s new Nexus 5 smartphones to a lucky reader. Click here to enter.

  • Blog, Telecommunications - Written by on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 15:47 - 280 Comments

    The irony, it burns: Telstra’s NBN price complaints

    raised-eyebrow

    blog In my decade-long role as a technology journalist, I have often come up against irony. I have often come up against hypocrisy. I often come up against situations which are just so ridiculous and dastardly and downright underhanded that I couldn’t help but laugh bitterly at the absurdity of it all, shocking those around me with my deep cynicism, a trait common to senior journalists. But this one really takes the cake. I’ve just been reading through Telstra’s submission to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (PDF) regarding NBN Co’s Special Access Undertaking, and this paragraph jumped out at me:

    “Telstra does not expect that these potential wholesale price increases allowed by the cap would be sustainable when translated into corresponding retail prices. That is, it creates the real possibility that wholesale prices are set such that [retail service providers/RSPs] cannot supply services at retail prices that end-users would be willing to pay. This could also distort potential RSP investments in innovative downstream products. For example, over time such pricing could make investments in content delivery networks to supply next generation multi-media services that are made possible through the deployment of a fibre access network uneconomic. Such an outcome would not be in the [long-term interests of end-users].”

    Wait, back up a bit. Did Telstra just argue that NBN Co’s wholesale prices would be so high that they would not allow retail ISPs to charge reasonable prices to end user customers? And that this would stop those ISPs from investing in their own products and services? And that this wouldn’t be in the long-term interest of end users?

    Is this the same Telstra that, for a decade now, has been charging wholesale backhaul prices so high that retail ISPs have been unable to deploy their own DSLAM infrastructure in regional areas of Australia? The same Telstra that charges such high wholesale DSL prices in those areas that retail ISPs often don’t bother operating there? The same Telstra that deployed ADSL2+ in telephone exchanges around Australia but refused to switch it on because it might have to provide wholesale access to that infrastructure? The same Telstra that effectively kept many retail ISPs out of Tasmania for half a decade because of its ridiculous and monopolistic prices across Bass Strait? The same Telstra that still remains one of the most expensive retail ISPs in Australia? The Telstra that is setting ludicrous terms and prices in its fibre network in South Brisbane right now and forcing retail ISPs up against a wall?

    Yes. This is that same Telstra. Well, cry me a fucking river, Telstra. That is irony so intense that it burns. Forgive me if I don’t weep for you on this one. If NBN Co gouges Telstra for about a decade, I think we’ll call it about even, and I doubt I’d find many Australians who would disagree. Not all of us in this new era in Australian telecommunications have short memories.

    submit to reddit

    280 Comments

    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    1. Anthony Wasiukiewicz
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 3:52 pm | Permalink |

      lol
      Gold!

    2. Greg
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:00 pm | Permalink |

      Lots of ranting and even swearing Renai. Didn’t you blacklist people for that.. Telstra is of course only postering! Which all the others have been doping for yonks!

      Actually what do you expect them to do? What would you do? In many places they have had to install infrastructure over long distances and other companies wanted access at quite cheap prices. How do you balance a fair return with fair competition. I honestly don’t know.

      • Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink |

        “a fair return”

        http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/tls842-full-year-2012-fr-ceo-cfo-analyst-briefing-presentation-cover-slides.pdf

        Telstra made $25.4 billion in revenue in the 2012 financial year. $10.2 billion EBITDA. Net profit after tax $3.4 billion. Free cash flow of $5.2 billion.

        I’d say there’s plenty of space for backhaul and other wholesale prices to come down a little.

        • Bpat
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:16 pm | Permalink |

          +1 … and don’t forget their mobile pricing

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:12 pm | Permalink |

          And let us not forget their regional USO subsidies and Rural assistance taxpayer funding that helped to subsidise that rural network

        • Tom
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 9:55 pm | Permalink |

          I always wonder how a piss-ant company (on the global scale) that basically provides services only to people/businesses in Australia (small population) can make such a high profit when compared to e.g. BHPB that whilst doing nothing clever other than move dirt, even in a boom only makes 15-18 bill. Makes me think that perhaps Telstra are charging ALOT for faulty infrastructure that the tax payer installed over 10 years ago…

          • Thrawn
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink |

            Thats about right.. Telstra do charge a fair bit for copper related infrastructure (high margins). On the other hand even though taxpayers built it, tax payers also got a lot of money for it from Telstra shareholders.

            By the way if you’re complaining about Telstra’s high profit margins on fixed lines now.. NBNCo has a target of 75% profit margin.

            • alain
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink |

              The NBN Co also has stated it will pay back all taxpayer funding and debt by 2033, which is perplexing as they won’t be negotiating any commercial debt arrangements until 2015.

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink |

                Not at all…

                In 2015 they plan on releasing NBN specific bonds, as opposed to the current general issuance bonds.

                It’s actually quite straightforward…

                But we’ve been through all of this before and you even cleverly (ahem) quipped, “so where can I buy them then…” so I supplied a URL to exactly where you can buy them…

                Curiously you disappeared without even thanking me and repeated the BS elsewhere, just like you have here again.

                Seriously, with each fact you refuse to accept, you simply entrench your cyclopic agenda further.

        • Thrawn
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:17 pm | Permalink |

          13% profit margin on revenues from a a very large amount of capital invested in a fairly risky industry. Not a particularly brilliant return.

          For comparison, TPG’s figure is 14% profit margin.

          • gdriss
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:37 pm | Permalink |

            Why does Telstra need to make any profit at all?

            Profits are for f–king capitalists.

            • NBNAlex
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:56 pm | Permalink |

              Let me see… side with a company who were fined $18m for not allowing legal exchange access to their competitors (wholesale customers).

              Speak against a new network which will be vastly superior to what we have (and to the alternative), will give consumers cheaper for similar and offer much better plan choice, will give the consumer more Oz wide choice of retailers and will repay itself (no impost for tax payers) as well as provide periodic payments to the taxpayer and be an asset which can be re-sold.

              Why would any rational, non-aligned person do that?

    3. Wakie
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink |

      Oh, snap

    4. LM
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:06 pm | Permalink |

      Cry me a …. river.

      Top stuff.

    5. Wayne
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:12 pm | Permalink |

      Renai that is one of your BEST articles. Love it!

    6. Wozza
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:13 pm | Permalink |

      Telstra has been ripping off Australians for a long. long time making a ‘fair return’ with billions and billions in profit.

      Pot meet kettle !!!

      • alain
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:48 pm | Permalink |

        ‘Telstra has been ripping off Australians for a long. long time making a ‘fair return’ with billions and billions in profit. ”

        Where do the share dividends go to and where did the billions in profits go to went Telstra was 100% Government owned and then partially Government owned, how much dividend revenue did the Government owned Future Fund make from Telstra shares, have you checked if your Superannuation Funds invests in Telstra which is directly reflected in your Super performance?

        How many people are employed by Telstra either directly or indirectly who depend on Telstra making a healthy profit every year?

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:47 pm | Permalink |

          How many Telstra employees are there now and how many were there in 1990. ??
          That relatively well paid workforce helped our economy with their spending power when unemployment was 10% in the early 80′s along with a peak 21% interest and a small business sector that was being decimated along with the rest of the economy just as some tough times were happening in the world. That was why Hawke and Keating were voted into handle the deepening world economic crisis which they did and restructured the economy and created a strong foundation and the Telstra redundancy packages helped our economy through the early 90′s keeping the money circulating while the restructuring took effect.

          We have failed to learn our lessons with challenging times ahead and for that the media must take responsibility. This time the other way around with poorly aimed infrastructure goals for the long term and a questionable leadership team

          Trashing the NBN will just be form as per past history

        • Woolfe
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:51 pm | Permalink |

          Ah well, that’s ok then. Telstra is ripping us off, but oh look at all the money that has gone into government and now shareholder’s coffers, and look at all the people they employ.

          BS. There still would have been a lot of people employed if Telstra had of not been being monopolistic and generally nasty. They just wouldn’t have been employed by Telstra.

          And shareholders (my parents included) can go and jump. Thats the risk you take when you buy shares.

          Finally the government, well they get a lot of my money anyway. So why should I be happy about giving them more?

        • NBNAlex
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:54 pm | Permalink |

          Q. from alain…
          “Where do the share dividends go to and where did the billions in profits go to when Telstra was 100% Government owned and then partially Government owned, how much dividend revenue did the Government owned Future Fund make from Telstra shares, have you checked if your Superannuation Funds invests in Telstra which is directly reflected in your Super performance?”

          A.
          The same place NBN profits will go…

          Oh no’s…you just undid the last two years of NBN FUD… d’oh.

        • Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:11 pm | Permalink |

          ‘Where do the share dividends go…’

          The shares would have to be worth something to pay dividends bud.

          • alain
            Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:36 pm | Permalink |

            As far as Telstra is concerned the share price has nothing to do whether they pay a dividend or not.

            • NBNAlex
              Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:51 pm | Permalink |

              http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20100212/why-you-shouldnt-buy-telstra-shares-ever.html

              But of course that was Feb 2010, since then Telstra are on a winner with the NBN and the landscape and their share price has improved dramatically…

              Just as the TLS nay-saying shareholders were told, but argued over. Well in the past 18 months, TLS have risen by around 80%.

              The proof of the pudding :)

              • Joel Webb
                Posted 30/01/2013 at 9:22 pm | Permalink |

                That article is why you can never trust what you read about what a share price will or wont do!

                If you had bought around the time that article was published, you would have received a dividend yield of nearly 10% for the first year and a little less the year after and approx 30-40% capital growth on top.

                • NBNAlex
                  Posted 30/01/2013 at 9:29 pm | Permalink |

                  Exactly my point Joel…following the NBN deal, which changed that article, IMO.

              • alain
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:52 am | Permalink |

                Your comment has nothing to do with what I said, I said Telstra have been paying healthy dividends even well before the NBN agreement.

                • NBNAlex
                  Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:08 am | Permalink |

                  You brought up TLS shares and I ran with it…

                  It’s not all about you, it’s about the issues and TLS shares have skyrocketted since the NBN deal.

                  Tell me they haven’t?

        • RyanH
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:22 pm | Permalink |

          23.72% goes overseas as of January 2013

        • Tex Mex
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:01 am | Permalink |

          Ripping off the public cannot be justified by looking after shareholders. Higher prices in essential services lead to a reduced profit for small business. Last time I heard they still kept the country going. Poor argument and a flaw of pure capitalism left unfettered.

    7. Daniel
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:14 pm | Permalink |

      Tony Abbott: No NBN under a Goverment I lead.

    8. Oliphant
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:31 pm | Permalink |

      +1000

    9. Nobby6
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink |

      Just a Decade? more like just over two decades!

      Oh,, I love this thing called KARMA

    10. Frank
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:38 pm | Permalink |

      So rather than bitch about Telstra and say the NBN is wonderful and perfect, has anyone actually looked to see if they have a valid point, or is the hatred for Telstra and love for NBN co so much we immediately dismiss everything Telstra says.

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink |

        Frank if you can’t see the irony in Telstra’s comment, regardless of whether they are right or wrong… when they were the original and best at doing exactly what they are now sobbing about and accusing NBNCo of, well I’m afraid it may be you who needs to look closer, not us ;)

      • Cameron
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:54 pm | Permalink |

        @Frank

        NBNco wholesale pricing is better than what Telstra charge access seekers for wholesale access to their network. So you don’t need to look a lot further than that.

      • Bpat
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink |

        The NBN will be charging wholesale about $25 for a connection (pulled from memory, could be out).
        Telstra’s adsl plans go $29.95, $49.95, $69.95 etc so all but maybe the smallest (5gb per month, fyi) can likely absorb any difference

    11. NBNAlex
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:43 pm | Permalink |

      +1

      Nicely spotted Renai and yes the irony is delicious.

      Look out for the Telstra avengers Syd la and Vas though Renai, who will be gunning for your blood ;)

      But without trying to spoil the party, sadly it would appear that the Coalition “may” hand it all back to Telstra if elected later this year…FFS.

    12. Cameron
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink |

      Yes. This is that same Telstra. Well, cry me a fucking river, Telstra. That is irony so intense that it burns. Forgive me if I don’t weep for you on this one. If NBN Co gouges Telstra for about a decade, I think we’ll call it about even, and I doubt I’d find many Australians who would disagree. Not all of us in this new era in Australian telecommunications have short memories.

      Best first sentence to a paragraph ever! You may now retire Renai.

      Is it just possible that Telstra has got so bloated and fat on it’s exorbitant wholesale pricing/gouging, coupled with the intrinsic advantages that come to a vertically integrated monopoly that they may have trouble weening themselves?

      I have pondered this very scenario privately for some time. I can not believe that Telstra has put that in writing, investors should be alert AND alarmed.

      Oh, the ironing!

      • Cameron
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 4:50 pm | Permalink |

        Actually that should be “first line” or “First three sentences” but you get my point. :)

    13. SimonB
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:17 pm | Permalink |

      I tried to post a comment to this effect on ZDNet, but couldn’t be bothered registering. Thanks Renai for so concisely summing it up!

      • Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink |

        heh no worries. The fact that they implemented that annoying comment registration system was one of the things that eventually led to me quitting and starting Delimiter, that kind of thing always pissed me off to the max ;)

        • nonny-moose
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink |

          and i must thank you for that Renai, as i will read (via google) paywall sites and others but the moment there is a registration wall to comment its obvious they are only really interested in their own opinion. it says a bit about the site IMO. and i have always been leery of old or even some new media outfits holding lists of registered commentators – i dont trust them with it. normally i would not sign up for something like the weekly roundup but going by the openness demonstrated in the comments section i made an exception :) its a refreshing change from what now appears to be the norm.

    14. Hubert Cumberdale
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:17 pm | Permalink |

      Wait, is this the same Telstra that wanted to charge $85 (iirc) for wholesale access to it’s proposed FttN patchwork?

      Wow. Just wow.

      This is a choice quote btw:

      “investments in content delivery networks to supply next generation multi-media services that are made possible through the deployment of a fibre access network uneconomic”

      Highlighted because even though Telstra wanted to charge $85 for wholesale access to their FttN patchwork even they will admit it is a dead end solution. Those key phrases again “next generation”, “investments” and “fibre”.

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:20 pm | Permalink |

        Hopefully it’s not…

        Wait, this “is” the same Telstra who will charge $85 for wholesale access to MT’s proposed FttN patchwork!

        • Andrew
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 6:36 am | Permalink |

          Is this the same Telstra that insists that NBN customers still need to pay line rental…?
          Fantastic article Sir.

          • alain
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:55 am | Permalink |

            Well get your NBN of someone else then if you don’t like the conditions, Telstra was one of the last ISP’s to sell it.

            • NBNAlex
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:41 pm | Permalink |

              Therein lies part of the beauty… that’s exactly what people will finally be able to do.

              glad your switching on.

            • tinman_au
              Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:08 pm | Permalink |

              “Telstra was one of the last ISP’s to sell it.”

              Mostly because it took them time to work out how they could fatten the margins up a “bit”…

      • SMEMatt
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:17 pm | Permalink |

        The added bonus is Telstra won’t even consider the type of access that would allow these services to be wholesaled NBNco are looking at it (multi-casting ect..)

    15. Cameron
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:23 pm | Permalink |

      I guess this is the same Telstra that charged Internode (and others I am sure) over $50,000 a month for what amounted to a 60cm Cat5 patch lead in an exchange? Which they insisted must be used despite there being no technical reason to route data through their equipment.

      Yeah, no sympathy.

    16. JayZ
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:25 pm | Permalink |

      Totally agree Renai!!
      The irony is mind blowing!

      The same Telstra that has argued with the ACCC for years every time it puts its wholesale price up claiming the price is too low for the ‘cost’ of provoding the services and the same Telstra that has used ever trick, tactic and delay to screw it’s wholesale clients is now demanding NBNCo freeze al its wholesale prices for years???

      Ha ha that is just GOLD…

    17. Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:29 pm | Permalink |

      Oh Telstra, you so random.

    18. Gordon Drennan
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:43 pm | Permalink |

      NBNCo is the new Telstra. The Telstra of the 21st century.

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:51 pm | Permalink |

        LOL…

        Oh… you were serious…

        LOL even more

      • GongGav
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink |

        Correcting your errors.

        “NBNCo is the new Telecom. The Telecom of the 21st century.”

        Remember when it was a monopoly and it actually succeeded in keeping prices down? Was a Govt owned monopoly at the time.

        Was only when it became Telstra and had to care about profits that it changed for the worse.

      • tinman_au
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:14 pm | Permalink |

        “NBNCo is the new Telstra. The Telstra of the 21st century.”

        Only if the Libs get hold of it and privatise it…

        They’ll basically give NBNCo to Telstra (and blame the loss of the billions on “Labor Waste TM”) and then fiddle the legislation so the current fixed pricing can be altered.

        Then they’ll give Telstra $27 billion to build the FTTN and crow about the $10 billion they saved…

        And once again, the joke will be on the Australian taxpayer/voters for thinking that the Liberals are for “Average Australians” and not “Big Biz”.

        • Daniel Harvison
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:05 am | Permalink |

          Why on earth does that party love Telstra so much? For years Howard gave them leave to do whatever they bloody well wanted. I’d really like to know what the story is there?

          • NBNAlex
            Posted 02/02/2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink |

            @ Daniel Harvison.

            It would appear that Telstra have since privatisation especially, been largely a company with many very closely, politically aligned people, making the decisions.

            This isn’t meant to be criticism (or adulation) just telling it as best as I know, since the question was asked. If I am wrong I will certainly stand corrected and apologise…

            People such as former Chairman Donald McGauchie whom (iirc) was directly involved in the waterfront dispute, along with Peter Reith (and JWH). Where military teams, said to have been trained in Dubai, were sent in to sort the union out.

            Sol Trujillo whom (iirc again) was even talk of (although it didn’t eventuate) him being former Republican McCain’s running mate in an earlier US election. So had this been so and McCain won and become President, but then became ill or passed away, Trujillo would have become President. Hypothetical I know, but…

            ST’s team – Burgess, Winn and Stewart, I’m not sure of their political leanings?

            Of course they have had, and still have, the man behind the Phil Burgess’ inspired, now we are talking site… and Corporate Affairs manager – Rod Bruem. Who is described as being, “currently employed by Telstra Corporation Limited, he has worked as a senior political & executive advisor and writer/journalist.” Again (iirc) Rod was Robert Hill’s press secretary.

            Not sure about David Thodey either?

            Cheers

    19. raymond
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink |

      its a great pity that nbnco cant actually gouge telstra on whole prices.

      the downside of us wanting a level playing field. all rsps will be treated the same by nbnco regardless of prior actions.

      its funny (not in the laughing way) watching them squirm over this piddly little amount though, you have to wonder what their ulterior motive is? cause we all know they have one.

      • Hubert Cumberdale
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:12 pm | Permalink |

        “you have to wonder what their ulterior motive is?”

        I dont wonder at all. I’m sure it’s just $$$.

        What I do wonder about is the coalition clowns response to this. Either way they could look foolish but of course that wont stop Turnbull, Abbott or the rest opening their big yaps…

        • Guest
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:38 pm | Permalink |

          yes of course. enter humbert. who tries to turn it from an article about telstra, to a liberal bashing. go away humbert. im sure julia is calling you.

          • Hubert Cumberdale
            Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:20 pm | Permalink |

            I’m sorry you seem to have mistaken me for someone who supports the two major political parties (Hint: I don’t). Perhaps the real reason why you are so sensitive to my criticism of the coalition clowns regarding the NBN is due to your own political bias, not mine. I apologise, I really didn’t mean to upset you. Next time I will sugar coat my comment better so it won’t offend you (Hint: I won’t).

    20. NBNAlex
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 5:54 pm | Permalink |

      For shits and giggles let’s all wait until about noon tomorrow and then play “lets spot the TLS shareholder” ;)

      • chunk
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:40 pm | Permalink |

        Be like shooting fish in T pool barrel.

        • NBNAlex
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:55 pm | Permalink |

          We didn’t even have to wait until midnight tonight :/

        • tinman_au
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:18 pm | Permalink |

          More like dynamite in a Bigpond, way too easy :o)

    21. Ashley Cooper
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:19 pm | Permalink |

      Love the “…cry me a fucking river…..”, but Telstra’s retail position has been so well supported by all those that either 1. Don’t know of the alternative ISP’s. or 2. Know there’s something better and cheaper but can’t be bothered changing.

    22. alain
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:26 pm | Permalink |

      @Renai

      I am going to have to take issue with you on this one.

      ‘Is this the same Telstra that, for a decade now, has been charging wholesale backhaul prices so high that retail ISPs have been unable to deploy their own DSLAM infrastructure in regional areas of Australia? ‘

      Whoa, first of all monopoly backhaul in the absence of ANY competitor backhaul and that means not just Telstra comes under ACCC price and access control.

      Competitors can lodge a complaint with the ACCC for a pricing declaration if they feel Telstra (or any other sole supplier) backhaul pricing is too high.

      I am not aware any competitors have bothered.

      Also ISP’s didn’t bother to install DSLAM’s in small regional or rural exchanges because their existing customers numbers didn’t justify the DSLAM CAPEX anyway, irrespective of any backhaul pricing issues, it was more cost effective and still is just to resell Telstra Wholesale ADSL out of those exchanges for the small number of customers involved.

      ‘The same Telstra that charges such high wholesale DSL prices in those areas that retail ISPs often don’t bother operating there?’

      Which ISP’s don’t resell Telstra Wholesale ADSL2+ ‘in those areas’ whatever you mean by that.

      ‘ The same Telstra that deployed ADSL2+ in telephone exchanges around Australia but refused to switch it on because it might have to provide wholesale access to that infrastructure?”

      Telstra were after assurances from the ACCC at the time they that would not be forced to wholesale ADSL2+ which the ACCC said they did not have to, they ended up wholesaling it anyway, voluntarily.

      I assume you also take issue with one of the biggest DSLAM footprint ISP’s TPG not wholesaling ADSL2+ either?

      ‘The same Telstra that effectively kept many retail ISPs out of Tasmania for half a decade because of its ridiculous and monopolistic prices across Bass Strait?’

      See above on ACCC price control on monopoly backhaul infrastructure, of course as you well know Telstra did not have a cable monopoly across the Bass Strait and still does not.
      How is your memory on the checkered history of what was eventually to become the Tasmanian Government owned BassLink fibre?

      ‘The same Telstra that still remains one of the most expensive retail ISPs in Australia?’

      ….. with the biggest customer base in Australia, Telstra has 45.9% of the retail fixed BB market as at June 2012, the next nearest is Optus with 17.4%, all the other ISP’s have to divide up the rest of the market between them, guess which one is marketing it right?

      ‘The Telstra that is setting ludicrous terms and prices in its fibre network in South Brisbane right now and forcing retail ISPs up against a wall?’

      I had a look at Internode’s Sth Brisbane pricing , it is comparable with their own DSLAM based plans.

      http://www.internode.on.net/residential/fibre_to_the_home/south_brisbane/

      I am not aware Internode is up against any wall are you?, and the ACCC looked at the Telstra Wholesale pricing out of Sth Brisbane and didn’t see any problem.

      ‘Not all of us in this new era in Australian telecommunications have short memories.’

      I certainly don’t. :)

      • Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink |

        No competitors have bothered?

        http://www.zdnet.com/telstra-price-squeeze-claims-go-to-accc-1339304519/

        That’s just a quick Google. If I was bothered I could refute every statement you made in this post.

        You appear to be the one with the short memory.

        • Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:48 pm | Permalink |

          (With the obvious exceptions of Market Share and pricing from Internode, in case you’re feeling pedantic)

        • alain
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:54 pm | Permalink |

          ‘No competitors have bothered? ‘

          That’s not a backhaul complaint, have another go.

          ‘ I was bothered I could refute every statement you made in this post. ‘

          Go on, go for it.

          • Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:15 pm | Permalink |

            Alright then if you’re going to move the goal posts:

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/01/27/tpg-breaks-its-silence-over-telstra-terms/

            Notice the specific complaint of “Telstra does not permit TPG to use its own network for connecting rural broadband services back to the city (known as ‘backhaul’)”

            So let’s think about this for a moment shall we, oh, since you are forced to use Telstra backhaul pricing to provide Telstra Wholesale ADSL any complaint about Telstra Wholesale ADSL prices intrinsically involves backhaul pricing.

            If you want me to digest the discussion papers, which I happily will, you’ll have to wait until I’m not on my phone. However, I can assure you that there have been many complaints with Telstra Wholesale pricing over the years, and all of them focus on non-ULL pricing, which is only offered as a “end to end” package deal, i.e. inclusive of backhaul.

            • alain
              Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:47 pm | Permalink |

              ‘Alright then if you’re going to move the goal posts:’

              Renai was referring to backhaul pricing in his main comment I was referring to backhaul pricing in my response , YOU moved the goal posts by linking to a completely different complaint to the ACCC entirely.

              ‘Notice the specific complaint of “Telstra does not permit TPG to use its own network for connecting rural broadband services back to the city (known as ‘backhaul’)” ‘

              What was the ACCC decision on Telstra backhaul pricing on this?

              ‘since you are forced to use Telstra backhaul pricing to provide Telstra Wholesale ADSL any complaint about Telstra Wholesale ADSL prices intrinsically involves backhaul pricing.’

              lol another good attempt to try and get out of the corner you have backed yourself into, you blinked when I stated the ACCC has control over MONOPLY backhaul, if a ISP has problem with backhaul pricing they submit a complaint about backhaul pricing, if they have complaint about Telstra charging less for a retail plan than they do for a wholesale plan they submit complaint to the ACC based on that.

              ‘Telstra Wholesale pricing over the years, and all of them focus on non-ULL pricing, which is only offered as a “end to end” package deal, i.e. inclusive of backhaul.’

              err yeah so? – what’s that got to do with the Renai’s original comment that ISP’s don’t put DSLAM’s into regional exchanges because Telstra backhaul costs are too high?

              • Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:21 pm | Permalink |

                Actually you did. Let’s have a look at the discussion paper to which Renai is refering:

                TPG acquires the wholesale ADSL service to compete in areas where TPG does not have its own infrastructure or where a customer’s copper infrastructure can only be enabled by Telstra (eg. pair gain). TPG does consider that Telstra’s terms and conditions of supply inhibit competition. In particular, Telstra requires that TPG acquires AGVC (or VLAN) long-hauled back to a capital city. Telstra does not permit TPG to use its own backhaul or a portion of its own network.

                The price Telstra charges for backhaul does not appear to bear any correlation to actual cost. TPG pays $58.66 per mbps for the VLAN (AGVC) for the offnet service. Based on TPG’s own experience of constructing and maintaining fibre networks, it is likely that the per mbps price charged by Telstra significantly exceeds Telstra’s actual cost of carriage. The outcome of these factors is that TPG is not able to use one of its usual differentiators – high usage quotas – to compete in the market. End users in regional locations therefore are always worse off than TPG’s metropolitan customers.

                TPG considers it unlikely that it will invest in DSLAM infrastructure in the regional centres.
                Telstra monopolises the backhaul market and the price payable for that backhaul makes the
                investment in DSLAM infrastructure in outlying areas uneconomic. If the declaration was in
                respect of non-metropolitan areas, TPG would not expect to change its metropolitan strategy of
                expanding DSLAM infrastructure to meet demand.

                As you can see, as stated, this discussion paper, like others and complaints made before it, which deals with Wholesale DSL service, mentions the backhaul pricing as being a contributing factor to the problems. I don’t understand why it is so hard to understand.

                Let’s back up for a bit: you’re right, they COULD submit a complaint based upon purely on backhaul pricing, but why do that when your WDSL complaint already covers the problem of backhaul pricing within it?

                • alain
                  Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:01 am | Permalink |

                  Yes got all of that, I repeat what was the ACCC decision on all of this at the time and the direct effect on Telstra Wholesale backhaul pricing to regional and rural exchanges or to Tasmania for that matter?

                  • Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:32 am | Permalink |

                    There decision, alain, was to DECLARE Telstra wholesale pricing as evidenced here.

                    This implies that Telstra wholesale pricing was not competitive enough, and even required them to reduce the AGVC rate as well. I don’t know if you realise this or not but the fact the ACCC had to step in to mediate the dispute is actually a bad thing and support’s Renai’s argument that they were charging to much for backhaul, particularly because the regulation decisions involved reducing backhaul prices. And if you’re trying to make me say “Well Telstra wasn’t told to let TPG use their DSLAMs with AGVC” I think you of all people should know that the ACCC does not need to bow down to the demands of TPG.

                    So what is it you’re trying to say ha?

                • alain
                  Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:11 am | Permalink |

                  BTW you stated:

                  ‘ If I was bothered I could refute every statement you made in this post’

                  Still waiting.

                  • Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:46 am | Permalink |

                    Fine let’s go through a few of them since you insist:

                    Also ISP’s didn’t bother to install DSLAM’s in small regional or rural exchanges because their existing customers numbers didn’t justify the DSLAM CAPEX anyway, irrespective of any backhaul pricing issues, it was more cost effective and still is just to resell Telstra Wholesale ADSL out of those exchanges for the small number of customers involved.

                    A signal DSLAM takes 12-24 customers. Now since it is reasonable to assume that they might get at least that many customers even out in whoop whoop the issue is more likely to be unreasonable rack rental chargers or, as stated by Renai the expensive backhaul charges. So, unless you have some confidential business information that says that installing a single or pair of DSLAMs is not cost effective, your statement here is mere speculation.

                    See above on ACCC price control on monopoly backhaul infrastructure, of course as you well know Telstra did not have a cable monopoly across the Bass Strait and still does not.
                    How is your memory on the checkered history of what was eventually to become the Tasmanian Government owned BassLink fibre?

                    Once again I think you need to understand what it means to be price controlled by the ACCC, it means that the ACCC cannot trust you to provide fair pricing. If you were providing fair pricing they would just tell you to carry on then.

                    I am not aware Internode is up against any wall are you?, and the ACCC looked at the Telstra Wholesale pricing out of Sth Brisbane and didn’t see any problem.

                    The fact their are pricing complaints by multiple providers is completely irrelevant is it? Oh the ACCC gave them the big tick, everyone must be bitching… *sigh*

                • tinman_au
                  Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:43 pm | Permalink |

                  ” I don’t understand why it is so hard to understand.”

                  It’s called cognitive dissonance. People have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality.

                  It’s pretty common with conservatives (who by definition don’t like and/or fear change), but progressives can be effected too (the whole climate change debate shows some great examples of cognitive dissonance in action from both sides in the more….shall we say, wildly different views).

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:44 pm | Permalink |

        http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/30/the-irony-it-burns-telstras-nbn-price-complaints/#comment-570965

        Wow this opinion piece hit a nerve worse than the NBN… how revealing.

        http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/28/nbn-co-offers-108-bounty-on-new-customers/#comment-570877

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink |

        Interesting comment alain.

        Seems everything you hate about the NBN you love about Telstra and vice versa… what strange logic.

        But then we are used to witnessing such logic from some.

        • Chunk
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:49 am | Permalink |

          Its not really logic its more of self interest really, as you are probably very well aware they show their true colours as they couldn’t give a rats behind on our tired old infrastructure that we are currently running on. We could have a complete telecommunications black out and the first question they would ask is “how is our shares?”.

          Its the hell with innovations and providing the consumers and business decent telecommunications and internet services, plus they seem to enjoy using that “competitors are leeching off telstra” when they know damn right that Telstra charges like wounded bulls and make it harder for competitors to install their own equipment.

          Its pretty damn sad isn’t it.

          • NBNAlex
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:31 am | Permalink |

            +1

    23. gdriss
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:45 pm | Permalink |

      No irony at all.

      You are distorting and confusing the meaning of Telstra arguments to the ACCC.

      That is, it creates the real possibility that wholesale prices are set such that [retail service providers/RSPs] cannot supply services at retail prices that end-users would be willing to pay.

      Here, Telstra is talking about the impossibility of any RSP providing any retail service that consumers could afford with NBNco’s potentially exorbitant charges.

      Your bringing up of the dispute over wholesale pricing between Telstra and other RSP is a separate issue. The plain fact is Telstra has hundreds of thousands of customers in regional areas subscribing to “expensive” Bigpong plans (compared to TPG metro plans) is proof that it is possible to supply retail plans using Telstra wholesale pricing.

      The other ISP chose not to do as their business models around under cutting Bigpong in order to win market share from the Big T. Or cherry picking. It does not make sense for them to serve the regional areas if they cannot get a wholesale price advantage over Bigpong. (Bigpong plans even in metro is priced as if ULL doesn’t exist, this is why Bigpong is more expensive than competitors in Melb/Syd.) So other ISPs chose to avoid serving the regional markets. Not because you can’t offer up viable retail plans using Telstra wholesale pricing in regional areas but because it does not suit their discount ISP model or price structure and doesn’t offer the same high margins as using ULLS.

      This is quite far from saying no viable retail plans can be offered at all by any ISP (including the largest player which charges the highest retail prices!!) as Telstra is complaining about NBNco wholesale charges.

      Have a good day.

    24. Sydney Lawrence
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink |

      And for yonks Telstra has had to suffer the bludgers and freeloaders who refused to invest to compete. Renai you show you have no idea of honesty in business when you say you hope Telstra is gouged by the NBN for decades. Thankfully all things will become new after the next election and Renai I hope Telstra has a long memory.

      • chunk
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 6:55 pm | Permalink |

        LMAO play spot the Telstra fan that spills out crap faster than a politician……….
        Was a good rant bro…

      • gdriss
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:03 pm | Permalink |

        Wishing that Telstra is gouged for a decade is plain stupid.

        Telstra charges the highest retail prices in the market. Everyone knows that. If the largest player in the market with biggest scale economies and highest current margins can’t absorb NBNCO new era wholesale pricing, then no-one else can! Other discount RSPs obviously have much lower margin buffer to cost hikes.

        • Tib
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:11 pm | Permalink |

          As Renai commented before…

          ‘Telstra made $25.4 billion in revenue in the 2012 financial year. $10.2 billion EBITDA. Net profit after tax $3.4 billion. Free cash flow of $5.2 billion.’

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:46 pm | Permalink |

        Gee I was willing to wait until noon tomorrow…

        http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/30/the-irony-it-burns-telstras-nbn-price-complaints/#comment-570965

        But as suggested…

        http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/30/the-irony-it-burns-telstras-nbn-price-complaints/#comment-570925

        • alain
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:39 am | Permalink |

          It’s interesting you decide to play the Telstra shareholder card if anyone dares to support Telstra in any way shape or form, but remain silent on the motives of those that criticize Telstra ,support the NBN or bag the Coalition.

          How have you determined that no competitor shareholders or NBN Co employees or paid up members of the Labor Party ever write comments in Delimiter, Whirlpool, ZDnet etc?

          • NBNAlex
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:08 am | Permalink |

            @ alain,

            Your’s is unfounded conjecture (what a surprise) whereas mine was an educated guess, which is now confirmed as actual, due to a long time TLS share holder and unofficial spokesman appearing here, as I suggested he may.

            Once again, I see the facts both elude and embarrass you.

            Also again speaking of ironies (and ambarrassment), love your work.

            Tell us why you bag the NBN for being a government owned/funded monopoly and support/defend Telstra paying divs etc – when a, wait for it… government owned/funded monopoly.

            Priceless…

            • NBNAlex
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink |

              embarrassment :)

            • alain
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:51 am | Permalink |

              You still have not answered the question.

              • NBNAccuracy
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:23 am | Permalink |

                There could be Labor members or owners of opposition telco shares posting here. I commend them if they are, they are doing a good job of judging things on the facts and their merits. I guess that is why there are so few posters in opposition. Being devoid of factual arguments their bias shines out.
                Got some more “have you stopped beating your wife” style questions in your bag of bias alain?

                • alain
                  Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:23 pm | Permalink |

                  @NBNAccuracy

                  ‘There could be Labor members or owners of opposition telco shares posting here. I commend them if they are, they are doing a good job of judging things on the facts and their merits.”

                  I see, so they post because they judge things ‘on the facts and their merits’, but a Telstra shareholder doesn’t do that if they disagree with the Labor NBN or- gasp- support the Coalition.

                  But a Telstra shareholder that supports the NBN, votes Labor and bags the Coalition must be ‘judging things on their facts and their merits’ I assume?

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:24 am | Permalink |

                @ alain,

                My you are impertinent! Bluntly refusing to answer question after question from many posters here, yourself (obviously unable to answer) but expecting an answer to everyone of your nothing but argumentative, rhetoric :/

                Well thing is, I’m not too scared to answer you, because the gaping chasm you and I have between us is… I have the facts on my side :)

                Your Q. How have you determined that no competitor shareholders or NBN Co employees or paid up members of the Labor Party ever write comments in Delimiter, Whirlpool, ZDnet etc?

                A. I recognise and I think even you could understand (especially being up to your neck in Telstra and the Coalition your self ;) that there are people involved in media/forums from both sides of politics… It’s obvious FYI – I’m not one of them…

                Do you have any more typically, stupid questions…?

                ***Now your turn to answer a real question –

                Q. Tell us why you bag the NBN for being a government owned/funded monopoly and support/defend Telstra paying divs etc – when a, wait for it… government owned/funded monopoly?

                I look forward to typical silence/no answer and then at another thread you hypocritically deriding me/someone for not answering your adolescent nonsense.

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:07 pm | Permalink |

        @ Sydney Lawrence

        “Telstra has had to suffer the bludgers and freeloaders who refused to invest to compete!”

        Another irony, under the current NBN “Telstra will be one of those bludgers and freeloaders who refused to invest…” in FttN when they had their chance.

        • Hubert Cumberdale
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:22 pm | Permalink |

          Took the words right out of my mouth Alex :-)

        • alain
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:03 am | Permalink |

          @NBNAlex

          ‘ in FttN when they had their chance.’

          What chance was that?

          • Bpat
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:46 am | Permalink |

            in the Howard / Sol Trujillo era

            • alain
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:36 am | Permalink |

              There is a hell of lot more to it than your glib one liner, the G9 consortium could have built it in that era as well but didn’t for a multitude of reasons many of them the same as Telstra’s reasons coupled with the ACCC decisions and Government decisions as to why it didn’t go ahead.

              It wasn’t a Telstra decision in isolation of other factors.

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:27 am | Permalink |

                @ alain

                Firstly I must congratulate you twice, for being the old dog learning new tricks, wow.

                After previously arguing until blue in the face that the initial RFP’s were for FttN only and me explaining to you that they were for FttN or FttP, you now actually mention both FttN & FttP when commenting on the RFP’s. Then more recently (a few days ago) after arguing the current NBN policy wasn’t released 16 months before the 2010 election (April 2009) but in 2010, I see in another thread since, you actually mentioned the NBN being announced in 2009… no need to thank me, seeing your FUD cut down to 99.9% is gratification enough for me.

                As such, I see you are now asking me for another lesson re: FttN…? I have been here before with you, did you forget or are you simply looking for me to not cross a t or dot an i and then launch into one of your typical, non-sensical, arguments over nothing… great let’s go.

                You are quite right with your inference of Telstra had their chance… my faux pas. Telstra didn’t have a chance, they had two chances and blew them both, because they miscalculated that they “had” to be the one to build the network, because they own the copper ;)

                1st chance – Telstra initially proposed to build FttN in metro areas (iirc circa 2005/2006) and took a proposal to the ACCC. But at the 11th hour, with the ACCC expecting a deal to be made, Telstra withdrew.

                2nd chance – Telstra could have submitted a compliant RFP to build the initial NBN, but submitted a non-compliant bid and were culled from the RFP process.

                Both of these are factual occurrences, they aren’t tainted with any bias for or against, this is simply what happened…but please feel free to add your now obvious, special blend of Telstra spin and fog, as I’m sure you will.

                So thank you Telstra… because of your pig-headedness, we are now receiving a vastly superior network and most importantly, a network which you cannot strangle to death, as you did with the copper and would have with FttN.

              • Brendan
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:00 am | Permalink |

                .. alain, please stop distorting history. You do all commenters a disservice in the process.

                Telstra demanded to have funding to build FttN; the government said shove off. So Telstra took it’s bat and ball and went home. We know this, because the last Coalition government (before it imploded) decided to hand tax income to OPEL to “do something”.

                Note that wasn’t to be an investment with a return. A simple cash injection; it never went anywhere. Sounds quite familiar.

                Meanwhile, Labor rocks up, suggests FttN, given that’s what Telstra had suggested (so, you know, following the guidance of your beloved corporate entity).

                Telstra has a second chance to pitch the exact same build. It did. Once more it expected regulatory offsets. We know it did because a bunch of Telstra cheerleaders told us how important it was.

                And again got told to shove off.

                When it became apparent FttN options were becoming an expensive dead-end, someone had the raspberries to suggest FTTH. On snap. Good idea. Where’s Telstra? They can build it, right? Sweet.

                Well, sort of.

                Telstra has a third chance to work a solution. Sol told the federal government to shove off (not entirely sure the Board was with him on that one..). Even after the board in a bit of a lucid moment, shifted gears around Sol, they proffered a short summary of what they might do if the Government effectively scrapped Regulation.

                Telstra being Telstra. Scratch my back (make the ACCC go away) and we’ll use no-returnable tax income to maybe build something people will spend the next several years being gouged on. No? Ok.

                Unsurprisingly, when the queues were “play ball, or you’re out) they decided the best option was to not offer a valid tender. Don’t tell me the Government denied their request on a technicality; Telstra took a calculated risk to not pitch for the build.

                Again, we know this because we were told by the cheerleading squad that Telstra was special and didn’t have to do anything the other valid tender submitters did.

                Where does this lead us? To the current situation.

                Telstra is exercising it’s position as an RSP to angle for better pricing. Nothing more. It’s in the current situation due to it’s own actions.

                To continue to blame others, is to continue to ignore reality.

                • Chunk
                  Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:22 pm | Permalink |

                  Well put Brendan…

                • alain
                  Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:18 pm | Permalink |

                  You say I distorted history then go on a anti-Telstra rant without mentioning the alternative bidder the G9 consortium once.

                  You also ignored that most of the conditions that the G9 wanted in their SAU to the ACCC and ultimately rejected by the ACCC were the some as Telstra, especially in areas related to risk and investment certainty.

                  It’s funny how history repeats itself where the NBN Co has stated it is after regulatory reform to ensure investment certainty when it goes to the market to negotiate debt in 2015.

                  .

                  • Brendan
                    Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:48 pm | Permalink |

                    Actually, I’m not ignoring G9; it’s irrelevant to your continued assertion that Telstra do not have to abide by the terms that everyone else is.

                    Your arguments always distill to this simple outcome.

                    • alain
                      Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:40 pm | Permalink |

                      ‘Actually, I’m not ignoring G9;’

                      Well you did and you are still are, I repeat the G9 consortium nothing to do with Telstra SAU was rejected by the ACCC.

                      ‘it’s irrelevant to your continued assertion that Telstra do not have to abide by the terms that everyone else is.’

                      I didn’t assert that Telstra do not have to abide by the terms everyone else has to.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:33 pm | Permalink |

                        Of course you did alain…

                        You previously said that Telstra were omitted from the RFPs on a technicality.

                        Suggesting that they shouldn’t have been omitted.

                        So you expected everyone else to play by the rules except Telstra didn’t you?

                        Also this correspondence wasn’t about the G9/TERRiA it was about you taking exception to me saying Telstra had their chance and nothing else.

                        You now need to deflect from the fact which prove Telstra had more than one chance, however you can :/

      • SMEMatt
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:27 pm | Permalink |

        Why would you buy shares in Telstra then. It was the conditions on them when they got sold and has been a condition on them for the entire time they have been in private ownership. If you found that unacceptable you shouldn’t have bought the shares in the first place.

        BTW you don’t have to agree with policies of companies you invest in, just ask the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation about that. Do your research and form your own opinion and try to consider what is best for everyone not just what is best for you. Despite what people think opinions can be wrong if they are formed on wrong information.

      • tinman_au
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 12:54 pm | Permalink |

        Indeed.

        Telstra themselves were “bludgers and freeloaders” that got where they are thanks to the Australian taxpayer, not their shareholders…

        No single company, even Telstra, can afford to roll out a modern and reliable communications backbone for all Australians (which is why they bombed on the RFP stage of the NBN), so your exception that companies smaller than Telstra could do so seems founded in Alan Jones style lala land.

    25. chunk
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 7:52 pm | Permalink |

      800 lb Gorilla its time to retire and stop gouging our country for far too long. I couldn’t care less about Telstra shareholders especially the ones just want the greed and couldn’t care less about innovations and consumer interests.

      I hope NBNco just point and laughs at telstra and tell them to bugger right off..

    26. NBNAlex
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:21 pm | Permalink |

      Ooh-wa Renai you really stirred up the fringe element this time…LOL

      We even have people commenting here who have derided the NBN daily, for being (their words) a government owned/funded monopoly… now using the exact same argument… to defend Telstra!!!!!

      Nice work dude ;)

    27. Frank
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink |

      The fundamental difference between Telsta and NBN Co is Others could easily band together and provide infrastructure to compete with Telstra. There was a group more than willing to do this in their FTTN proposal. Telstra called their bluff then with its one page submission. The group never ever did get together and actually see if they could compete with Telstra.

      Telstra wasn’t going to do anything and nor was that cute little group and so NBN Co was born. One thing about the NBN is nobody can actually compete against it with their own infrastructure. So no more cherry picking. A so called level paying field. If one reads the ramblings of the former owner of Internode, he complains with the same passion about NBN Co as he does with Telstra.

      In the end RSPs can’t really be innovative when using the NBN, because if any RSPs wants a particular feature on the NBN, it’s got to be developed and approved by NBN Co and once implemented is available to all RSPs. The only thing RSP’s have up their sleeves is content, their access to the rest of the world and of course retail pricing. (If I read correctly, Conroy is eyeing this as well for NBN to provide international access).

      A lot of people think competition drove down prices and it did for a lot of people. But the nature of cherry picking drives down pricing in those high volume and profitable market areas. What it fails miserably is that it kills investment in those areas in those high cost areas, like regional and remote Australia. Had all Telstra’s competitors really wanted to venture into those higher cost areas, they could have charged more in their cherry picked areas and then would have had the capital to spend and develop those higher cost areas instead of running off to the ACCC every other week.

      • Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:44 pm | Permalink |

        In the end RSPs can’t really be innovative when using the NBN, because if any RSPs wants a particular feature on the NBN, it’s got to be developed and approved by NBN Co and once implemented is available to all RSPs. The only thing RSP’s have up their sleeves is content, their access to the rest of the world and of course retail pricing. (If I read correctly, Conroy is eyeing this as well for NBN to provide international access).

        You do realize that NBNCo are providing at lowest technical level possible without giving everyone a dedicated circuit? When you consider this, it is actually very difficult when you consider the current product offerings by NBNCo to invision any possible innovation that doesn’t sit above the products offered.

        To be specific NBNCo offer the following services: unicast and multicast at different priority levels and different information rates. That is getting very close to fundamentals.

      • nonny-moose
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 10:41 pm | Permalink |

        ” it’s got to be developed and approved by NBN Co and once implemented is available to all RSPs. ”

        Which NBNco are at least doing. as opposed to “it hasnt been invented yet!” and not bothering. i still know which of the two id prefer. and it isnt the soon to be superseded monopolist whining about how its fee fees are hurt when someone shows them what an open access network REALLY looks like.

        • alain
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:41 am | Permalink |

          An open access network that depends on competing inftastucture to be shut down to survive is not a open access network.

          • Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink |

            *cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network

            Seems you got the definition of word wrong again.

            • alain
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:14 am | Permalink |

              I think it was spot on actually.

              • Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink |

                Well Wikipedia disagrees with you as do the experts. The existence of physical competition does not preclude the use of the term OAN, only the fact that it is a two or three layer network. Which the NBN is.

                What you think is irrelevant when it comes to the definition of terms. You either used the right term to state what you meant, or to didn’t. As clearly it is the latter do you want to try again?

          • Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:17 am | Permalink |

            “An open access network that depends on competing inftastucture to be shut down to survive is not a open access network.”

            Yes, yes it is.

          • Tom
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:30 am | Permalink |

            Where’s my competing water pipes?
            Where’s my competing electricity wires connecting to my house?
            Where’s the competition in roads running past my driveway?

            Notice the lack of infrastructure competition here?
            Why should the communication/data pipes be any different?

            • Chunk
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:42 am | Permalink |

              Why not? at least it gives consumers some “choices” in their lives for fark sake..

              • Tom
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:54 am | Permalink |

                “Choices”? Way to go in avoiding the question…

                Where’s my choice in water pipes, electricity wires, or roads?

                What if I were to disagree with the type of material used in the water pipes? Do I have a choice to go with a different set of water pipes?

                What if I prefer dirt roads for my horse and cart? I think we can all agree that technology has surpassed the horse and cart, and that dirt roads are no longer a viable option for most people.

            • gdriss
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink |

              You raise an excellent point.

              The underlying technology in water, electricity distribution and road transport doesn’t evolve much. Also, the final product does not change. Same old pipes transporting water, wires conducting electricity and bitumen surfaces carrying vehicles.

              Data and communications is a completely different kettle of fish. Not only does the underlying technology undergo drastic evolution, the final product also changes due to rapid innovation as markets for new services are created.

              It is this crucial differentiator that explains why you have extensive infrastructure competition in tech-advanced countries such as the United States and South Korea. Many markets in these countries have up to three or four different infrastructure providers.

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink |

                And we’ve had copper in the ground for how long… with all due respect, seriously.

                I think those opposed to the NBN (not you per se`) while find any reason to try to differentiate the NBN from anything else to justify their oppositiuon.

                Sad really.

              • Tom
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:50 am | Permalink |

                And I suppose people would have been complaining when their dirt roads were upgraded to sealed roads?

                What if some people didn’t see the need to upgrade the roads at that point? “Dirt roads are fine for my horse and cart, I have no need for one of those ‘car’ things”

                Would they have been complaining about the lack of road competition limiting their choice of road type?

              • SMEMatt
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:36 pm | Permalink |

                Funny you bring that because it has changed in those areas.
                The power and plumbing demands has change in the years since the very first services where installed. The infrastructure has been scaling up to meet those demands.
                The copper network was very much the same the demands on it when first installed is very different to the demands on it now. Until very recently it has been able to scale up to reach those demands often by nothing more than change the end points, in many cases the copper has been there for decades. Again what is being installed for the NBN is infrastructure that can continued to be scaled for decades to come. The physical cable in the ground will stay the same while the infrastructure continues to be scaled to meet demands for decades to come.

              • tinman_au
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:08 pm | Permalink |

                You mean the competition that allows almost 1/3rd of Americans to not even be able to get broadband?

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_universal_service#Broadband_access_.26_usage_in_the_United_States

                The NBN situation is way worse in the US than here, please DO NOT wish their system on us.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Plan_%28United_States%29

    28. Tailgator
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 8:37 pm | Permalink |

      A salient reminder that Telstra is nothing more than a self interested corporation. They don’t give a Rat’s A… about consumers, the economy, the country, or it’s betterment. Or anything else for that matter. Their only concern is their own bottom line. As such they deserve the same degree of skepticism regarding their motives as any other commercial interest. And this should be remembered if (god forbid) the LNP gain power and initiate their ‘do nothing’/leave it to the market BB policy along with it’s inherent taxpayer funded subsidies.

      • The Wookie
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:44 pm | Permalink |

        How about Telstra are required to be a self interested company by LAW. If they arent, they breach their fiduciary conduct rules that mandate profits must be made and best efforts to ensure value for share holders. Until recently the majority of which was the Federal Government in various forms.

        • tinman_au
          Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:10 pm | Permalink |

          Exactly. I don’t blame Telstra for doing what any publicly listed company is supposed to do, I blame John Howard and “the system”.

    29. trevwaa
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 9:01 pm | Permalink |

      Wow where’s the popcorn! lolz
      I dont really care what Telstra’s intentions are or what they did in the past. The issue i seem to be worried about here is that Telstra seems opposed to the NBN. I mean come on, its going to be the next biggest technological upgrade for the country and we need to catch up to other places in the world. seriously i really dont care what the cost is [within reason] just so long as we can get better internet. I know that sounds childish, but would do a lot for the whole population. And since more and more companies are going online, its kinda a big thing to help the consumer get browsing faster and buying more. Telstra in my eyes has the coverage and quality that roughly match their prices. Iinet have always been the best value [quality vs prices], and will probably continue to be the best well after the NBN actually gets built. Really, how long do we have to wait for this?

    30. Malcolm Turnbull
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 9:02 pm | Permalink |

      What? I have shares!!!

      • Posted 30/01/2013 at 9:21 pm | Permalink |

        FYI to anyone reading this comment … I do not believe this to be the real Malcolm Turnbull ;)

        • NBNAlex
          Posted 30/01/2013 at 9:26 pm | Permalink |

          The fact he hasn’t used the words white, elephant or koolaid, would suggest you may be right Renai :)

          • Quiet Observer
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:10 am | Permalink |

            I was tipped off by the absence of “faster” “better” and “cheaper”.

            • alain
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:05 am | Permalink |

              It certainly wasn’t Labor either, no nation building, state of the art or bold and visionary.

              • tinman_au
                Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:16 pm | Permalink |

                I agree.

                Even if the NBN is all those things, I wish they’d stop going around saying them. Political talking points makes everything sound like spin, even if it isn’t :-/

    31. ozimarco
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 9:57 pm | Permalink |

      Great article, Renai! I’m old enough to know how Telstra has been ripping us off and stymying progress for decades in the various ways you mentioned. Living in zone 2, we’re still getting the rough end of their wholesale pricing. Simon Hackett could add a few words to this article if he wanted to. I can totally identify with the way you feel about his arrogant company. I will never forgive them for the years of frustration at their hands.

      • alain
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:16 am | Permalink |

        Perhaps you need to ask your ISP why they didn’t put DSLAM’s in your Zone 2 exchange and put in a submission to the ACCC that Telstra backhaul pricing out of that exchange is too high.

    32. The Wookie
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 10:07 pm | Permalink |

      Sure its ironic. Hoist on their own petard as it were. But the point isnt any less valid for being so. Under the fair play rules of the NBN if it gouges Telstra, it has to gouge everyone else…and anyway wasnt the whole point of the NBN to get away from Telstra like behaviour? I mean I could be wrong, but I thought the point was NOT to behave like Telstra? Two wrongs dont make a right etc etc.

      Before you gloat, perhaps something constructive like, I dont know, discussing if the complaint has any actual merit in the NBN environment would be good. The field of play has changed folks, its time to move on.

      • nonny-moose
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 11:21 pm | Permalink |

        with a wholesale floor price of $25 i would say no, even accounting for CVC etc. that is, no the plaint does not have merit in the NBN environment. the fair play rules are certainly in place and Telstra are certainly not (nor other access seekers) being gouged here. regarding ‘Telstra like’ behavior:

        http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/leapfrog-fttn-and-howard-goes-to-top-of-the-class/2007/05/15/1178995155898.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

        this historical article is actually instructive, in what Telstra at the time thought reasonable wholesale rates would look like for its FTTN(!) pitch (and as an aside points out what was subsequently proven correct about leapfrogging FTTN – just it wasnt Howard that wound up doing it).

        OT, personally i think its also instructive as to the euro regions suggested per premises capital cost: $1200 to $1500 to connect. the rate of payback looks right too, considering a much longer payback period and being operated by a GBE outfit not servicing shareholder expectations, allowing for a lower rate of return. theres the fact that (Kohler! saw) Telstras ducts were where it was at, not the copper. it also clearly points out that as far back as 2007 FTTN was identified as a transitional tech. even back then a lot of what people have argued and NBNco have subsequently done, was considered as reasonable for what one was getting.

        all that considered, and Telstras history, their whinging about the (quite reasonable as it turns out!) wholesale terms and ‘distortion in investments’ is irony that is almost tangible. you probably dont agree, but i find Renais call totally valid. especially the cry me and effing river line :D

      • alain
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:11 am | Permalink |

        @The Wookie

        Valid points but wasted here, Telstra bashing is a popular pastime perfected in Whirlpool over many years, much of it is justified, much of it no fact ranting introducing all sorts left of field conspiracies, but meanwhile in the real world Telstra just keep adding to their already substantial fixed line BB and wireless customer base every week.

        I expect Telstra will manage to keep all of that customer base intact on the NBN if not increase it with big incentives as a package in the boom product Telstra wireless.

        The ‘cry me a river’ line makes me laugh, they only ones crying will be the NBN Co if they cannot get regions shut down fast and Telstra customers forced migrated onto the NBN, without 45% of the fixed line BB market the NBN without Telstra customers is all dressed up with nowhere to go, anything that goes before that is just a pilot.

        • GongGav
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink |

          Lucky there is an agreement in place with Telstra to migrate their customers then, isnt it?

          Unlike some here alain, I think you have a fair point on this. NBN numbers DO need Telstra customers coming onboard for it to work.

          And the powers that be obviously thought the same when they covered the situation. 18 month delay from build to decommissioning, then Telstra no longer needs to worry about the copper in that area.

          Forced or not is the individuals opinion. But Telstra signed the agreement willingly, so have agreed to migrate their client base as the various regions become fully NBNified. Its going to happen.

          I cant see why that creates so much debate to be honest, its all hard coded in a contract. I’d think people would get more caught up in WHEN entire regions get migrated.

          Exchanges will start being turned off soon. Have all MDU’s in the region been wired up? They seem to be the biggest hurdle so far, so how long will it be until an exchange is turned off in inner city areas with hundreds of MDU’s needing to be sorted? 2 years? 5? 10?

          If they havent been wired up and the copper lines are turned off, they have no services. With no options. Thats probably a bigger seller with your fears than anything else.

          • alain
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink |

            ‘Exchanges will start being turned off soon.

            Well ‘soon’ is September this year, perhaps that’s why Gillard picked September 14th as election day, if the first migration goes tits up it doesn’t matter.

            :)

            • GongGav
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink |

              Hehe. I dont think even you really believe that an election was called for such a reason :)

              Hopefully its not an issue, but if MDU’s are slow to be wired up it will push back the decommissioning of exchanges.

              If LNP wins as expected, most exchanges will stay opened anyway as part of their ‘vision’ to use multiple technologies. Meaning copper lines still play a role, and hence needing the exchanges regardless.

              • alain
                Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:47 pm | Permalink |

                Hey you cannot use ‘vision’ that’s Labor copyrighted.

                :)

    33. Michael Duraj
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 10:11 pm | Permalink |

      Pure Gold

    34. Posted 30/01/2013 at 10:13 pm | Permalink |

      Thank you for bringing that to our attention Rinai. I laugh too!
      But I also fear the new monopolist……

    35. Markie
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink |

      Bull’s eye Renai. We’re one of those regional exchanges where my ISP has been shut out by Telstra…

      Yes you can have ADSL2+, but only from any of the ISPs that Telstra wholesale to.

      How the hell have they got away with it for so long defeats me…

    36. John Lindsay
      Posted 30/01/2013 at 10:47 pm | Permalink |

      Just because Telstra argues it doesn’t make it false.

      Think about what $20 per megabit at the CVC layer _really_ means.

      That’s ~$22 inc gst impact per 120 gigabytes of download per month.

      (1 megabit ~= 330 gigabytes per month)

      jsl

      • Cameron
        Posted 30/01/2013 at 11:36 pm | Permalink |

        ALways interested in what you have to say John, so glad to read your comment.

        Can I ask how that compares to the equivalent costs under current wholesale agreements with Telstra in metro exchanges vs regional exchanges?

        While I accpet that the CVC pricing seems to be an issue it does appear to be something that could improve over time. I really wish the LNP would embrace a next generation NBN and focus on some of these issues.

        How would you solve it? Percentile billing? Keep NBNco public, remove the need for 7% return and rework cost tables? Something else?

        • John Lindsay
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:07 am | Permalink |

          The problem is the wholesale comparison just isn’t relevant.

          The incremental cost to deliver more packets from the capital city data centres to around 85% of Australia for ISPs that own there own backhaul fibre is approximately zero. Yes, every ten gigabits you need another wavelength which breaks the bank at less than $3K per wave for equipment.

          Of course the 7% ROI cap will force the CVC charge down but in the mean time it will, perversely, slow the growth in Internet traffic in Australia. I can’t imagine that will be good for the economy but I’m just a technical guy.

          jsl

          • Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:55 am | Permalink |

            The problem is the wholesale comparison just isn’t relevant.

            Why? The only ISP that has significant own backhaul is Telstra. So they are the only ISP where your argument applies. All other ISPs have to pay for Telstra backhaul, which according to the submissions made by TPG and others, is almost thrice the price of what NBNCo proposes per Mbit.

            Remember that smaller ISPs wanted a smaller number of PoIs because their backhaul network was not that extensive and they would have to spend significant money in order to provide services to all PoIs, reducing both the economies of scale and either CAPEX if the lay their own fibre or OPEX if they rent it off another provider.

            • Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:58 am | Permalink |

              That should be “both reducing economics of scale and increasing CAPEX or OPEX” sorry.

            • gdriss
              Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:45 am | Permalink |

              This above post along with this one:

              http://delimiter.com.au/2013/01/30/the-irony-it-burns-telstras-nbn-price-complaints/#comment-571097

              is so emblematic of this tech blog…

              people writing about stuff they are completely clueless about and so totally off the mark

              85% of Australians live in areas with access to competitive backhaul!!! Telcos like Optus, TPG and AAPT own loads of backhaul to Telstra exchanges and were against NBN Co stranding their extensive backhaul networks with limited POIs.

              Also, Telstra’s (AGVC) Mbit charge has historically fallen at least as fast as packet volumes have increased. This means Telstra’s overall take is not rising. Contrast this to NBN Co which plans to lower their CVC charge at a much slower rate than data volumes are rising so they can generate higher revenue per user over time.

              The difference could not be starker.

              • Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:18 am | Permalink |

                85% of Australians live in areas with access to competitive backhaul!!! Telcos like Optus, TPG and AAPT own loads of backhaul to Telstra exchanges and were against NBN Co stranding their extensive backhaul networks with limited POIs.

                The fact remains, if you had read my post instead of just repeating verbatim the OP in this post, is that with the exception of Telstra providers STILL buy of Telstra for areas, even those who have extensive backhaul like TPG, and Telstra backhaul charges are thrice that of what NBNCo are proposing (as at January last year).

                And the results of the high PoI number are already evident with providers like iiNet consolidating market share because smaller players are unable to compete due to their lack of backhaul.

                The ACCC made concessions for Telstra, Optus, AAPT and TPG (Pipe) because they have these networks, but they are not the only providers on the block. So the high barrier to entry problem I mentioned still applies.

                So I ask again : why is comparing the AGVC pricing to CVC inappropriate?

                You made the point that you think CVC prices are going to lower slower than the AGVC prices in order to try and increase ARPU, but you ignore the fact that they are starting much lower (approx a thrid) of AGVC prices.

                The only reason NBNCo wants to increase ARPU is to pay off the cost of the infrastructure, but you seem to forget that prime mandate of NBNCo, which is to provide Broadband to everyone. If CVC becomes a significant hurdle for service delivery for RSP they have the right, as NBNCo a monopoly provider that has been declared, to contest the pricing. As Alain attempted to point out above that no one had done for Telstra (which I contested based upon the fact that they instead contested WDSL pricing that involves backhaul).

                So maybe if you had taken the time to read instead of assuming and calling me clueless you might have actually provided an adequate answer to my question?

                • gdriss
                  Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:00 am | Permalink |

                  is that with the exception of Telstra providers STILL buy of Telstra for areas, even those who have extensive backhaul like TPG, and Telstra backhaul charges are thrice that of what NBNCo are proposing (as at January last year).

                  On the whole, ISPs do not separately buy backhaul from Telstra. If they do not own backhaul to Telstra ESAs they wish to serve or cannot lease competitive third-party backhaul, they just opt for the TW aggregated product which bundles Telstra DSLAM and backhaul. They do not install their own DSLAM and then separately lease backhaul from Telstra. That’s the whole point of TPG’s submission.

                  The fact that Telstra’s theoretical quoted backhaul charges for certain ESAs are “thrice that of NBN Co” is irrelevant because those charges are de facto not operative. TW sets these prices to encourage RSPs to use their cheaper aggregated wholesale product instead. This is normal business practice. Try approaching Apple and offer to purchase their MacBook Pro for 75% discount off RRP minus certain commodity components that you plan to separately purchase and install yourself such as SSD/HDD, graphics chip, (non-soldered) mobile CPU, etc. No business likes to have their product sliced and diced.

                  More importantly, you can’t compare theoretical backhaul charges for some isolated regional ESA which is costly to serve and maintain with NBN Co’s singular CVC charge which obviously is an average of the cost of serving mostly cheaper metro cities with a smattering of regional areas thrown in. Apples and oranges.

                  You made the point that you think CVC prices are going to lower slower than the AGVC prices in order to try and increase ARPU

                  That’s not what I think — that’s what the NBN Co corporate plan says.

                  but you ignore the fact that they are starting much lower (approx a thrid) of AGVC prices.

                  You ignore the fact that 85% of the population can be served by paying TW a flat rate ULL charge and bypassing AGVC charges altogether.

                  The only reason NBNCo wants to increase ARPU is to pay off the cost of the infrastructure, but you seem to forget that prime mandate of NBNCo, which is to provide Broadband to everyone.

                  The prime mandate of NBN Co is to execute the RuddConroy’s broadband policy vision.

                  If CVC becomes a significant hurdle for service delivery for RSP they have the right, as NBNCo a monopoly provider that has been declared, to contest the pricing.

                  Good luck with that. It’s easy for the ACCC to shaft Telstra post-privatisation and push telco prices lower because the federal government had already ripped out tens of billions of dollars from the entity via share sales and pre-float dividend gouging. The government is the sole shareholder of NBN Co now and will not shoot itself in the foot. Instead, during tough times, the political temptation (Labor or Liberal) will be to extract as much dividends and profits from the GBE as possible to make up for any fiscal revenue shortfall which is historical practical with many GBEs in Australian political history.

                  • Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:36 am | Permalink |

                    The fact that Telstra’s theoretical quoted backhaul charges for certain ESAs are “thrice that of NBN Co” is irrelevant because those charges are de facto not operative. TW sets these prices to encourage RSPs to use their cheaper aggregated wholesale product instead.

                    And yet the ACCC saw fit to declare WDSL and AGVC prices in response to the submissions by TPG and others. Further the idea that Telstra is trying to “force” customers into using WDSL goes against the whole spirit of ULL. The point was to encourage competition wasn’t it?

                    You ignore the fact that 85% of the population can be served by paying TW a flat rate ULL charge and bypassing AGVC charges altogether.

                    What so it’s okay for Telstra to screw the minority over because the majority get an “okay” deal? I seem to recall that neither the Opposition or the Government were happy, and they both had some policy ideas to deal with it, but couldn’t agree on specifics, any idea what that was?

                    More importantly, you can’t compare theoretical backhaul charges for some isolated regional ESA which is costly to serve and maintain with NBN Co’s singular CVC charge which obviously is an average of the cost of serving mostly cheaper metro cities with a smattering of regional areas thrown in. Apples and oranges.

                    Do the words “cross subsidation” mean anything to you? Now this means of course that you expect Telstra regional backhaul to be expensive, but you also have to consider the following: the majority of Telstra’s assets in their CAN network are already sunk costs.

                    Also remember that before competitive backhaul, that is UUL, all providers had to resale Telstra WDSL and AGVC. So historically they serve exactly the same function.

                    The prime mandate of NBN Co is to execute the RuddConroy’s broadband policy vision.

                    Which is to do what exactly? That’s right, provide affordable Broadband to everyone.

                    Good luck with that. It’s easy for the ACCC to shaft Telstra post-privatisation and push telco prices lower because the federal government had already ripped out tens of billions of dollars from the entity via share sales and pre-float dividend gouging. The government is the sole shareholder of NBN Co now and will not shoot itself in the foot. Instead, during tough times, the political temptation (Labor or Liberal) will be to extract as much dividends and profits from the GBE as possible to make up for any fiscal revenue shortfall which is historical practical with many GBEs in Australian political history.

                    Oh so screw the Special Access Undertaking, make us more money! If it’s practical within the realms of the SAU I’m sure they’ll try and extract more dividends, but the SAU outlines the commitments of NBNCo, and will and does say something about affordable Broadband pricing.

                    • alain
                      Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:46 am | Permalink |

                      Is the same SAU where the NBN Co tried to stop Telstra marketing wireless BB as a alternative to the NBN and it was knocked on the head by the ACCC or another one?

                      • Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:56 am | Permalink |

                        So its okay for Telstra to engage in anti competitive pricing and have the ACCC step in and mediate the situation but it’s not okay for NBNCo to try and put an advertising clause into a commercial agreement and have the ACCC step in and mediate the situation?

                        Hmm, double standard much. Also it kind of demonstrates my point nicely, ACCC still have power over NBNCo even through NBNCo is a GBE.

                      • alain
                        Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:16 am | Permalink |

                        I didn’t say it was ok for Telstra to engage in anti-competitive pricing.

                      • NBNAccuracy
                        Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:24 am | Permalink |

                        Do you admit that they have though?

                      • Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:28 am | Permalink |

                        In those exact words no, you would never! But you call foul when Renai accuses them of that… in fact you saw fit to write a several hundred word reply “taking issue” with Renai badmouthing Telstra for allegedly anti competitive practices when you spend half your time here arguing that NBNCo are engaging in anti competitive practices.

                        You really need to hold these two companies too the same standard.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:45 am | Permalink |

                        So you think it’s fair for Telstra to accept a fee for customer migration to the NBN but actually say… psst, we’ll now do you a spiffing wireless deal instead?

                        That’s simply what the clasue was trying to eliminate.

                      • alain
                        Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:39 pm | Permalink |

                        @NBNAccuracy

                        ‘Do you admit that they have though?’

                        Yes they have although I think it was just someone in Bigpond getting all excited with meeting sales targets instead of passing it through legal first.

                        They were rightly fined, but Telstra is not the only Telco brought to task by the ACCC over the years, but seeing as we want to myopically focus on a Telstra bash let’s not let these sort of distractions get in the way.

                        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-07/optus-fined-5-million-for-misleading-ads/2786078

                        http://www.zdnet.com/accc-fines-tpg-13k-for-misleading-ads-1339336698/

                        http://www.itnews.com.au/News/319326,greenfields-fibre-operator-fined-for-slow-broadband.aspx

                        http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/372511/dodo_pays_fines_unlimited_ads/

                      • alain
                        Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:40 pm | Permalink |

                        @NightKhaos

                        ‘ But you call foul when Renai accuses them of that… in fact you saw fit to write a several hundred word reply “taking issue” with Renai badmouthing Telstra for allegedly anti competitive practices’

                        Yes and I explained my reasons point by point with links where necessary.

                        ‘ when you spend half your time here arguing that NBNCo are engaging in anti competitive practices.’

                        The call on anti-competitive practices whether it be Telstra or anyone else is under the legislative jurisdiction of the ACCC, I don’t disagree with any of the ACCC’s findings whether it be Telstra selling BB retail less than wholesale BB or the NBN Co decision on the Telstra wireless advertising restriction.

                        The ACCC have access to more company information than you or I have access to make a more considered judgement than simply the throwaway cheap one liners like ‘Telstra suks’ ‘eat crap’ ‘sight of Telstra shitting itself’ and ‘fascist Telstra’ which forms the basis of a lot of anti-Telstra comment both here and in Whirlpool.

                      • Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:54 pm | Permalink |

                        If you abide by the decisions of the ACCC why do you keep complaining about the commercial agreement, that was signed off by the ACCC, to migrate customers from Telstra’s CAN to NBNCo’s FAN? Why do you continually suggest that the lack of infrastructure competition with Telstra’s HFC network is anti competitive when again this aspect of the commercial agreement was signed off by the ACCC.

                      • alain
                        Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:50 pm | Permalink |

                        Well not everyone is comfortable with the ACCC decision.

                        ‘But let’s not pretend it’s perfect. The winding back of infrastructure-based competition and the huge billion-dollar subsidies being paid to Telstra and Optus as part of the NBN project are extremely concerning to anyone such as myself who believes that markets are the best way of efficiently delivering services to consumers. The ACCC’s absurdly contradictory statement this morning on Optus’ $800 million NBN deal is an indication that the regulator may have overlooked that fact.’

                        http://delimiter.com.au/2012/05/28/the-accc-is-falling-too-far-in-love-with-the-nbn/

                      • Posted 31/01/2013 at 4:10 pm | Permalink |

                        Yes, this is true, even I felt the deals were a little misguided, but the point is, they’re signed, ACCC approved, and done. Renai, myself, and others have accepted this fact and moved onto arguing other points of the policy. You, on the other hand, have not.

                        As we have tried to tell you time and time again, and as Renai has even pointed this in the very article you just linked:

                        I can guarantee you that as the NBN rolls out fibre throughout Australia over the next decade, almost all of Optus’ HFC cable customers would eventually terminate their HFC connection and switch to the NBN organically. Why? Because the technology is incredibly superior, to start with, but also because they will have dozens of rival companies offering them great deals to do so.

                        So it comes down to why? You have asked this many times, so many I have lost count, and we have attempted to give you an answer, explaining about “preventing the slow and painful death” and “increasing the viability of the NBN with immediate migration” and “allowing Telstra and Optus to gracefully exit” and you are not satisfied.

                        Not only that, but do you truly not understand how an Open Access Network (and yes, that is what the NBN is, if you believe it to be or not) is beneficial in last mile Residential Telecommunications? You don’t strike me as stupid. So why are you so hung up on these two issues? So hung up that you have to bring them up almost every time the letters N, B and N are mentioned in an article here on Delimiter.

                    • gdriss
                      Posted 31/01/2013 at 12:15 pm | Permalink |

                      And yet the ACCC saw fit to declare WDSL and AGVC prices in response to the submissions by TPG and others.

                      Yes, by regulating WDSL pricing, the ACCC is indirectly regulating backhaul. And, guess what? — the final determination from the ACCC for WDSL was not far off from Telstra’s prevailing charges.

                      Do the words “cross subsidation” mean anything to you?

                      Under NBN Co uniform wholesale pricing there is cross subsidisation. But where is cross-subsidisation for copper when you can access dirt cheap ULL in metros areas which is below Telstra’s average network costs for the country as a whole?

                      Now this means of course that you expect Telstra regional backhaul to be expensive, but you also have to consider the following: the majority of Telstra’s assets in their CAN network are already sunk costs.

                      Yea, so you can go buy an established house in Sydney, pay a million dollars… you didn’t build the house yourself, it was built by the previous owner who “privatised” it into your hands… so the house was “gifted” to you.. it does not cost you anything… the costs are sunk by the previous owner who actually built it, not you… will you rent the house to me for free (or close to free) and earn zero on your million dollar purchase???? please let me know in advance so i can make preparations to move in. i’ll get rich living rent-free and lease myself a private jet plane with my savings instead.

                      The prime mandate of NBN Co is to execute the RuddConroy’s broadband policy vision.
                      Which is to do what exactly? That’s right, provide affordable Broadband to everyone.

                      Really? The best way to provide affordable broadband to everyone is to go for the gold-plated FTTH option? Wow… 2013 must be the United Nations Celebratory Year of the Net Comedian.

                      If it’s practical within the realms of the SAU I’m sure they’ll try and extract more dividends

                      Exactly what ISPs including Telstra are afraid of.

                      but the SAU outlines the commitments of NBNCo, and will and does say something about affordable Broadband pricing.

                      Nope, the SAU says ZILCH NADA about “affordable broadband pricing”. All the SAU is about is allowing NBN Co to fully recover “prudently incurred costs of building FTTH”. So if it ends up costing $1 trillion, they can forcibly recover $1 trillion wholesale revenue from subscribers by whatever pricing mechanism, all within the bounds of the SAU.

                      Why do you think ISPs like Telstra are concerned?

                      • Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:12 pm | Permalink |

                        Yes, by regulating WDSL pricing, the ACCC is indirectly regulating backhaul. And, guess what? — the final determination from the ACCC for WDSL was not far off from Telstra’s prevailing charges.

                        So bloody what, if there wasn’t pressure from other ISP and the threat from the ACCC for you really think TW would have bothered moving their prices? The fact is there was a time lag between Telstra Retail price changes and the corresponding changes in TW which prompted the whole discussion in the first place.

                        Under NBN Co uniform wholesale pricing there is cross subsidisation. But where is cross-subsidisation for copper when you can access dirt cheap ULL in metros areas which is below Telstra’s average network costs for the country as a whole?

                        You said it yourself, in metro areas providers don’t use Telstra backhaul. The ULL cost is designed purely to pay for the copper lead in maintenance and deployment in the case of ULL. The fact is Telstra still managed to make considerable profit after ULL was introduced.

                        Yea, so you can go buy an established house in Sydney, pay a million dollars… you didn’t build the house yourself, it was built by the previous owner who “privatised” it into your hands… so the house was “gifted” to you.. it does not cost you anything… the costs are sunk by the previous owner who actually built it, not you… will you rent the house to me for free (or close to free) and earn zero on your million dollar purchase???? please let me know in advance so i can make preparations to move in. i’ll get rich living rent-free and lease myself a private jet plane with my savings instead.

                        That’s a slippery slope argument if I ever heard one. I never suggested, and nor did anyone else, that other providers should get a “free lunch” out of Telstra. However you have to consider things like depreciation or debt. A sunk cost project, where debt is paid off, means you can better respond to changes in market . NBNCo, by your own admission, will be slower to react because it has a few billion in debt.

                        Did you know that TranzRail in New Zealand failed in maintaining their rail network that when they finally went to sell the network it was considered worth less than scrap? So much so that the government decided to buy it for only $1. According to you however TranzRail should still be trying to flog the network off for a couple of billion, despite the fact it’s value depreciated over time.

                        Really? The best way to provide affordable broadband to everyone is to go for the gold-plated FTTH option? Wow… 2013 must be the United Nations Celebratory Year of the Net Comedian.

                        Are you a telecommunications engineer? Are you aware of the limitations of the various technologies that can be deployed to provide Layer 3 services? Do you know the relative costs, the advantages and disadvantages of the technologies? Do you know what upgrade paths are available, what areas of R&D are having breakthroughs?

                        No. You aren’t and you don’t. You want to know why I know this? Because if you are you wouldn’t ask such a stupid question. Fibre the the Premises provides the best upgrade path and economies of scale for new network deployments.

                        If Telstra were doing the upgrade they would no doubt opt for a Hybrid Fibre Twisted Pair in a FTTC configuration in order to extract value from their copper asset and reduce the initial capital outlay. What BT and Chorus did for a bit (both have switched to FTTP).

                        If a private company were doing it they would probably opt for a smaller footprint and do a staggered rollout in order to reduce the debt, focusing only on Greenfields or areas of high demand.

                        But the fact the government is doing it opens up other options. The return can be reduced. The technology will all be tried and tested. They can even, if they want (and something I have suggested for a while) sink a subsidy into the project to reduce the debt.

                        Exactly what ISPs including Telstra are afraid of.
                        but the SAU outlines the commitments of NBNCo, and will and does say something about affordable Broadband pricing.
                        Nope, the SAU says ZILCH NADA about “affordable broadband pricing”. All the SAU is about is allowing NBN Co to fully recover “prudently incurred costs of building FTTH”. So if it ends up costing $1 trillion, they can forcibly recover $1 trillion wholesale revenue from subscribers by whatever pricing mechanism, all within the bounds of the SAU.

                        The SAU provides a maximum amount to which prices can be raised and a prediction on movement. So there is actually only a small amount of wriggle room here, not $1 trillion as you suggest.

                        Why do you think ISPs like Telstra are concerned?
                        I never said they didn’t have a right to be concerned. Are you engaging in Strawman now. I was saying that the pricing situation we are seeing here is akin to what other ISPs had to deal with the Telstra.

                      • gdriss
                        Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink |

                        Mr KnightChaos,

                        Thank you for your lively discussion (although I find your dissembling a bit off-putting at times). Let’s end the debate here. You’ve had your say, and so have I.

                        May I wish you a happy Yom Kippur in advance!

                        (Friendly reminder: it’s the 31st of January today, so that means you have 7.5 months left to atone for your sins and repent before the Verdict. God is always Forgiving.)

                        Have a good day.

          • ferretzor
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:00 am | Permalink |

            What of the 15% outside the cities? If what you are saying about the “next to nothing” cost of increasing bandwidth on major trunks is true, won’t Australia still be better off overall?

            I can see that the top few % of bandwidth users in Aus (datacentres I would guess) may be affected by a lower rate of drop off in cost per MB. I just wonder how relevant that really is and how much of a difference there actually would be. Quite frankly, the cost of Queenslanders living in Queensland is looking to be orders of magnitude more of an issue to the economy than a slightly slower rate of bandwidth growth. But I am surely no economist so probably completely misunderstand this.

            I also thoroughly admit that I am biased toward farmer brown in whoop whoop getting to make a video call to the RFDS rather than break out the HF radio, so my perspective on a less than perfect rate of CVC cost dropoff is probably equally biased.

        • Abel Adamski
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:02 am | Permalink |

          Tag

    37. Sean
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:33 am | Permalink |

      “es. This is that same Telstra. Well, cry me a fucking river, Telstra.” lol

      • gdriss
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 7:56 am | Permalink |

        Why would Telstra “cry”? Businesses don’t “cry”… they adapt.

        They would either raise retail prices to absorb the higher wholesale costs or maintain prices but dramatically cut internet quotas to preserve margins.

        And other ISPs which operate on razor-thin margins will be doing exactly the same thing (if they survive). Any significant squeeze on Telstra’s fatter margins on their premium Bigpong plans translates into a death sentence for smaller ISPs with their discount products.

    38. Chunk
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 8:32 am | Permalink |

      LOL look at the telstra apologists scrambling quickly with their excuses, are you seriously that deluced that people are going to go aww poor Telstra they have been hard done by?.

      My sypathy goes to all the sacked Australian workers that has been replaced by overseas workers.
      Telstra trying to improve customer services what a bloody joke.

      Bring on the NBN and to the anti NBN clan go to someone who has really rubbish or cannot get any internet services.

      If you just care about your precious Telstra shares and nothing else I really hope you go and choke on it.

    39. Sydney Lawrence
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:18 am | Permalink |

      Chunk you really do show your ignorance in your referral to Telstra shareholders. Every Australian, Man, Woman and Child has a financial interest in the wellbeing of Telstra. Via the 30,000 Australians employeed by Telstra, every Australian who has Superannuation would be a Telstra shareholder and would not appreciate your uncaring comments. The Future Fund owned by all Australian has a holding in Telstra and it is in the interests of all for a prosperous Telstra. Also, the one million two hundred thousand Australian Mums and Dads who own Telstra directly are not being considered by you selfish attitude. I do know that there are many devious reasons for the hate some have for Telstra, probably fear of having to compete and the hope that by the constant diabolical barrage some advantage will be gained.

      • Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:35 am | Permalink |

        “Every Australian, Man, Woman and Child has a financial interest in the wellbeing of Telstra.”

        Riiiiiight. Hyperbole much?

      • Chunk
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:45 am | Permalink |

        Why would my children be interested in the “wellbeing” of Telstra? I am more interested in them having a better future and not having fascist Telstra stepping in their way.

        • Chunk
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:52 am | Permalink |

          Ok fascist wasn’t the correct term but people are seeing the true colours of Telstra. We are still lagging behind the rest of the world and paying extraordinarily amounts of money for it,

          Its a friggen joke and not even a funny one at that.

          Our telecommunications and internet is inadequate thanks Telstra thanks a real bunch making us look right morons.

          • alain
            Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:45 pm | Permalink |

            I thought our communications problems were due to failed FTTN proposals by the G9 consortium also, failed Government schemes like OPEL which was doomed before the name was even thought up, change of mind election Communications Policy post election and failed RFP’s.

            But hey let’s blame Telstra, you can’t lose ‘cos everyone hates Telstra.

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:07 pm | Permalink |

        … you forgot about your 70 000 (as written in your personal interview on Telstra’s NWAT many moons ago) shares :/

      • tinman_au
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 1:37 pm | Permalink |

        You do know the Future Fund is the super fund for politicians and the CPS don’t you? It’s not actually a “magic pudding” for all Australians.

        Yes, can’t have our pollies doing it tough now, can we :/

      • Mathew
        Posted 02/02/2013 at 5:04 pm | Permalink |

        > Every Australian, Man, Woman and Child has a financial interest in the wellbeing of Telstra. Via the 30,000 Australians employeed by Telstra, every Australian who has Superannuation would be a Telstra shareholder and would not appreciate your uncaring comments.

        I would suggest that everyone has a financial interest in seeing the monopoly profits that Telstra extracts being slashed. The profit that Telstra makes comes out of the pockets of each of us and adds to the cost of both family and business budgets. It is doubtful that all but the larger shareholders would actually receive back more in dividends than Telstra would extract from them in unjustifiably high telecommunications charges.

        Do you have the same attitude to kind attitude to paying taxes?

        Don’t worry in 10 years you’ll be able to buy NBNCo shares and watch them extract the same profits. The financial plan has been creatively structured so there is a disconnect between the actual costs and charges.

      • Gadien
        Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:20 am | Permalink |

        I’ll have what she’s having.. Shares in Telstra? Come have a look at the telstra crew, Customer service operatives based in off shore countries, die hard telstra fanatics such as yourself and the Jones’s next door.

        You said every Man Woman and Child. That’s the understatement of the century.

    40. John
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink |

      Ridiculous hypocrisy from Telstra…but that being said, as a consumer it doesn’t matter whether the price gouging gets paid out to Telstra or to NBN Co. what matters is how much I’m paying for my services. In that sense, I would rather that Telstra didn’t get screwed over by NBN Co. because this would mean we’re all paying excessive amounts since the wholesale rates are charged to all resellers

    41. ferretzor
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 10:36 am | Permalink |

      I have no problem with Telstra making these claims – of course it’s in their interest as a company to do so. I have no problem with those who know more than me about backhaul dipping their oar in – informed debate is good for all.

      But excuse me for holding my sides and roaring with laughter at the sight of Telstra shitting itself that it is going to have to compete on merits. Hi-larious.

    42. Brendan
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink |

      Ultimately, Telstra is free to argue pricing; indeed a submission can be provided to the ACCC to outline the concerns. If the complaint has merit, the ACCC will investigate.

      This is exactly the same situation as ISPs whom have previously argued regarding Telstra Wholesale pricing.

      That it’s Telstra complaining of apparent unrealistic pricing is somewhat hilarious, given the context of this complaint (South Brisbane, Bass Strait.. etc) but they’re entitled to do so.

      This isn’t a damning indictment of the NBN; or NBNco. Telstra has to compete, like everyone else. Which is the point.

      Does their concern have merit? Possibly. The funnest part of this is watching Telstra Shareholders freak out because their investment has to actually “compete” without the usual leverage it has enjoyed.

      • alain
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink |

        ‘Does their concern have merit? Possibly. The funnest part of this is watching Telstra Shareholders freak out because their investment has to actually “compete” without the usual leverage it has enjoyed.’

        I don’t think the shareholders are ‘freaking out’ watching the Telstra share price hit 4 year highs and the healthy dividends they get , also they would not have overwhelming approved the NBN Co agreement in the first place.

        They don’t mind the $11 billion Government payout being pumped into NextG wireless infrastructure, especially when it increases the boom product LTE’s footprint.

        Wireless data ARPU leaves fixed BB ARPU for dead.

        • GongGav
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:44 pm | Permalink |

          “Wireless data ARPU leaves fixed BB ARPU for dead.” — yes, it does. Any comments on why that is so? To follow on, any comments on how wireless data ARPU being higher can be good for the consumer?

        • Gadien
          Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:36 am | Permalink |

          Simply put: Telstra has the best speed and biggest gun in Australia. Of course with a little help from the steady influx of citizen’s flooding into our country all wanting the best thing out there, Telstra hold’s King of Queens in the tele communications scuffle, gloating is what their good at ;)

    43. Ed
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:35 pm | Permalink |

      Best. Article. Ever.

      Seriously Telstra, we love watching you have to eat the crap you’ve been dishing out to Australian consumers for over 10 years. I can’t wait for the day that Telstra no longer gets a a *CENT* of my money.

      • gdriss
        Posted 31/01/2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink |

        errr….. since NBN Co is paying Telstra a lump sum for every TW customer switched off from the copper network and recouping it via wholesale fibre charges which are then passed on to you from your NBN RSP…

        that means some portion of your monthly payments in the new NBN era will still be going towards “paying Telstra”, albeit indirectly, via NBN Co’s “don’t compete with us, we wouldn’t survive”/Telstra bribe…

        :-)

        • NBNAlex
          Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:06 pm | Permalink |

          gdriss… you started off rationally but soon descended to the typical nay-saying nonsense.

          What a shame :(

      • Gadien
        Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:38 am | Permalink |

        Hi Five on that note bro ;)

    44. Shaun
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 2:07 pm | Permalink |

      Hear hear!
      Telstra finally getting a taste of their own medicine!

    45. alain
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 3:03 pm | Permalink |

      @NBNAlex

      ‘So you think it’s fair for Telstra to accept a fee for customer migration to the NBN but actually say… psst, we’ll now do you a spiffing wireless deal instead?’

      You need to read the agreement, especially clause 4.2.2.5 Payments for Disconnection and Access to Infrastructure.

      Wireless substitution is specifically mentioned as a reason when Telstra will NOT be paid, the premises have to be connected to the NBN network.

      ‘That’s simply what the clasue was trying to eliminate’

      You need to read clause 4.2.2.3 Wireless Promotion.

      Telstra has agreed not to promote wireless services as substitute for fibre based services for a 20 year period from the commencement of the NBN Co Agreements.

      I repeat in case you blinked at the wrong moment , 20 YEARS!

      Jeez I wonder why the ACCC knocked it on the head?

      • Gadien
        Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:44 am | Permalink |

        Probably because it’ll take them that long to upgrade their own networking infrastructure ;)

    46. NBNAlex
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 5:09 pm | Permalink |

      I’ll ask again… as you seem to have blinked and missed my last two dozen questions.

      “So you think it’s fair for Telstra to accept a fee for customer migration to the NBN but actually say… psst, we’ll now do you a spiffing wireless deal instead?’

      Hint: try either of these… yes/no

    47. Rob
      Posted 31/01/2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink |

      I loathe Telstra. They are a pack of c*nts.

    48. Sydney Lawrence
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 6:52 am | Permalink |

      Rob, keep taking the medication but also seek professional help.

      • Posted 01/02/2013 at 7:47 am | Permalink |

        Why? Because he doesn’t think the sun shines out of Telstra’s metaphorical ass?

        • chunk
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:14 pm | Permalink |

          LOL nice NightKhaos. :)

    49. Sydney Lawrence
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 8:45 am | Permalink |

      No. Because of his imbecilic rant and his possible mental instability.

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:08 am | Permalink |

        http://delimiter.com.au/comments-policy/

      • Posted 01/02/2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink |

        He said nine words. They may have been crude, but that is no “rant”. Your reply suggesting he needs psychiatric help for that is not only insulting, it shows immaturity. And frankly goes against the spirit of the comments policy. Maybe instead of questioning someone’s sanity you might consider asking them why they feel that way?

        Also learn to use the “Reply” function please. It’s there for a reason.

    50. Sydney Lawrence
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 10:07 am | Permalink |

      Hi NightKhaos respect your opinion and sorry if I offended anyone. My only desire was to be helpful.

    51. tinman_au
      Posted 01/02/2013 at 2:01 pm | Permalink |

      Don’t be too hard on Telstra, they’re just playing by the systems rules. The system it’s self is to blame…

    52. Sydney Lawrence
      Posted 02/02/2013 at 6:29 am | Permalink |

      With the collapse of the Labor Government in progress it may be opportune to discuss what will happen with the NBN under Abbott. Naturally Malcolm Turnbull will be engaging Telstra in discussion that may see Telstra attain control and responsibility for the NBN. This will relieve the Australian taxpayer of the monstrous cost of the proposed labor roll-out, see the end of a Government monopoly and return to market led progress.

      • Posted 02/02/2013 at 8:24 am | Permalink |

        Sydney:

        1) What makes you think Turnbull wants to, or is even able to with the regulatory changes, bring Telstra back into the a monopoly power position? Both parties have discussed the need of structural separation for the company.

        2) The NBN is underwritten by taxpayers, not funded. There will be no “relief” for taxpayers by halting the NBN, only a reduction in risk. If you have an investment property would you consider selling it relief when all indications are that the rental and property markets are going up? I’d personally consider that a bad investment decision.

        3) Considering what the NBN is doing, providing access to everyone in the country, it doesn’t actually cost that much. It’s actually a fairly cheap option. The only thing novel about it is private enterprise aren’t doing it. I assure you, any alternative proposal will cost a similar amount in terms of CAPEX, especially if you assume, as Turnbull has stated, that using a less expensive technology is merely an interim measure and would eventually need to be upgraded.

        4) Telstra were a monopoly too, there is nothing special about a “government” monopoly. In fact the NBN was designed to minimise the amount of regulation required by reducing the monopoly to the bare minimum by providing an OAN with very low level products.

        5) What does “market led” process every mean? Because whatever Telstra were, they weren’t that. The ULL prices had to be regulated. Competition only existed, and the same applies to the NBN, above the last mile infrastructure.

        6) I have been reading your posts for a while and they have a disturbing theme. You cannot tolerate anyone being critical of Telstra. In this article alone you have engaged in what Renai saw fit to call hyperbole when you tried to paint a picture of the essential nature of Telstra, you insulted someone who, crudely yes, expressed dislike of Telstra, and then there is this post that almost reads “Telstra will fix it, give it back to them.”

        Sydney, Telstra are a company. I could rip them out and replace them with another company run by different people but subjected to the same USO and regulations and they would probably turn out pretty similar. In fact to a certain extent that is exactly what the government are doing with the NBN.

        The entity that is TW could be rolling out FTTH for Australia under a government mandate and it would look pretty much the same as the NBN, only difference would be, TW not being a GBE, it would be government subsidised instead of government underwritten.

        They aren’t your best mate down at the pub, you don’t have to “defend their honour”.

        • Sydney Lawrence
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 8:39 am | Permalink |

          KnightKhaos you are magnificent…….but I am sure Malcolm Turnbull will work it all out.

          • Sydney Lawrence
            Posted 02/02/2013 at 8:42 am | Permalink |

            Please do not take my brevity for ignorance or criticism KnightKhoas it’s just that I have a flight to Thailand today and am running late. I really do appreciate your serious and considered response.

        • Mathew
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 10:33 am | Permalink |

          > 3) Considering what the NBN is doing, providing access to everyone in the country, it doesn’t actually cost that much. It’s actually a fairly cheap option.

          Goldman Sachs have published a report that suggests it would cost Google $140 billion to roll out 1Gbps fibre across the entire USA. That makes the NBN look over priced.

          > Sydney, Telstra are a company. I could rip them out and replace them with another company run by different people but subjected to the same USO and regulations and they would probably turn out pretty similar. In fact to a certain extent that is exactly what the government are doing with the NBN.

          This is the frightening part about NBNCo. Many people loath Telstra because of the monopoly rents they have extracted for decades and not rolling out new products because it would cannibalise existing markets (e.g. Frame Relay, ISDN, FoxTel, etc.). We are heading back to the days prior to independent ISPs installing DSLAMs where speed tiers existed on ADSL.

          • Cameron
            Posted 02/02/2013 at 10:42 am | Permalink |

            Matthew wrote:
            Goldman Sachs have published a report that suggests it would cost Google $140 billion to roll out 1Gbps fibre across the entire USA. That makes the NBN look over priced.

            Are you numerically dyslexic? NBN overpriced?

            The NBN is $100 Billion dollars cheaper, make sit look like a bargain.

          • Posted 02/02/2013 at 11:19 am | Permalink |

            Goldman Sachs have published a report that suggests it would cost Google $140 billion to roll out 1Gbps fibre across the entire USA. That makes the NBN look over priced.

            Consider the following:

            - the population density of Australia is much less. This means that although in cities NBN may cost about the same as Google Fibre, in reality the high cost to deploy in regional areas skews the cost.

            - NBNCo is doing this in one go, a much faster deployment rate than Google Fibre

            - Google has pre-existing dark fibre assets they can utilise to reduce costs

            Those are just a few things why looks are very much deceiving.

            This is the frightening part about NBNCo. Many people loath Telstra because of the monopoly rents they have extracted for decades and not rolling out new products because it would cannibalise existing markets (e.g. Frame Relay, ISDN, FoxTel, etc.). We are heading back to the days prior to independent ISPs installing DSLAMs where speed tiers existed on ADSL.

            See points 4 and 5 above.

            • Mathew
              Posted 02/02/2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink |

              Urbanisation in Australia is 89%, versus 82.4% in the USA
              Population in Australia is 22 million versus 315 million in the USA
              NBNCo roll out is $40 billion, versus Google Fibre is $140 billion
              NBNCo is a range of speeds with quotas, versus 1Gbps (no quota) for $70/month

              Does start to make you wonder why we don’t just ask Google to build it.

              • Posted 02/02/2013 at 5:31 pm | Permalink |

                I am aware of this however the fact is I see no reason, and neither should you, to believe that NBNCo is being dishonest in the cost of the network deployment CAPEX.

                We can only speculate as to why it costs so much here. I have listed above a few possible contributing factors, but without having a very deep analysis of both the Google Fibre deployment and NBNCo that is all we can do.

                Google Fibre could do it cheaper to Kansas City? Good for Google and Kansas City. I might move there.

              • Daniel Harvison
                Posted 03/02/2013 at 4:35 am | Permalink |

                This is hardly a new question, why is the networl rollout so expensive? The answer is, big country, sparse population, rugged terrain, etc, make the rollout to the 97% of people who are going to get FTTP damned expensive compared to say, the U.K or Denmark. If I were you, I’d be surprised that it wasn’t more expensive. And I think Google is already involved, or expressed interest in the NBN project. Not sure which. Intel is definitely involved in some way.

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 02/02/2013 at 9:42 am | Permalink |

        Interpretation: Go Tony, go my TLS shares…

        Not happy with the 80% increase since the NBN deal Sydney?

        As I have said all along. I have not corresponded with one (read ‘not one’) person in the NBN debate who has clearly demonstrated rational opposition to the NBN.

        They are either against it for their own selfishness or political ideology/subservience.

        • Mathew
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 10:16 am | Permalink |

          Conversely, I’ve not corresponded with one person who has actually read the NBNCo Corporate Plan, understands what NBNCo are planning and accepts their plan.

          Do you agree with NBNCo’s plan that 50% of premises passed by fibre will connect at 12/1Mbps?
          Do you agree with NBNCo’s plan that less than 5% of premises passed by fibre will connect at 1000/400Mbps in 2028?
          Do you agree with NBNCo’s plan to decrease prices at a significantly slower rate than growth?

          • Posted 02/02/2013 at 11:02 am | Permalink |

            Do you agree with NBNCo’s plan that 50% of premises passed by fibre will connect at 12/1Mbps?

            No I believe they are being too conservative in this estimate. I believe users will opt for higher plans.

            Do you agree with NBNCo’s plan that less than 5% of premises passed by fibre will connect at 1000/400Mbps in 2028?

            No I believe that they are being too conservative in their estimates. I believe that users will opt for higher plans.

            Do you agree with NBNCo’s plan to decrease prices at a significantly slower rate than growth?

            First off see my post below to explain why I feel you are over stating the significant of this and that your analysis is flawed.

            Secondly I feel that Internet access has undervalued as a commodity and as a result there has been under investment in the area. Slowing the rate of price decline is an important step in resorting this balance. If the government feels that maintaining low cost of access is more important than people paying the true value for access they are welcome to, as per my suggestion, provide subsides to NBNCo in order to allow the prices to fall.

            • Cameron
              Posted 02/02/2013 at 11:13 am | Permalink |

              If the government feels that maintaining low cost of access is more important than people paying the true value for access they are welcome to, as per my suggestion, provide subsides to NBNCo in order to allow the prices to fall.
              Or, as is my preference, to keep NBNco publicly owned and move to a cost recovery approach rather than 7% IRR.

              I suspect a cost recovery approach would see the $20 CVC reduce significantly if not be eliminated. Also it would make the upgrade to 10GPON straight forward at an appropriate time.

            • Mathew
              Posted 02/02/2013 at 3:54 pm | Permalink |

              > No I believe that they are being too conservative in their estimates. I believe that users will opt for higher plans.

              If you compare the AVC speed tier estimates from the 2010-2012 and 2012-2015 Corporate Plans what you see is that the 50% at 12/1Mbps remains basically unchanged, while there is a increase in 100Mbps services and the biggest reduction is in 25Mbps services.

              The revision NBNCo Corporate Plan emphasises more sharply the divide between the haves and have nots that will be entrenched by poor policy. There are interesting parallels between this and electricity market where everyone pays extra for additional infrastructure which is used to support massive aircons while the poor cannot afford to turn on their aircon because of price rises.

              • Posted 02/02/2013 at 5:20 pm | Permalink |

                If you compare the AVC speed tier estimates from the 2010-2012 and 2012-2015 Corporate Plans what you see is that the 50% at 12/1Mbps remains basically unchanged, while there is a increase in 100Mbps services and the biggest reduction is in 25Mbps services.

                These are estimates. I said I thought they were conservative. That statement still applies. In fact it applies to every estimate that NBNCo has made regarding take up of various speed tiers.

                The revision NBNCo Corporate Plan emphasises more sharply the divide between the haves and have nots that will be entrenched by poor policy. There are interesting parallels between this and electricity market where everyone pays extra for additional infrastructure which is used to support massive aircons while the poor cannot afford to turn on their aircon because of price rises.

                As stated above, I think you’re right that they are setting the “entry level” service too low, however that is actually a minor change that could easily be implemented tomorrow. Someone just needs to provide a compelling argument.

          • NBNAlex
            Posted 02/02/2013 at 11:35 am | Permalink |

            Hmmm Mathew,

            I think there are many here who would suggest you are absolutely wrong in your unfounded assumption…

            Because unlike some who will strangely hone in and repeat the details outlined on one or two pages only for two years and bluntly ignore the rest, we look at it in it’s entirety.

            • Mathew
              Posted 02/02/2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink |

              > I think there are many here who would suggest you are absolutely wrong in your unfounded assumption…

              Except that they are not my assumptions – they are NBNCo’s assumptions. I also note you have done absolutely nothing to refute the statements.

              > Because unlike some who will strangely hone in and repeat the details outlined on one or two pages only for two years and bluntly ignore the rest, we look at it in it’s entirety.

              I don’t ignore the rest of the document, and I have read both the current and old Corporate Plan in their entirety several times. Have you?

              Thankfully whatever happens on in the three year roll out and construction in the suburb next to me has already commenced. So while Malcolm is busily rolling out FTTN which will be faster than FTTP for 50% I’ll be okay. I’m not sure about you.

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 02/02/2013 at 4:48 pm | Permalink |

                No it’s your assumption, here…

                “Conversely, I’ve not corresponded with one person who has actually read the NBNCo Corporate Plan”.

                Yes I have read the Corp Plan (and I’m sure many others here would have too – my guess, Renai, M Wyres, NK, 7T, HC, NBNAccurracy and more) and whilst I didn’t study and procrastinate over every word, I again believe your fixation with one or two pages (especially the 12Mbps – 50%) which you cling to and have repeated at many forums daily, whilst ignoring what is actually occurring and ignoring the rest of the Corp Plan estimations is very odd to say the least.

                Especially when you have asked umpteen times and received the same response… these estimations we believe are conservative figures, which are already being surpassed.

                I didn’t reply to your points because NK beat me to it and succinctly put you in your place, as usual…

                As for your unfounded monopolist entrenched inequality… which part of “cheaper for like or same price for better makes the NBN more inequitable than what we have now or FttN for that matter?”

                • Mathew
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink |

                  > I again believe your fixation with one or two pages (especially the 12Mbps – 50%) which you cling to and have repeated at many forums daily, whilst ignoring what is actually occurring and ignoring the rest of the Corp Plan estimations is very odd to say the least.

                  These are the key points that show what the outcome of NBNCo will be.

                  > Especially when you have asked umpteen times and received the same response… these estimations we believe are conservative figures, which are already being surpassed.

                  Interesting … can you provide some independently verifiable examples of where NBNCo have exceeded their targets? The only examples, I’m aware of are shuffling some paperwork in December to ensure they have “started construction”, and higher than expected take-up of faster speeds in a couple of localities. However neither of these examples are independently verifiable and some how NBNCo have people taking up faster speeds than expected, but lower ARPU. I’d suggest that NBNCo are cherry picking the figures that they are releasing.

                  Of course, NBNCo are helped in that every 12 months they update the Corporate Plan and lower the targets yet they still struggle.

                  > As for your unfounded monopolist entrenched inequality… which part of “cheaper for like or same price for better makes the NBN more inequitable than what we have now or FttN for that matter?”

                  I didn’t say that the current situation is perfect. I flabbergasted that anyone could consider 12/1Mbps as not entrenching social disadvantage when 1000/400Mbps could be provided by changing a software setting. My only thought is that everybody here is planing to connect at 100/40Mbps and doesn’t give a toss about the others. Sadly this attitude will enable the Liberals to make statements like “FTTN / 4G will be faster than the speed that 50% will connect to the NBN at”. It misses the advantages of FTTP, but it is a catchy simple phrase and that is what elections are about.

                  Would you consider 56Kbps (modem speeds) adequate for Internet access today? For the same reason, I would suggest that 12/1Mbps is inadequate for the game changing services that NBNCo could provide. FTTN limitations (like ADSL today) will be limited by the technology, where as fibre is being limited by government policy.

                  • Posted 02/02/2013 at 11:00 pm | Permalink |

                    With all respect to NBNAlex, but you need to learn to shut up. What you are doing is engaging in black in white thinking, and it is actually making it very difficult for you have a reasoned debate with Mathew here.

                    If you had taken then time to read his posts you would see he is merely pointing out the flaws, as he sees them, with the NBN policy. Flaws that have merit.

                    Now, you are making an enemy of Mathew when you could make an ally of him. That being said, Mathew:

                    I didn’t say that the current situation is perfect. I flabbergasted that anyone could consider 12/1Mbps as not entrenching social disadvantage when 1000/400Mbps could be provided by changing a software setting. My only thought is that everybody here is planing to connect at 100/40Mbps and doesn’t give a toss about the others.

                    Unfortunately you’ll find this isn’t the attitude most NBN supporters seem to have. The statement you have just made bares remarkable resemblance to one I often see made by supporters of the NBN to people who do not agree with the project on anecdotal grounds.

                    In particular the conversation I am referring to stems from the following common phrase: “I can get HFC/ADSL2+ to my house already and that serves my needs just fine. Why should the government be building a replacement network?”

                    Can you see the parallel? The people I have seen around here at Delimiter are well aware of their social responsibly here, and throwing around accusations that they have a selfish motivation to get their 100Mbps connection is uncalled for.

                    Sadly this attitude will enable the Liberals to make statements like “FTTN / 4G will be faster than the speed that 50% will connect to the NBN at”. It misses the advantages of FTTP, but it is a catchy simple phrase and that is what elections are about.

                    No, what will allow the Liberals to do that is the same reason why NBNAlex is so passionately debating with you, black and white thinking. “The NBN is a bad policy because it doesn’t give better performance that 4G, we should go for the Liberal approach.” Because sadly, that is the extent of thought some people will put into this conversation. Although I have disagreed with you a lot, I do find your conversations refreshing because you, like I, have actually thought about the repercussions of the policy. Most debates I have here are centered around “NBN bad, Coalition Policy good”.

                    And when things are reduced to that logic constantly, it is very difficult to envision a world where the flaws of the NBN can be worked out will simultaneously allowing the project to continue.

                    • NBNAlex
                      Posted 03/02/2013 at 12:11 am | Permalink |

                      Why thank you for the enlightening advice NightKhaos… I’m sure your’s is the one and only opinion that really matters here. What was I thinking…

                      Seriously my friend, I too could be a prick and criticise your overly verbose and tediously epic comments, which always tend to fall into the TLDR category… But of course, I have a little more class and respect than to tell you to shut up, because I recognise everyone’s right to their opinion/say, and I especially would not be so disrespectful to someone who is basically looking for the same outcome as me.

                      So please don’t let me interrupt, I’m sure “you and you alone” have all the answers :)

                      • Posted 03/02/2013 at 1:50 am | Permalink |

                        Did you even read the explanation of why I saw fit to be critical of your comments to Mathew or did you stop short after I told you to shut up and decided to respond in kind?

                        From this response I really get the feeling you don’t. Seriously because it feels like your MO “This guy disagrees with me! Attack!” This is an inherently counter productive strategy and I was trying to show you that in the specific instances against Mathew it was backfiring.

                        And please, be critical of my commenting style, I would like to know how to improve. I welcome it.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 03/02/2013 at 8:58 am | Permalink |

                        All good mate. There is no animosity between us, from this end.

                        We cleared the air, we disagree on approaches, but in the end while we recognise the NBN isn’t perfect, I think we also believe the NBN is a winner …

                        And yes I am very passionate about the NBN, as I believe it will be a fantastic opportunity for all Aussies and that passion is aroused further when I see some who would appear to be here exclusively with another agenda :(

                        Mathew is of course entitled to his opinions (which I note aren’t incessantly anti-NBN per se`) and I agree he at least doesn’t rely on the typical rhetoric when questioning and has interesting takes and ideas. Although a lot of which I certainly don’t agree with.

                        Have a nice Sunday :)

    53. Mathew
      Posted 02/02/2013 at 10:05 am | Permalink |

      It is no surprise that Telstra are best placed to identify when someone is attempting to extract monopoly rents. Sadly in Australia that majority accept that it is our lot in life to be overtaxed and overcharged.

      I suggest having a read of the NBNCo Corporate Plan and see how many times the plan mentions strategies to drive up average revenue per user (ARPU). I don’t expect wholesale prices to rise, but the price at which prices fall will be significantly less than the growth rate in usage. Please don’t take my word for it, instead go and read the NBNCo Corporate Plan.

      Plans for AVC pricing are outlined on page 67:
      * 1000/400Mbps falls from $150 to $90, while the average speed grows from 30Mbps to 230Mbps.
      * Price falls by 40% while average speed grows by 760%

      Plans for CVC pricing are outlined on page 67:
      * Starts at $20Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 30GB/Month and falls to $8Mbps/Month when the average data usage is 540GB/month.
      * Price falls by 2.5 times, while the average data usage grows by 18 times = growth in revenue from CVC of 720% when accounting for price falls.

      The saddest part of the NBNCo debate is that those people who consider themselves informed have been blinded by “fast internet” bright lights and don’t actually understand what the government is planning.

      • Posted 02/02/2013 at 10:45 am | Permalink |

        Okay, that’s all well and good, but tell me, do you seriously think that for a moment private enterprise wouldn’t do the same thing in order to maximise ARPU in order pay off the significant CAPEX?

        Not only that but there are a few flaws in your logic:

        1) The AVC price tiering is not a 1:1 relationship. A 100/40 AVC does not cost 1/10th the price of a 1000/400. So you can’t just cherry pick that plan and say prices are only falling by 40%. Instead you need to do a analysis of speed vs price and provide a change in statistical distribution of plans and what that means for users. In particular, the question is will an average user pay more (in real terms) or less than they would now?

        2) There is not a 1:1 relationship between CVC and quota. You can’t just say that with data volumes increasing 18x you will need an 18x increase in backhaul and CVC. In a well designed system backhaul and CVC are reflective of the peak collective download usage. This is important to consider the not only is the average usage going up, but so is the amount of time spent on the Internet. This means that the peak usage as a proportion of average usage is going down.

        That being said I have always suggested that a good policy would be to continue the NBN as is but provide a subsidy in order to reduce the capital recovery required.

        • Mathew
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 3:21 pm | Permalink |

          > 1) The AVC price tiering is not a 1:1 relationship. A 100/40 AVC does not cost 1/10th the price of a 1000/400.

          You are right the cost of NBNCo to provide 12/1Mbps, 100/40 Mbps and 1000/400Mbps AVC is exactly the same because it is the cost of the fibre and termination. Same as ADSL which only had speed tiers when Telstra was a monopoly provider.

          > In particular, the question is will an average user pay more (in real terms) or less than they would now?

          You might also want to consider if the average user will be any better off with FTTN or FTTP. With NBNCo planning for 50% to connect at 12/1Mbps the answer is sadly probably no. I don’t support FTTN or wireless as the primary means for accessing the internet, but NBNCo are doing their best to make a compelling case.

          > This is important to consider the not only is the average usage going up, but so is the amount of time spent on the Internet. This means that the peak usage as a proportion of average usage is going down.

          In the residential setting, I’m not sure this is the case. Peak usage occurs because that is when people are home. By all accounts video streaming is what is driving usage growth and that tends to occur in the evenings because that is when people sit down to consume media.

          • Posted 02/02/2013 at 5:16 pm | Permalink |

            You are right the cost of NBNCo to provide 12/1Mbps, 100/40 Mbps and 1000/400Mbps AVC is exactly the same because it is the cost of the fibre and termination. Same as ADSL which only had speed tiers when Telstra was a monopoly provider.

            This is a common practice and is know as Cross Subsidisation. I see no problem with NBNCo continuing this tread in order to maximise ARPU.

            What I do have a problem with, and I feel this is probably actually the problem you have with it but you’re failing to articulate it is that setting the minimum speed to 12Mbps is the “wrong entry point” and instead NBNCo should be skewing the minimum entry point to say 50Mbps.

            I do agree with this sentiment, however I need to point out that this particular decision in a commercial decision and not a policy one, you would be wise to know the difference.

            You might also want to consider if the average user will be any better off with FTTN or FTTP. With NBNCo planning for 50% to connect at 12/1Mbps the answer is sadly probably no. I don’t support FTTN or wireless as the primary means for accessing the internet, but NBNCo are doing their best to make a compelling case.

            I’m going to stop you right there. This particular statement suffers from one fatal flaw:

            You are equating the technology of deployment with the entity deploying the technology.

            NBNCo’s method is not the only method to deploy and pay for FTTP. There are other methods, and you saw fit to mention one in another post, like Google Fibre, which choice a very different model of the deployment and finance.

            Malcolm Turnbull is correct in one thing: the technology used ultimately doesn’t matter, it’s how that technology is utilised. NBNCo is the best technological solution, and by virtue of a lack of coherent policy from the opposition, is also the best sociologically and financially. You can deploy the best technology and do it in such a way that it doesn’t provide any social benefit.

            Remember I have stated on multiple occasions that I feel that NBNCo has a flaw in that government expects it to pay for itself in it’s entirety. To that I say “Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.”

            In the residential setting, I’m not sure this is the case. Peak usage occurs because that is when people are home. By all accounts video streaming is what is driving usage growth and that tends to occur in the evenings because that is when people sit down to consume media.

            You are right in that there will always be a peak period, the problem is you are suffering from a slippery slope argument here. The tread I refer too is likely to slow over the next few years, but it is there. Tell me, on average how many hours did you use the internet a week from your home (let’s not include mobile usage) 10 years ago? 5 years? Today. I am positive that the number will have increased.

            Also, curious that you mention video streaming as the core driver of increasing bandwidth. Technologies like multi-casting will serve to partially reduce the bandwidth requirements if used correctly, a service option that NBNCo does in fact offer. It is difficult to determine how much of an impact that particular technology will make, but I am sure it will be statistically significant.

            • Mathew
              Posted 02/02/2013 at 9:45 pm | Permalink |

              > NBNCo is the best technological solution, and by virtue of a lack of coherent policy from the opposition, is also the best sociologically and financially.

              Actually the NBN technology is not the best. NBNCo are rolling out GPON which is point to multipoint where the GPON is a potential bottleneck. The top of the line technology is point-to-point which incidentally is what Google are running in Kansas. The advantage of point-to-point is that if I want a 10Gbps service the only change required is to upgrade the fibre terminators at each end. With point-to-multipoint you need to upgrade the GPON.

              However, having pointed that out, let me state for the record that I don’t have any complaints with NBNCo choosing to use GPON. It is an excellent compromise between performance and cost.

              > You can deploy the best technology and do it in such a way that it doesn’t provide any social benefit.

              While it would be tough to argue that the NBN won’t bring any social benefit, it is easy to argue that it is not delivering the revolutionary step forward that it could. Heck cable provides 100Mbps now – sure it is not 100% equivalent but for the average person it is pretty close.

              > Remember I have stated on multiple occasions that I feel that NBNCo has a flaw in that government expects it to pay for itself in it’s entirety. To that I say “Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.”

              I could easily be convinced to agree with subsidising the NBN for the benefit of everyone. That occurs now with many essential services. However you would have to convince me that the current wholesale pricing model delivers a real benefit in areas like health and education especially for the disadvantaged. With the current speed tiers I don’t see how that could be the case.

              > Also, curious that you mention video streaming as the core driver of increasing bandwidth. Technologies like multi-casting will serve to partially reduce the bandwidth requirements if used correctly, a service option that NBNCo does in fact offer. It is difficult to determine how much of an impact that particular technology will make, but I am sure it will be statistically significant.

              I’m uncertain that multi-casting will have that big an impact. Increasingly we are moving more towards on-demand viewing. It wouldn’t surprise me in the near future if only live events were multi-cast and everything else was done on demand. Some caching of data will occur in de-centralised data centres, but that is not the same as multi-casting.

              • Posted 02/02/2013 at 10:36 pm | Permalink |

                Actually the NBN technology is not the best. NBNCo are rolling out GPON which is point to multipoint where the GPON is a potential bottleneck. The top of the line technology is point-to-point which incidentally is what Google are running in Kansas. The advantage of point-to-point is that if I want a 10Gbps service the only change required is to upgrade the fibre terminators at each end. With point-to-multipoint you need to upgrade the GPON.

                With respect, do you have to get the last word in even when you are talking about insignificant details. I am aware of the differences between GPON and PtP fiber. What you failed to extract from the paragraph is that we are talking about policies tabled. I haven’t seen a policy tabled that will offer PtP fibre, have you?

                However, having pointed that out, let me state for the record that I don’t have any complaints with NBNCo choosing to use GPON. It is an excellent compromise between performance and cost.

                Precisely. The technology used to provide internet access should ultimately be considered irrelevant, only the ability of the technology tomeet certain goals. It is this that logical leap that Mr Turnbull refuses to make, despite attempting to say that he is making it with his “technologically agnostic solution” statements.

                While it would be tough to argue that the NBN won’t bring any social benefit, it is easy to argue that it is not delivering the revolutionary step forward that it could. Heck cable provides 100Mbps now – sure it is not 100% equivalent but for the average person it is pretty close.

                I could easily be convinced to agree with subsidising the NBN for the benefit of everyone. That occurs now with many essential services. However you would have to convince me that the current wholesale pricing model delivers a real benefit in areas like health and education especially for the disadvantaged. With the current speed tiers I don’t see how that could be the case.

                Mathew: almost every post you have made in this forum has rehashed this exact same point. Stating it again will not make your point any clearer. You have a good message, just completely the wrong audience. I personally have already demonstrated that I agree with this particular sentiment, however you seem to forget some vital point: I do not have the ability to affect change in this area.

                Now either you genuinely have the memory of a goldfish or you are choosing to ignore my previous statements from other threads. As the former is unlikely I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop. I will not be replying to any statement you make that fits into this particular vain from now on.

                I’m uncertain that multi-casting will have that big an impact. Increasingly we are moving more towards on-demand viewing. It wouldn’t surprise me in the near future if only live events were multi-cast and everything else was done on demand. Some caching of data will occur in de-centralised data centres, but that is not the same as multi-casting.

                De-centralised data centers. Now that’s a idea. You know I think I have a possible implementation of this idea, and hear me out because it’ll be awesome at saving bandwidth:

                It goes like this, you put a small hard drive in a device plugged into a multi-cast feed into your customer’s premises that will download a stream of “popular content” during low traffic hours. Then if the user opts to watch this particular program they can use a locally cached copy that you have provided for them.

                You think this is a crazy idea? Well no, it’s actually already been done. In the UK when I was living there, and this was 5 years ago, there was a service called Sky AnyTime. How it would work is it would use a proportion of your Sky+ harddrive to “record” popular shows from an unlisted channel. You could then watch this program at your leisure because it was there, on your hard drive, ready to go.

                If you put a constraint in, someone will usually figure out a way to work around it. This is such a way.

                • Mathew
                  Posted 03/02/2013 at 1:15 pm | Permalink |

                  > You have a good message, just completely the wrong audience. I personally have already demonstrated that I agree with this particular sentiment, however you seem to forget some vital point: I do not have the ability to affect change in this area.

                  WRONG. We live in a democracy and the politicians are accountable to the people. It actually doesn’t take that many people to change the direction of a government, especially in an election year when it could be seen as benefiting “health, education and families”.

                  If you seriously believe this then contact your local member of parliament. I’d suggest wandering into their office and having a chat as this has more impact.

                  • Posted 03/02/2013 at 1:52 pm | Permalink |

                    I’m a New Zealander. So I’ll say it again:

                    I have no ability to affect change in this area. Best I can do is debate with people like you on the Internet, which I have done.

                    • Cad
                      Posted 03/02/2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink |

                      Say it again:

                      I’muh Niu Zeelunduh.

                      • Posted 03/02/2013 at 8:22 pm | Permalink |

                        That’s right, you want to get some fish and chups later?

                        Yeah, you’re hilarious. Never heard that one before. Making fun of my accent, pure comic genius! *rolls eyes*

                • Cad
                  Posted 03/02/2013 at 11:20 pm | Permalink |

                  Yet another long rambling post which sacrifices economy of expression and precision of thought at the altar of verbal masturbation.

                  I could swear you’re the ghost of James Joyce haunting delimiter.

                  • Posted 03/02/2013 at 11:50 pm | Permalink |

                    Cad, you can poke fun at my culture and I’ll take it in my stride because I’m used that kind of hazing from jerks who see fit to make fun of my accent.

                    But this post above deeply offends me. Now the comments policy on Delimiter is quite clear. I recommend you stop posting crude jokes and insults on posts like this one around Delimiter as you a very likely to offend more people if you continue, and that will likely result in your ban if it continues.

        • Mathew
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 3:47 pm | Permalink |

          > That being said I have always suggested that a good policy would be to continue the NBN as is but provide a subsidy in order to reduce the capital recovery required.

          Fair comment. I wouldn’t disagree with a subsidy much the same as pensioners, etc. receive a discount on electricity and water rates now. There is even an argument for moving to charging based on property values as is the case with water, however I’m not sure that is feasible when you consider rental properties.

          However if you hare going to subsidise a service for the greater good then the benefits of the service need to be justified. 12/1Mbps fibre services don’t deliver a clear benefit over a FTTN or 4G network. 100Mbps (or better still 1000Mbps), now that is the point at which revolutionary services can be provided.

          For those concerned about quotas, RSPs (or even NBNCo) could provide quota free connectivity to government services and other community services (e.g. healthcare).

          • Posted 02/02/2013 at 5:27 pm | Permalink |

            Fair comment. I wouldn’t disagree with a subsidy much the same as pensioners, etc. receive a discount on electricity and water rates now. There is even an argument for moving to charging based on property values as is the case with water, however I’m not sure that is feasible when you consider rental properties

            I’m of the opinion you don’t discriminate with such a subsidy. Afterall you’re trying to pay off a CAPEX.

            However if you hare going to subsidise a service for the greater good then the benefits of the service need to be justified. 12/1Mbps fibre services don’t deliver a clear benefit over a FTTN or 4G network.
            100Mbps (or better still 1000Mbps), now that is the point at which revolutionary services can be provided.

            You’re centring around the “12/1Mbps is to low of an entry point” as a theme again…

            For those concerned about quotas, RSPs (or even NBNCo) could provide quota free connectivity to government services and other community services (e.g. healthcare).

            Quota is a concept I detest, since it bares minimal relation to the costs the provider has to pay. I disagree with quota’s on principle. But that’s a conversation for another time I think.

            • Mathew
              Posted 02/02/2013 at 9:18 pm | Permalink |

              > Quota is a concept I detest, since it bares minimal relation to the costs the provider has to pay. I disagree with quota’s on principle. But that’s a conversation for another time I think.

              Why do you think quota has a minimal relationship to the costs?

              If I have a 1Gbps connection that means I could download about 324TB a month. Is that going to cost the same as if I downloaded only 1TB? What about 10GB? All RSPs will have contention on their network, but only the premium RSPs don’t have congestion.

              Sadly human nature being what it is, some people are simply at best wasteful. If water or electricity wasn’t metered, some people would just leave the tap running. Blu-ray peaks at 48Mbps. With a 1Gbps connection you could stream video from different sites around world 24/7 with the same effortlessness as streaming radio now. Sure not everyone is going to do that, but if only a couple of customers do, then either the network performance is poor for everyone or the RSP has to spend significantly more on back haul. Consider how much it would cost an RSP not just for connectivity to NBNCo but overseas backhaul as well.

              I suggest that the quickest path to higher quotas is to remove the speed tiers, because people will start streaming UHD video or video conferencing because it just works.and there isn’t stuttering. This month they find they’ve gone over quota so they buy a data pack and next month they bump their plan up to the next higher quota. NBNCo see that RSPs are purchasing more CVC so they reduce the prices. RSPs pass on the discounts, people use more because it is cheaper, ….

              • Posted 02/02/2013 at 11:24 pm | Permalink |

                Why do you think quota has a minimal relationship to the costs?

                First off note, I said “minimal relationship”, not none. This is an important distinction, because the answer to the following…

                If I have a 1Gbps connection that means I could download about 324TB a month. Is that going to cost the same as if I downloaded only 1TB? What about 10GB? All RSPs will have contention on their network, but only the premium RSPs don’t have congestion.

                … is yes, of course if you max your connection all day and every day that’ll cost the provider more to provide than if you merely download 10GBs.

                However, the relationship isn’t as simple as “more quota used, more backhaul”. That is because the size of a VC, for example a CVC or AGVC as Telstra called it, is determined by the peak download rate. If I download twice as much as I did last month, but most of it I do at 3 am, the net affect to the provider is naught. They don’t have to provide any more backhaul to provision my change in usage habits.

                Sadly human nature being what it is, some people are simply at best wasteful. If water or electricity wasn’t metered, some people would just leave the tap running. Blu-ray peaks at 48Mbps. With a 1Gbps connection you could stream video from different sites around world 24/7 with the same effortlessness as streaming radio now. Sure not everyone is going to do that, but if only a couple of customers do, then either the network performance is poor for everyone or the RSP has to spend significantly more on back haul. Consider how much it would cost an RSP not just for connectivity to NBNCo but overseas backhaul as well.

                Quotas are used to impose penalties on heavy users by slowing, or charging them more should they go over. The majority of users will not be subjected to such penalties, but with quotas all users, regardless of how responsible they are, are exposed to penalty mechanism.

                If I were running an ISP I would prefer passive mechanisms for limiting “problem” users, because I admit, no matter how much education I give them, they will still exist. Such measures include, in increasing severity:

                - Lowing the priority of the traffic of a problem user
                - Fining them for excessive usage (after warnings)
                - Disconnection and refusal to serve in future

                Now the latter two should not be needed except in very extreme cases, and probably be used in conjunction: “despite our warnings you have continued to exchange in excessive traffic usage that is having a detrimental affect on the quality of other users of the network. Unfortunately is unwilling to provide the required extra backhaul to fund your usage habits. As you have refused to use our services to monitor your usage in order to place the majority of your usage in low usage times or self regulate by imposing a ‘soft quota’ on yourself, we will be terminating your service effective in two weeks if you do not provide us with the sum of $250.” Or something to that effect.

                The point is I consider the use of quota’s the lazy mans way to deal with provisioning and dealing with problem users. It works, but it has some unintended side effects that would make me, if I were an ISP, uncomfortable using it.

                I suggest that the quickest path to higher quotas is to remove the speed tiers, because people will start streaming UHD video or video conferencing because it just works.and there isn’t stuttering. This month they find they’ve gone over quota so they buy a data pack and next month they bump their plan up to the next higher quota. NBNCo see that RSPs are purchasing more CVC so they reduce the prices. RSPs pass on the discounts, people use more because it is cheaper, ….

                And all the RSP has to do is react to the increase in quota and provision more CVC. Glorious isn’t it, let the money roll in.

                Or they could proactively determine the expected usage of their customers, and provision CVC accordingly, and then they wouldn’t have to impose quotas.

                There is one limit to removing quotas, which I will admit: it does remove the ability to cross-subsidize. However I would posit that will the capabilities of fibre you can achieve cross subsidization by speed tiers anyway. Which is exactly what Google are doing with Google Fiber.

      • NBNAlex
        Posted 02/02/2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink |

        The saddest part of the “ant-NBNCo debate” is that those people who consider themselves informed have been blinded by the white elephant/wastage tag, have a set of rules which only apply to the NBN – no other business, BBE or government infrastructure and will go to forums daily incessantly repeating figures from one or two pages of the Corp Plan, whilst ignoring everything else in the plan :/

        But especially them not accepting that the NBN is firstly an infrastructure improvement for all Aussies and secondly an investment and ergo, they simply can’t actually understand what the government is planning, due to being ideologically or selfishly opposed to the NBN at all costs.

        Sad really :(

        • chunk
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:32 pm | Permalink |

          Totally agree Alex we have put up with woeful telecommunications and internet for way to long. People who are against the NBN don’t like progress and sadly its all about them and their shares and the I am alright jack and screw everyone else attitude. I hope the NBN rolls along better just to spite the anti NBN folks. :)

        • Mathew
          Posted 02/02/2013 at 3:26 pm | Permalink |

          > But especially them not accepting that the NBN is firstly an infrastructure improvement for all Aussies and secondly an investment and ergo, they simply can’t actually understand what the government is planning, due to being ideologically or selfishly opposed to the NBN at all costs.

          This is where you demonstrate that you don’t understand. The NBN in it’s current form will primarily benefit the rich. Do you really think the 50% that NBNCo are predicting will connect at 12/1Mbps will be the affluent or those on welfare? If NBNCo didn’t have speed tiers then it would make the wireless and FTTN arguments mute because both of those technologies simply cannot compete. Remember the announcement by Gillard just before the last election that the NBN would support 1Gbps? She didn’t explain that less than 5% will connect at those speeds in 2028. It was pure political spin because Google announced Kansas Fibre.

          I’m not opposed to a FTTP network. I am not supporting of a FTTN network. However I am opposed to a network which is going to entrench a monopolist and that is going to lead to greater inequity.

          • NBNAlex
            Posted 02/02/2013 at 5:03 pm | Permalink |

            NBNCo says: 50% – 12mbps. Mathew believes and repeats it 24/7, as if set in stone.

            NBNCo says: our plans will be cheaper for like and same price for better. Mathew refutes 24/7 and says it will favour the rich.

            Love your work… pick parts of the Corp Plan to believe and others to refute, simply because they match your preconceived views.

            Sorry tiger, I’d rather weigh all of the information first and then form my views accordingly, as I have done and having done so, I think you are very misguided.

            Cheers.

            • Mathew
              Posted 02/02/2013 at 5:35 pm | Permalink |

              > NBNCo says: our plans will be cheaper for like and same price for better. Mathew refutes 24/7 and says it will favour the rich.

              Consider this. I can afford* the 1Gbps service when it becomes available, however I could never justify the cost of laying fibre from the exchange to my house. Thanks to the government rolling out the NBN, I will be in the top 5% of Australia for connection speed and it will be subsidised by the people on 12/1Mbps connections.

              I’ve already provided the example of how electricity and water (with desalination plants) works the same way. Consider if freeways were built with a 300Km/h lane which you could only drive in if your car met certain criteria. Now every luxury car would include those features as standard but they added $20,000 to the cost of a new car. The toll might be slightly more expensive, but not noticeable for someone driving their BMW. Everyone would pay for the freeway, but those in the fast lane would receive a benefit far greater.

              * Actually I don’t need to as work will pay, but that is beside the point ;-)

              > Love your work… pick parts of the Corp Plan to believe and others to refute, simply because they match your preconceived views.

              I don’t believe I’ve actually stated that the Corporate Plan is wrong – can you provide an example.

              I have some concerns that Telstra and Optus will target the 50% NBNCo are predicting will connect at 12/1Mbps and that this will affect the viability of the NBN. These are the people that NBNCo modelling suggests won’t spend an extra $5/month for double the speed, so clearly their internet connection is not a high priority. The corporate plan also states that the predominate reason for people choosing 4G is because it is cheaper. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if 50% of your customer base is very price sensitive and there is a cheaper option available that it should be a concern.

              • NBNAccuracy
                Posted 02/02/2013 at 6:53 pm | Permalink |

                “I will be in the top 5% of Australia for connection speed and it will be subsidised by the people on 12/1Mbps connections.”

                You seem to be changing what you believe to suit the circumstances. Haven’t you been beating the drum for the last year saying the speed tiers are dumb because the cost is the same regardless of speed. Since you are paying the higher price for a service of the same cost (according to you) then you are subsidizing them?

                “I have some concerns that Telstra and Optus will target the 50% NBNCo are predicting will connect at 12/1Mbps and that this will affect the viability of the NBN”

                Is this just based on fantasy? Telstra don’t have a 12/1 plan, their base is 25Mb. Once again you ignore reality to make your arguments.

                “The corporate plan also states that the predominate reason for people choosing 4G is because it is cheaper. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if 50% of your customer base is very price sensitive and there is a cheaper option available that it should be a concern.”

                Now quoting out of context to suit your argument yet again. Cheaper for VERY low data usage. Those same people could survive on 3G today.

                • Mathew
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 8:42 pm | Permalink |

                  > You seem to be changing what you believe to suit the circumstances. Haven’t you been beating the drum for the last year saying the speed tiers are dumb because the cost is the same regardless of speed. Since you are paying the higher price for a service of the same cost (according to you) then you are subsidizing them?

                  Didn’t you read the bit where I said I couldn’t justify the cost for a single fibre to be run from the exchange to my house, but I can justify the cost of a 1Gbps connection. So the others on the street that have their 12/1Mbps connection (which is slower than the ADSL around here) are paying for infrastructure that only I’m extracting the real benefit from.

                  > Is this just based on fantasy? Telstra don’t have a 12/1 plan, their base is 25Mb. Once again you ignore reality to make your arguments.

                  I’m suggesting that Telstra will service these customers on 4G and completely cut NBNCo out. Telstra already try to sell 3G as an alternative to ADSL because the network isn’t open to competitors so it locks customers in. Consider this if Telstra and Optus can both take 5% of NBNCo’s customer base then the same fibre network roll out costs have to be shared across a small network base, meaning that NBNCo cannot reduce prices as quickly, meaning that 4G is more competitive, meaning that NBNCo loose more customers, …

                  > Now quoting out of context to suit your argument yet again. Cheaper for VERY low data usage. Those same people could survive on 3G today.

                  How many people do you think would fit into the high data usage and also purchase a 12/1Mbps plan? I seriously doubt it would be that many.

              • NBNAlex
                Posted 02/02/2013 at 7:03 pm | Permalink |

                Round and round…

                Let me get this right… you are complaining because the government IS going to provide a new and technologically superior service for you and your family and you don’t have to pay for the connection?

                The taxpayer is not funding the build either, so the fact the fibre that is going to your and my home is surely a bonus all round…

                The NBN also is designed to repay itself. So if you are on a 1Gbps service you will pay more. Of course the faster speeds will benefit those who want faster speeds, regardless of silly 300km analogies… and they will pay for the faster speeds accordingly, is this actually hard to understand? You don’t want such speeds “yet” don’t pay as much. But with the NBN, all profits go into the government’s coffers not private companies coffers and can be then used to the benefit of all Aussies.

                Perhaps a special means tested broadband allowance for those who struggle, for example?

                Please no strawmen… I didn’t say you totally disagree with the Corporate plan, quite the opposite I said you agree with parts and disagree with other parts, which suit your preconceived thoughts ;)

                Examples…

                Corp plan pg 57/58 – “The launch of commercial retail services has confirmed that the pricing construct developed by NBN Co will achieve the objectives initially set. NBN services are now commercially available to End-Users with prices comparing well with the alternatives, ADSL 2+ and HFC broadband. As at June 2012, all major Retail Service Providers (RSPs) with the exception of TPG Telecom had released NBN retail plans to market. Currently:

                • NBNAlex
                  Posted 02/02/2013 at 7:07 pm | Permalink |

                  Sorry the last bit got snipped and I gotta go…

                  I simply showed via the Corporate plan that your claims of inequality are unfounded.

                  Cheers…

                  • Mathew
                    Posted 03/02/2013 at 1:06 pm | Permalink |

                    > I simply showed via the Corporate plan that your claims of inequality are unfounded.

                    What you showed is that NBNCo have met the government’s objective. That does not equate to the plan not leading to inequality.

                    Let me ask a few questions:
                    * Is it equitable that if I need a knee replacement tomorrow I could organise for it to be done next week, whereas if I didn’t have the cash, it might take 2 years on the public waiting list?
                    * Is it equitable that I can send my children to an elite private school which will significantly boost their chances of a tertiary education versus someone in the public system?
                    * Is it equitable that I’ll be able to engage in high speed activities on the NBN when someone on 12/1Mbps cannot?

                    Do you know the biggest difference between the first two points and the last one? It actually costs extra money to provide the services being offered in a private hospital and school, whereas NBNCo are laying the same fibre and installing the same termination devices. The only difference is a software setting.

                    > Just selfishness I guess.

                    Selfishness on my part? I’ve already explained that for me there isn’t really a difference, especially as work pays for my home connection. In fact it probably doesn’t matter who wins the next election because the NBN is close enough to me that I will most like be covered anyway and my current connection is not too bad.

                    I’m concerned about people like my parents and many others who are retired, students and those with disabilities. They won’t pay the extra money for a faster connection, and so will find themselves increasingly disadvantaged.

                    if you think I’m being selfish can you outline why?

                    • NBNAlex
                      Posted 03/02/2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink |

                      @ Mathew…

                      The Corporate Plan… yes the very same one you quote speed tier percentages from daily, clearly says pg 57/58 the current RSP NBN plans are comparable to other technologies price wise and some RSP’s are already reducing prices too. They are becoming cheaper already for a superior product…

                      Which part of that is inequitable for consumers? Which part of that is more inequitable than pre-NBN, current non-NBN, or future possible NBN alternative… I’d suggest it is more affordable.

                      Yes go off on a tangent about plans and speed tiers but the crux is… the NBN is as affordable if not more so that what we had (and also superior). So please don’t lower yourself by applying a set of rules only to the NBN, which you don’t apply anywhere else :/

                      IMO it’s laughable for you to keeping mentioning speed tier percentages, because NBNCo said… but then claim inequality and ignore NBNCos’ current actuals which clearly suggest you are wriong because the NBN is affordable (pg 57/58). Can you not see your contradiction there?

                      Also you mention – “Consider this. I can afford the 1Gbps service when it becomes available, however I could never justify the cost of laying fibre from the exchange to my house. Thanks to the government rolling out the NBN, I will be in the top 5% of Australia for connection speed and it will be subsidised by the people on 12/1Mbps connections.”

                      I’d suggest rolling out fibre to 93% of homes (I feel for the 7% however) will decrease inequality, because if the government weren’t to cover the fibre costs, then the fibre itself would be unaffordable for the less fortunate … let’s not worry about the plans, speed tiers or whatever else which comes down the track, if people can’t even afford the fibre to their homes…

                      Seriously I like to debate the issues but we are really going around in circles… you’ll keep claiming 50/12 (even though that figure is already being surpassed) and unfounded inequality/un-affordability claims. Whereas I will keep saying 50/12 was a projection which is currently being surpassed (thus proving the initial claims by many, of conservative estimations) and the NBN to be affordable, as outlined by NBNCo’s current documentation pg 57/58.

                      Being an evidence based forum, I believe at this stage I have the evidence on my side…

                      • Hubert Cumberdale
                        Posted 03/02/2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink |

                        “Being an evidence based forum, I believe at this stage I have the evidence on my side…”

                        Indeed you do. All the evidence you need is in the corporate plan. Just have a look at the graphs and you’ll realise you are trying to reason with someone so far out of their depth it’s embarrassing.

                      • Mathew
                        Posted 03/02/2013 at 10:57 pm | Permalink |

                        > They are becoming cheaper already for a superior product…

                        Is 12/1Mbps really a superior product to what is available now, today? It is the same speed as my ADSL connection, slower than my parent’s connection and significantly slower than cable.

                        > I’d suggest rolling out fibre to 93% of homes (I feel for the 7% however) will decrease inequality, because if the government weren’t to cover the fibre costs, then the fibre itself would be unaffordable for the less fortunate

                        The government isn’t covering the costs. The government is merely borrowing money on behalf of NBNCo, which enables NBNCo to access cheaper rates than if it attempted to borrow money without the government’s backing.

                        The point is that for 12/1Mbps you don’t need fibre, you don’t even need FTTN for about half the population. If you want to form a compelling argument in support of the NBN, then you need to explain how it is revolutionary.

                        > IMO it’s laughable for you to keeping mentioning speed tier percentages, because NBNCo said… but then claim inequality and ignore NBNCos’ current actuals which clearly suggest you are wriong because the NBN is affordable (pg 57/58). Can you not see your contradiction there?

                        Sadly you miss the point of my argument. If I was arguing affordability, then I would suggest a targeted scheme to address black spots .. but I’m not.

                        What I’m arguing is the that the real game changing benefits of the NBN which are only start to become available on 100Mbps and increase with faster speeds. It is these speeds that are unaffordable.

                        > Seriously I like to debate the issues but we are really going around in circles… you’ll keep claiming 50/12 (even though that figure is already being surpassed) and unfounded inequality/un-affordability claims.

                        Do you actually have evidence for take-up figures that show less than 50% are connecting at 12/1Mbps? Remember that these people are the people who argueably don’t care about their connection, so one would expect that the vast majority would only connect when the copper is disconnected.

                        Even Quigley understands that 12/1Mbps doesn’t support eHealth. Here is a direct quote: “You certainly can’t do high-definition video service on a 1 megabits per second upstream — it’s impossible”. You may not see that as being inequitable, but I do and so do others. The Wall Street Journal has published an article covering Internet deprived kids – http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/02/03/0440233/internet-deprived-kids-turning-to-mclibraries. You might want to read it to gain some perspective and realise that 12/1Mbps won’t be adequate in the future.

                      • Cad
                        Posted 03/02/2013 at 11:06 pm | Permalink |

                        Yes, Hoobert.

                        Even Nostradamus would have been impressed with the laser-like precision of the forecasts in those graphs you mention! Poor guy could only manage vague predictions shrouded in cryptic quatrains.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 7:40 am | Permalink |

                        In finality Mathew (as it’s becoming painful watching you chase your own tail).

                        We agree 12mbps isn’t good enough, we need better… and it needs to be affordable…

                        Baselessly argue with me all you like, “but that’s exactly what is occuring,” whether you will accept it or not.

                      • NBNAccuracy
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 9:02 am | Permalink |

                        Come on Mathew, you have been on this for more than ayear now. It is getting painful watching you quote expected uptake of 50% 12/1 even though reality says people are going for higher speed tiers. Arguing that having higher prices for higher tiers makes it unaffordable, even when reality shows that the higher tiers are still cheaper than ADSL2+. Who do you think you are convincing?

                      • Hubert Cumberdale
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 12:34 pm | Permalink |

                        “Even Nostradamus would have been impressed with the laser-like precision of the forecasts in those graphs you mention!”

                        Have you actually looked at the graphs? My “precision” is not the one you should be concerned with. The ones making the “predictions” as you call them are NBNco. The ones making the errors reading those “predictions” are not me. Please try to pay attention tosh… oh wait I just l realised I’m trying reason with someone so far out of their depth it’s embarrassing.

                • Mathew
                  Posted 03/02/2013 at 1:10 pm | Permalink |

                  > The NBN also is designed to repay itself. So if you are on a 1Gbps service you will pay more. Of course the faster speeds will benefit those who want faster speeds, regardless of silly 300km analogies… and they will pay for the faster speeds accordingly, is this actually hard to understand?

                  What about those who could benefit from faster speeds but won’t be able to afford them?
                  Remember we aren’t talking about extra costs to provide the faster speeds, just changing a software setting.

                  > You don’t want such speeds “yet” don’t pay as much. But with the NBN, all profits go into the government’s coffers not private companies coffers and can be then used to the benefit of all Aussies.

                  Did you miss the bit where NBNCo will be privatised as soon as the build is complete? In fact NBNCo is shown to be on track, I suggest that it could be privatised even sooner. Private shareholders just like Telstra.

                  • NBNAlex
                    Posted 03/02/2013 at 3:41 pm | Permalink |

                    “What about those who could benefit from faster speeds but won’t be able to afford them?”

                    Answered above, but also, unfortunately that is our system… like anything you want more, better, faster, you have to pay for it… blame our system not the NBN for adhering to our system. Once again you are making NBN only rules, which you don’t expect to apply elsewhere :/

                    One lot of NBN nay sayers hone in on ROI, wastage… while another lot wants everything at the same price, which would cripple ROI (or really make the NBN unaffordable – inequitable)… FFS it’s hard to rationally debate when you guys are so far apart in your anti-NBN logic.

                    “Did you miss the bit where NBNCo will be privatised as soon as the build is complete?”

                    Err one of us missed the details and it wasn’t me. Because the government (according to the initial NBN announcement) is not planning on selling the NBN as soon as it is built… FYI, they are planning on selling it within 5 years, after it is built…

                    [quote] “The Government will make an initial investment in this company but intends to sell down its interest in the company within 5 years after the network is built and fully operational, consistent with market conditions, and national and identity security considerations.

                    Mathew enjoy rehashing your two or three pet hates and I look forward to reading them over and over as we did and still do 50/12, until at least 14 Sept I’m sure :)

                    • Mathew
                      Posted 04/02/2013 at 10:09 am | Permalink |

                      > Answered above, but also, unfortunately that is our system… like anything you want more, better, faster, you have to pay for it… blame our system not the NBN for adhering to our system. Once again you are making NBN only rules, which you don’t expect to apply elsewhere :/

                      You’ve obviously missed the fact that my most critical comments are directed at the Labor Part for poor policy.

                      > One lot of NBN nay sayers hone in on ROI, wastage… while another lot wants everything at the same price, which would cripple ROI (or really make the NBN unaffordable – inequitable)… FFS it’s hard to rationally debate when you guys are so far apart in your anti-NBN logic.

                      This is your other misunderstanding, sadly common to most fanbois who take any criticism as being anti. I’m not anti FTTP, but I do not think that NBNCo are taking the best approach. Secondly I think there is a vast gulf between what NBNCo are delivering and what people think NBNCo are delivering.

                      Sadly it is the inability to accept criticism that will most likely see the FTTP replaced by FTTN in 2014. You might not accept it, but the 50% connecting at 12/1Mbps is likely to be one of the key justifications for FTTP not being required.

                      • NBNAlex
                        Posted 04/02/2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink |

                        “Mathew enjoy rehashing your two or three pet hates and I look forward to reading them over and over as we did and still do 50/12, until at least 14 Sept I’m sure”

                        One down, 222 to go ;)

    54. Gina
      Posted 02/02/2013 at 11:19 am | Permalink |

      As just another ‘sucker end user’, all I can say for a certainty is that Ned Kelly ain’t dead yet – he’s alive and well and running Telstra, just as he’s always done.

    55. chunk
      Posted 02/02/2013 at 12:10 pm | Permalink |

      Anti NBN folks can continue with shit internet whilst others can enjoy better internet.
      Why should everyone suffer from crappy internet for such a long time eh anti NBN people?

      Just selfishness I guess.

    56. Ex Telstra Employee
      Posted 19/02/2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink |

      An EXCELLENT artcle Renai – BLOODY WELL DONE!
      Whilst I normally don’t condone swearing, I’ll appreciate it in this case because of the party concerned.
      Whilst working for Telstra, I remember when ADSL 1 was first rolled out.
      FACT – Telstra was charging ISPs MORE from their so called wholesale arm, that it was charging retail customers.
      Naturally, ISPs like iinet rightly screamed like hell to the ACCC – under those circumstances ISPs had to sell ADSL 1 products at a loss to be competitive.
      By the time that the ACCC ‘forced’ Telstra to adopt a correct pricing structure Bigpond (which BTW is NOT part of Telstra but a Telstra outsourced external entity!) and Telstra had made a very sizeable market share which put ISPs doubly behind the eight ball.
      Fortunately, Big Pond’s service was so bad, it wasn’t that hard for ISPs to win back customers.
      I live in country WA and have absolutely no choice when it comes to which mobile carrier I use – it HAS to be Telstra (Vodaphone and Optus simply do not have the coverage), I live in the townsite and can’t even get mobile coverage inside my home and only JUST outside.
      Meanwhile, Telstra continues to promulgate the myth that they have 95% of Australia(ns) covered – what an abolsute load of bovine excrement! 95% of the population maybe (notwithstanding network congestion etc) – but geographically, mobile coverage in this country is an absolute disgrace.
      Drive into and out of WA country towns and watch how quickly you loose the signal!
      So, Telstra, excuse me whilst I synically laugh my head off at your hypocritical winging!
      When Howard treated Australian residents like idiots and sold them the (short sighted) cash cow that they already owned, then buyers proved him right (about being idiots) he usurped, perhaps forever, the possibility of a level Telco / ISP playing field by not retaining the peoples’ network and aiming for a single shared network, instead of the farcical situation we have now.

    57. Posted 15/03/2013 at 9:36 pm | Permalink |

      There is apparently a bundle to identify about this. I feel you made various good points in features also.

    58. Posted 10/04/2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink |

      http://beta.truck.net/blogs/104834/283945/my-personal-experiences-in-madne

    59. Posted 10/04/2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink |

      http://beta.truck.net/blogs/104462/284308/do-weight-loss-and-health-and-fi

    60. Posted 10/04/2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink |

      http://pro-lifetube.com/read_blog/115678/crossdresser-in-high-heels-outside-with-sexy-legs




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Most Popular Content


  • Six smart secrets for nurturing customer relationships
    [ad] Today, we are experiencing a world where behind every app, every device, and every connection, is a customer. Your customers will demand you to be where they and managing customer relationship is the key to your business’s growth. The question is where do you start? Click here to download six free whitepapers to help you connect with your customers in a whole new way.
  • Enterprise IT stories

    • NetSuite in whole of business TurboSmart deal turbosmart

      Business-focused software as a service giant NetSuite has unveiled yet another win with a mid-sized Australian company, revealing a deal with automotive performance products manufacturer Turbosmart that has seen the company deploy a comprehensive suite of NetSuite products across its business.

    • WA Health told: Hire a goddamn CIO already doctor

      A state parliamentary committee has told Western Australia’s Department of Health to end four years of acting appointments and hire a permanent CIO, in the wake of news that the lack of such an executive role in the department contributed directly to the fiasco at the state’s new Fiona Stanley Hospital, much of which has revolved around poorly delivered IT systems.

    • Former whole of Qld Govt CIO Grant resigns petergrant

      High-flying IT executive Peter Grant has left his senior position in the Queensland State Government, a year after the state demoted him from the whole of government chief information officer role he had held for the second time.

    • Hills dumped $18m ERP/CRM rollout for Salesforce.com hills

      According to a blog post published by Salesforce.com today, one of Ted Pretty’s first moves upon taking up managing director role at iconic Australian brand Hills in 2012 was to halt an expensive traditional business software project and call Salesforce.com instead.

    • Dropbox opens Sydney office koalabox

      Cloud computing storage player Dropbox has announced it is opening an office in Sydney, as competition in the local enterprise cloud storage market accelerates.

    • Heartbleed, internal outages: CBA’s horror 24 hours commbankatm

      The Commonwealth Bank’s IT division has suffered something of a nightmare 24 hours, with a catastrophic internal IT outage taking down multiple systems and resulting in physical branches being offline, and the bank separately suffering public opprobrium stemming from contradictory statements it made with respect to potential vulnerabilities stemming from the Heartbleed OpenSSL bug.

    • Android in the enterprise: Three Aussie examples from Samsung androidapple

      Forget iOS and Windows. Today we present three decently sized deployments of Android in the Australian market on Samsung’s hardware, which the Korean vendor has dug up from its archives over the past several years for us after a little prompting :)

    • Businesslink cancelled Office 365 rollout cancelled

      Microsoft has been on a bit of a tear recently in Australia with its cloud-based Office 365 platform, signing up major customers such as the Queensland Government, Qantas, V8 Supercars and rental chain Mr Rental. And it’s not hard to see why, with the platform’s hybrid cloud/traditional deployment model giving customers substantial options. However, as iTNews reported last week, it hasn’t been all plain sailing for Redmond in this arena.

    • Qld Govt inks $26.5m deal for Office 365 walker

      The Queensland State Government yesterday announced it had signed a $26.5 million deal with Microsoft which will gain the state access to Microsoft’s Office 365 software and services platform. However, with the deal not covering operating system licences and not being mandatory for departments and agencies, it remains unclear what its impact will be.

    • Hospital IT booking system ‘putting lives at risk’ doctor

      A new IT booking platform at the Austin Hospital and Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre in Melbourne is reportedly placing the welfare of patients with serious conditions at risk.

  • Enterprise IT, News - Apr 17, 2014 16:39 - 0 Comments

    NetSuite in whole of business TurboSmart deal

    More In Enterprise IT


    News, Telecommunications - Apr 17, 2014 11:01 - 134 Comments

    Turnbull lies on NBN to Triple J listeners

    More In Telecommunications


    Featured, Industry, News - Apr 17, 2014 9:28 - 1 Comment

    Campaign Monitor takes US$250m from US VC

    More In Industry


    Digital Rights, News - Apr 17, 2014 12:41 - 14 Comments

    Anti-piracy lobbyist enjoys cozy email chats with AGD Secretary

    More In Digital Rights