ANZ Bank chief information officer Anne Weatherston has rejected claims the bank’s technology platform was falling behind that of rivals, stating billion-dollar IT splurges by the likes of the Commonwealth Bank in recent years were necessary because of a lack of ongoing investment in technology infrastructure throughout the past several decades.

ANZ is the only major bank in Australia to have consistently rejected the need for core banking modernisation over the past few years.

The most high-profile project in the space is CommBank’s gargantuan $1.1 billion core overhaul, conducted over the past three years in coalition with technology partners SAP and Accenture. However, NAB’s own Oracle-based project is currently gaining a full head of steam, and even Westpac has long-term plans to tackle its core platform, using learnings gleaned from its acquisition of St George, which already operates a relatively modern system.

In March, CommBank CIO Michael Harte and other CBA leaders conducted a briefing on their overhaul in which they repeatedly emphasised that the project had put the bank between two and five years ahead of its rivals, allowing real-time transaction functionality and the speedy deployment of new financial products. However, the initiative has also proven costly. The cost of the CommBank overhaul was initially pegged in 2008 at $580 million. Since that stage it has since received several additional cash injections — with its budget rising by $150 million following its acquisition of BankWest, and then by a further $370 million in February this year.

Last week, in her first broad public briefing since taking the job as ANZ CIO in November 2009, Weatherston said CommBank was only investing so heavily in the project because it had to.

ANZ had upgraded much of its platform in the 1990′s, the CIO said, particularly building what she described as an “embryonic integration layer” on top of its systems which is still used as an interface between high-level systems and the bank’s underlying core banking architecture. That layer, Weatherston said, was “still very usable”, in terms of integrating channels and customer applications into ANZ’s offerings.

However, she said, it was also something that “CBA didn’t have”.

One of the main benefits of its overhaul, according to the Commonwealth Bank, is that it allows for what it describes as ‘real-time banking’. For example, in an ideal real-time banking world, transfers between customer accounts would occur instantly, even between banks — without the need to wait for overnight clearance, as is currently standard in Australia’s banking sector.

In response to a question about the issue, Weatherston said ANZ already had real-time banking — and had had it for “nine years” in Australia and New Zealand. “We can offer the same proposition as CBA”, the executive said — but unlike CommBank, the bank hadn’t chosen to focus on promoting the technology benefits to customers.

Also present at the ANZ briefing was ANZ deputy chief executive officer Graham Hodges.

In response to a question about real-time banking, Hodges said what was important for the bank was keeping its eye on the ball in terms of customer priorities. “It’s about meeting customer need,” he said, noting that for many customers, real-time banking wasn’t particularly a priority, compared to other potential upgrades the bank could be working on.

“The issue for us is that we’ve got a business strategy which we’re following,” said Hodges. “I’m sure that what CBA is doing in terms of managing their business is right for CBA. What we’re doing is right for us. I’d also say that maybe our systems were in different states as well.”

Where most banks tend to standardise on one internal core banking platform (for example the CBA’s use of SAP and NAB’s project to implement Oracle), ANZ currently has three different core banking systems. In Australia, the bank uses CSC’s popular Hogan platform, which is also used at St George. However, it has increasingly rolled out Infosys’ Finacle platform throughout the Asia-Pacific region as it has expanded its operations, and in New Zealand the bank recently consolidated onto the Systematics platform by FIS.

Unlike Harte at CommBank, Weatherston does not believe ANZ’s business strategy will be impacted by continuing to use its existing systems. “We will continue to have three cores, our business strategy does not require us to replace them,” said Weatherston last week. “Over the next few years, we will not be constrained by our core systems.”

ANZ would continue to focus on outcomes such as new business propositions and better customer service, Weatherston added. However, these outcomes “can be developed by integrating into our existing technology solutions.” “As a result,” the CIO added, in a possible dig at CBA’s SAP focus, “our technology roadmap looks a lot more complex than a single one-box vendor solution”.

ANZ isn’t planning to immediately overhaul its core banking platform. But what is it doing? Stay tuned as we continue to do a deep dive this week into what the bank has in store for its IT strategy.

Image credit: Delimiter

opinion Those who are currently having a big fat whinge about Internode’s new broadband plans need to harden up and realise that the ISP isn’t trying to gouge users for profits; in fact, it’s one of the only truly honest and transparent companies in Australia’s telecommunications sector.

The current round of complaints about Internode stem from a large round of price and quota changes to its broadband plans made last week. The ISP’s always had a much more complicated plan structure than that of rivals like Telstra, Optus, TPG and iiNet, so it took customers a while to work through the changes and analyse what they meant.

But when they did, they found a lot that they didn’t like.

Most of the complaints seem to revolve around the fact that a 150GB entry level Internode plan had been bumped down in quota to 30GB for the same price.

“I’m on Easy Naked S which has 150GB of data, now for the same price I can have Easy Naked 30 with 30GB?” wrote one user on broadband forum Whirlpool. “Err, I think I’ll stay where I am.” And another added: “Umm $20 more for 50GB more, or 120GB less for the same price as I’m paying now… yeah think I’ll stay on my 150GB $59.95 a month naked plan, thanks :)”

However, others were also alarmed by the removal of a 600GB plan — with there now being no option for customers who wanted a monthly quota somewhere between 300GB and 1TB. And some expressed their frustration at the fact that their current ‘tier’ of plan had been migrated upwards in both quota and price — they didn’t need more quota and didn’t want to pay more for it.

Internode managing director Simon Hackett’s attempts to explain the situation on the company’s blog didn’t seem to make anything better, due to his habit for blaming a number of the changes on Telstra’s wholesale pricing.

“I think this is really going to hurt Internode,” wrote one reader on Delimiter. “They may have the excuse of Telstra Wholesale for their Reach plans but how do they explain the changes on plans that use their own Agile and Optus DSLAMS?” Wrote another: “I won’t be changing my plan, but I will be considering how much longer I’m going to be putting up with Simon constantly trying to nickel and dime me with the excuse of ‘Telstra made us do it!’.”

Now, there is some deal of legitimacy to the ongoing customer complaints. Yes, Internode has raised its prices in some areas, and it has definitely made a number of choices for plan structures which appear to lack ‘intermediate’ pricing — for example, no plans with download quotas between 30GB and 200GB, and no plans between 300GB and 1TB.

In addition, the company, like virtually all of its rivals, appears to be trying to push users into bundling other services with their broadband connection — services like Internet telephony or IPTV, which some customers may not want (hell, we haven’t seen much evidence that the FetchTV offering being sold by iiNet and Internode is getting much traction at all).

However, this doesn’t mean that the price changes which Internode has made are unreasonable or that the company’s not doing its best by users.

Firstly, the company has maintained low value plans for those who just need a basic broadband service and a basic telephone line. Depending on whether you’re on Internode, Optus or Telstra ADSL infrastructure, this will cost you from $59.90 a month, which we think is a fair price.

But Internode’s betting (and it’s right) that most customers will actually be using much more quota — with the 200GB limit being a useful figure for most Australians. With this limit, most people will not likely to run out of quota each month, and Internode’s charging a reasonable price for it — from $69.95 to $79.95. This price is comparable with what you’d pay through other ISPs. As always, TPG has cheaper options (and worse customer service), while you’ll pay more through either Telstra or Optus, and iiNet is about the same as Internode.

We’re less sure why the company has a 300GB plan included as one of its four standard pricing tiers. If evidence suggests that there are is a significant percentage of users exceeding 200GB in monthly downloads, why not set a 400GB or 500GB plan? It just doesn’t seem likely that many users are going to want to pay an extra $20 a month for a mere extra 100GB.

However, this is basically quibbling, as we’re sure Internode wouldn’t have made this change without a great deal of consideration for the usage patterns it’s seen amongst its users. The ISP has a history of constantly tweaking its plans to match changing prices and user behaviour — and we’re sure there is a reason behind the quirky 300GB option.

In actual fact, it looks from Hackett’s blog post that the 300GB plan has resulted from a 50GB increase in quota at the same price point. So perhaps that previous price point represented what Internode considered users would be willing to pay at a certain tier above the mainstream — and it actually added value to it through a 50GB quota increase.

Now, the only place where Internode’s plans really fall down are when it comes to plans on Telstra’s infrastructure. $139.95 for a 250GB plan with a telephone line? $89.95 for a 100GB plan? That’s just plain ridiculous … and we wouldn’t recommend paying these prices if you can escape them by signing up to an Internode plan which uses the ISP’s own infrastructure — or even that of Optus.

Now, whether you slam Internode or not for its pricing on its Telstra-based plans depends on whether you believe Hackett that Telstra Wholesale is making life tough for ISPs. And personally, I do believe the executive.

Hackett’s never been less than up-front and honest with me about Internode’s operations and plans. Sure, there’s been some stuff that he hasn’t been able to discuss — every company has confidential matters which its executives won’t talk openly about with the press — but that’s normal. And he’ll generally tell you why he can’t discuss something.

Then too, a decade before the term “social media” came around, Internode has continually used the Internet to engage directly with its customers openly and honestly about all of their issues; explaining its decisions and listening to complaints. This hasn’t changed; in fact, several Internode representatives have been active over the past week in explaining the pricing changes to customers on forums such as Whirlpool.

In addition, Telstra does have a history of treating its wholesale customers unfairly. In April 2006, for example, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission issued a competition notice to Telstra for unfair price changes, and companies like iiNet, Internode and Optus have long been engaged in a decade-long war to bring some equality into the relationship with the big T’s wholesale division. The situation appears to have been getting a bit better recently — but I’m inclined to believe Hackett when he says there are still problems.

The ACCC also confirmed to me this week that Internode wasn’t the only company complaining about Telstra at the moment — other ISPs share Internode’s concerns. And there’s also the fact that Hackett has been highlighting the issue since September 2010; with the ACCC not having taken action in that time, but noting this week that it should get to the matter this year.

Also, just one last thing.

Hackett made clear this week that all existing customers would remain on their existing plans at this stage — unless they actively decided to shift to a new plan. That’s right, whingers: You won’t be forced to move if you don’t like the new plans.

The caveat to this is that the Internode MD did note that “a subset of existing customers” who were already outside their initial contract terms may eventually be shifted onto new plans. Reading between the lines, it looks as if Internode just wasn’t making any money on some of the plans (likely the Telstra ones) which it had been providing. It’s a logical and necessary step for it to shift customers on these plans; a company which doesn’t make some margin on product lines which it sells is likely to go out of business eventually. So some customers will have to deal with it — that’s just life. Tough.

So what am I saying with all this?

I guess what I am trying to help people to understand here is that Internode’s not the enemy. Over the last two decades, the company has done its utmost to be fair to customers with its Internet plans, and it’s still doing the same. Would you see the chief executive of Telstra, Optus or TPG go public in an extremely detailed blog post to discuss the rationale behind new broadband plan changes? No.

Does any other ISP have the level of granular plans that Internode does, to offer its customers as many options as possible, depending what infrastructure they’re on? No. Does any other ISP provide as much transparency around its relationships with suppliers? No. Well, maybe Exetel’s John Linton. But he’s one of a kind ;)

Let’s cut Internode some slack and give its new broadband plans a chance, before we damn Simon Hackett and his merry band to the seven depths of hell for their perceived sins.

Image credit: Asif Akbar, royalty free

Tasmanian technology lobby group Digital Tasmania has warned that scammers may be targeting residents in the state and fraudulently offering to sign them up to receive services over the National Broadband Network.

“Consumer group Digital Tasmania has received a detailed report of a possible NBN door-to-door sales scam in Hobart,” the organisation said in a statement released today. “The salesperson was wearing a jacket with the logo of a major telecommunications company and implied that the customer could only get the NBN with that company.”

“Incorrect assertions were also made about the current speeds of ADSL and future NBN speeds available to the householder. The salesperson also appeared unfamiliar with suburbs in the area.”

However, Digital Tasmania spokesperson Andrew Connor pointed out, NBN services were currently only available in three locations in the state (with another seven commencing late this year through mid-2012). The area in which the incident occurred was not slated to receive NBN services for years yet, under the current rollout plans.

Digital Tasmania suggested that if door to door sales offers did take plan, residents should obtain details in writing, refrain from paying for any services with cash or cards at that time, check with the state government’s Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading department and let Digital Tasmania know of the approach.

In addition, the group encouraged people not to shun the NBN because of the isolated event. “Consumers should not shun the NBN due to this incident, because there are always unscrupulous people who take advantage of large programs, especially when awareness is low,” said Connor.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy backed Digital Tasmania’s comments, noting that NBN Co would advise communities in advance of any construction what the timeframe would be for the rollout of NBN services in their area.

“Residents and businesses will then have the opportunity to consider a range of retail providers of services and their different offers,” Conroy said. “There are a number of reputable retail service providers (RSPs) offering commercial services over the NBN in Tasmania, such as iiNet, Internode, Exetel, and iPrimus, and Telstra is continuing with its pilot program.”

“As the rollout progresses more and more RSPs will start to provide services over the NBN in Tasmania, so people should look carefully at all offers and keep their options open as the NBN approaches in an increasingly competitive environment.”

“People can protect themselves from such scams by applying common sense rules, asking for appropriate identification and ensuring appropriate checks are made,” the Minister added, noting that an additional step consumers could take would be to report suspected fraud to the SCAMwatch site run by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Image credit: Bob Smith, royalty free

The Victorian Government has once again opened up its tendering process for its major technology services purchasing panel, known as the eServices Panel, following industry complaints that a recent cull of suppliers on the panel had resulted in too sharp a cutback.

The panel is the mechanism through which Victorian Government departments and agencies procure a wide variety of IT services, principally in areas such as enterprise architecture design, the development and implementation of new systems, web hosting, IT benchmarking and so on. It specifically does not cover the purchase of IT hardware or software licences.

The existing eServices panel was signed in mid-2007 and included about 250 IT services suppliers on its roster. However, a new panel was inked this year, with significantly less companies on the Government’s list — 188. 600 applications were received for spots on the panel.

Following complaints from industry about the brevity of the list, Victorian technology minister Gordon Rich-Phillips yesterday noted it was apparent there was a need for “a broader panel”, and announced the panel tendering period had opened again, with the overarching initiative to be completed by 31 October this year.

“Companies will have another opportunity to secure a place on the panel, which will result in greater choice and competition for departments as well as improved access for more small and medium enterprises to government business opportunities,” said Rich-Phillips in a statement.

The state’s Department of Treasury and Finance will provide additional detail about the evaluation criteria to assist any new tenderers in the process, as well as those companies who were previously unsuccessful in gaining spots on the panel. Companies will be able to either maintain their existing bids or submit further bids.

Rich-Phillips’ statement added that the department would also implement “a more streamlined and transparent” panel exemption process, as well as providing “clear advice” to government departments which were seeking exemptions to use companies not included on the panel.

“An industry-government working party will be established to provide advice to the government on the future approach and operation of the eServices Panel,” the Minister’s statement said. Rich-Phillips also pledged to publish regular reports on the panel on the website of the Victorian Government purchasing board.

The move was immediately welcomed by the Australian Information Industry Association, which represents a number of vendors on the panel and regularly takes a lead in dealing with governments on purchasing initiatives.

“AIIA has worked closely with every sector of the ICT industry affected by the recent review of the eServices panel,” said AIIA national chair and Intel Australia chief Philip Cronin. “The Victorian Government demonstrated a strong commitment to listening to the concerns of industry and working towards outcomes that will better serve the State, and the results are clear in today’s announcement.”

“The changes recognise the importance that ICT plays not only in the development of robust government, but in the development of an innovative and resilient economy. This will be very good for industry development in the State, and particularly for SMEs. The Victorian Government is to be commended.”

Image credit: Jonathan LaRocca, Creative Commons, Parliament of Victoria

blog Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been getting down and dirty with the locals in rural NSW town Armidale, which contains an early stage rollout zone for the National Broadband Network. However, as could have been predicted, the honourable Member for of Wentworth doesn’t appear to have been satisfied with all that he saw. Fairfax’s The Northern Daily Leader was on the scene:

“[Turnbull] said when Telstra’s copper wire access was switched off, the wireless option could only be described as equal to copper wire or could be even worse than current services. He said his meeting in Armidale was a good example of being able to meet people on the ground and he wasn’t aware of this technological shortcoming until he’d came to Armidale.”

Of course, had Turnbull been reading Delimiter, he would have realised that in point of fact, those areas which will be served by wireless under the NBN rollout plans won’t have their existing Telstra copper switched off at all. The copper network will remain in place for at least ten years, a fact which was reiterated by NBN Co after similar fears were raised in Tasmania.

Wow. We didn’t even need to ask the Office of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy for a response to this one. It’s kind of like the rebuttal wrote itself ;)

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

Global cloud computing and retail giant Amazon today told customers it had opened an Australian office with dedicated local staff to service the cloud computing market, as speculation continues to swirl that the company will also establish a new local datacentre facility to meet customer demand.

The company’s Asia-Pacific managing director of its Web Services division Shane Owenby and global chief technology officer Werner Vogels (pictured) hit Sydney today for a half-day presentation to a moderate-sized group of customers at the ritzy Sofitel Wentworth hotel in the downtown central business district. A similar event was held in Melbourne earlier in the week.

It has previously been unclear whether Amazon has dedicated staff in Australia. However, Owenby told the crowd that the company had launched a local office to support its growing Web Services (cloud computing) business. Customers had asked Amazon: “Will we see staff in Australia?” said Owenby. “The answer is yes.”

Apart from the lack of local staff, another sticking point for Australian customers looking to adopt Amazon’s services has been the lack of an Australia-based datacentre, with the closest facilities being located in Singapore and on the West Coast of the United States. Amazon’s other main facilities are located in Europe, America’s East Coast and Japan, and it operates a number of other smaller fringe facilities as part of its global content distribution network.

Earlier this week, The Australian newspaper reported that Amazon was canvassing up to three sites in Sydney for a potential new local datacentre to be set up, with a potential unveiling of such a facility by early 2012. However, at the event this afternoon, Amazon executives didn’t deliver any concrete confirmation or denial of the reported plans.

“International expansion is important,” said Owenby, noting Australia was a “key market” for Amazon. “Being a customer-centric organisation, we’ve heard from customers that they want infrastructure in Australia, it’s something that we’re interested in talking to customers about.”

Despite the discussions, Owenby pointed out that a lot of Australian customers were already using Amazon services served from existing datacentres in other regions.

Speaking after Owenby, Vogels — the key drawcard for this afternoon’s seminar — gave the audience a high-level overview of the Amazon Web Services story, as well as outlining the experiences of a handful of small customers using the platform.

For example, he highlighted the experiences of local company Cyclopic Energy, which is using Amazon’s platform to model the physics of wind farms, data prediction company Kaggle and Web 2.0 site RedBubble. All three were drawing on the different strengths of cloud computing as provided by Amazon, Vogels said.

A fourth example was digital services agency Citrus, which constructed the website for the Melbourne Cup. On a daily basis the site received only thousands of hits, Vogels said, but during the Melbourne Cup week it was inundated with millions; meaning it needed backing computing infrastructure which could scale up and down dramatically for that period.

Vogels later displayed slides with the names of a large number of massive global corporations which were using the AWS platform, as well as a slide displaying the names of a number of huge US Government departments and agencies. However, neither slide contained the names of top-tier Australian companies or government agencies, with Amazon’s services believed to mainly be in use by small to medium-sized Australian firms, or for services that were not mission-critical, such as small testing environments.

The event marks one of the first occasions over the past several years where Amazon executives have spoken publicly in Australia with respect to local usage of their growing cloud computing platform. Amazon Web Services is popular amongst Australian startups, who see the storage and hosting platform as a reliable and inexpensive building block to aid them in building new online systems which may be required to scale up dramatically as customer usage expands rapidly.

Amazon’s visit Down Under comes as the trend against global cloud giants building Australia-based datacentres shows some signs of shifting.

Salesforce.com confirmed in mid-May this year that it was confirming the case for when to build a local datacentre, with global CEO Marc Benioff saying a locat datacentre was not a matter of “an if”, but “a when”. SAP partner Oxygen late last month revealed plans to sell a complete software as a service platform locally based on a hosted SAP suite, while Oracle has confirmed plans to sell its CRM on demand product through a Sydney-based datacentre hosted by Harbour MSP.

Image credit: Dutch Digital Pioneers collection, Creative Commons

blog It’s no secret that not everyone is a huge fan of VMware’s flash new licensing structure, with all of those extra clauses it contains, and now the backlash is beginning to hit Australia. Writes Sydney-based IT manager Matt Marlor at AuTechHeads:

“VMware, I know you like money. I know you’ve made a lot of it over the years. I’m sure your parent company, EMC, is thrilled at your financial performance and market capitalisation. I know if I owned your company, I’d be pretty happy. Virtualisation is a hot topic, and seems set to continue that way.

…

But VMware, we need to talk. You’ve made a really bad misstep, and I want to talk you through it.

You see, your announcement of vRAM licensing in vSphere 5 has really aggravated a lot of people – myself included. We don’t feel that your definition of “fair” actually includes customers anymore. Like I said, I don’t mind giving you money – and plenty of others feel that way too. But we do object to being gouged beyond all semblance of what’s reasonable.”

To be honest, the changes VMware have been making remind me a great deal of the way we used to think about Oracle, before a great deal of competition arrived throughout the past decade. Almost a monopoly over its market? Check. Software licensing per core? Check. Intense vendor lock-in with proprietary technologies that makes it impossible to switch to another vendor? Check.

Let’s face it, people: Everyone knew the day would come where VMware’s control of the virtualisation software market grew a little too strong and the company grew a little too greedy. Let’s hope the development pace picks up quickly enough so that some decent alternatives start nipping at its heels. And no, Microsoft Hyper-V — you’re not there yet. Come back when you’re off your training wheels ;)

Image credit: VMware

US-headquartered technology giant Google is facing a wave of complaints from users around the globe after it launched another in a string of online services which are only available to those who live in the United States.

On one of its in-house blogs this week, the company revealed it had launched a new marketplace for its Android mobile platform which dramatically expands the platform’s functionality, allowing users to rent movies and purchase books. The Android Market has also been overhauled in general to make it easier for users to find applications.

However, the book and movie purchasing functionality is limited to customers in the US only, a fact which has drawn the ire of customers located in other regions. “In the US,” wrote one user in response to Google’s blog. “Also in the US, along with Google Music and Google Voice, both available in the US. Here’s to the centre of the universe.”

“Pity it’s tied to US market only, AGAIN,” wrote another user. “There are so many Google products that are only available in the US that Google is really starting to seem like a US-oriented company,” added a third. “I think this perception will be bad for Google, and I hope you will soon bring more of your services to other countries.”

“What a load of rubbish,” wrote yet another user. “I should never have dropped my iPhone for an Android. When will these ‘new’ features be available in Australia?”

Google has launched a string of products over the past few years which have not been available outside its home country of the US in general, and not available in Australia in particular. Google Voice, YouTube Movie Rentals, Google Books, the company’s Chromebook line of laptops and Google Music are some of the products on the list which have not seen a local launch.

For some time over the past several years, for a period Australian software developers were not able to sell apps through Google’s Android Market platform, due to what appeared to be a problem with Google Checkout, the online payment processing system that allows users to store their credit card information with their Google account.

The company is not the only one to limit a number of products to the US market only.

Fellow technology giant Apple appears to normally attempt to launch products as widely internationally as possible — for example, unlike Google, its own iOS platform does feature the ability to buy books online in Australia. And overnight it harmonised many of its software purchase prices internationally. However, also today the company today launched a new bulk app purchasing program for its end user devices — but limited it to US customers only.

In response to the comments, a Google Australia spokesperson said the company always tried to make its products and services available to as many users and as quickly as possible. “The new Android Market will be rolling out in the coming weeks to Android 2.2 and higher phones around the world,” they said.

Image credit: Krystle Fleming, royalty free

National broadband provider Primus overnight revealed the long-time chief executive of its Australian branch would leave his post, with a mysterious executive to take his place in the short term while a permanent replacement is sought.

The company’s current chief executive, Ravi Bhatia, has been associated with the company for the better part of a decade. He largely set up the company in the mid-1990′s, before leaving for stints at other local ISPs such as Virtual Communities and Access Providers. The executive returned to lead Primus Australia in 2007.

Overnight in the US, Primus Australia’s parent company announced Bhatia would retire. The company’s Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Peter D. Aquino praised Bhatia’s performance over the period. Bhatia will leave to pursue “other professional interests”, but will continue to work with Primus as an adviser.

“Ravi Bhatia is a pioneer and highly respected executive in the Australian telecommunications market,” said Aquino. “Through skillful leadership, and innovation, he has been the driving force behind building this unit into one of the country’s largest full-service voice and data carriers with an established national brand.”

“The board joins me in expressing appreciation to Ravi for his years of dedication and exceptional leadership, and looks forward to his continued contribution as we pursue our National Broadband Network opportunity in mainland Australia.”

Primus anticipates it will appoint a permanent replacement for Bhatia by the end of the third quarter of 2011, and has appointed an executive named Richard Baumfield to replace him in an acting capacity — effective immediately — in the meantime.

However, relatively little is currently known about Baumfield. Primus did not disclose the executive’s background today, and a spokesperson has not yet clarified what his previous experience has been. In addition, no information is readily available online about the executive’s past.

Although it has grown over the past decade and a half since establishing itself in Australia, Primus is not currently seen as sitting in the top ranks of Australia’s ISPs, with the company not achieving the same scale of userbase as companies like iiNet or TPG, which have grown rapidly through ongoing acquisitions, or even Internode, which has grown substantially organically.

In addition, the company’s recent history has not been trouble-free. Although it initially supported the Federal Government 12 months ago by agreeing to back a voluntary Internet filtering scheme to block its customers from accessing child pornography, the ISP recently appears to have backed out of the commitment, and has not yet made a decision on whether to follow Telstra and Optus in implementing such a scheme.

Image credit: Yello-Dog, royalty free

National mobile carrier Vodafone has signalled its support for the new voluntary Internet filtering scheme being implemented by rivals Telstra and Optus, but has refused to clarify whether it will definitely implement the scheme or not.

The nation’s two biggest telcos Telstra and Optus have pledged to implement a voluntary filtering framework developed by the ISP industry’s peak representative body, the Internet Industry Association. The filter, which is being seen as a more moderate industry approach developed in reaction to the Federal Government’s much more comprehensive filter scheme, will see the ISPs block a “worst of the worst” list of child pornography sites generated by international police agency Interpol.

A number of other ISPs, however, such as Internode, TPG and Exetel, have taken a strong stand against the project, stating they will only implement the scheme if the law requires them to do so. iiNet has also cautiously stated that it will comply with the law but has stopped short of backing the scheme.

Late yesterday, Vodafone appeared to cautiously back the IIA’s framework. “VHA (Vodafone) supports the development of the new Internet Industry Association (IIA) ISP code, which will help guide the mobile internet industry in appropriately dealing with illegal content,” a spokesperson for the organisation said.

Pressed on the matter of whether that meant the telco would actually be implementing the filter, the spokesperson would only say that the telco was “currently looking at solutions and working with industry”.

If Vodafone does support the filter, it will add substantial weight to the scheme.

The mobile telco had more than 3 million customers using 3G mobile services as at the end of 2010, according to its most recent set of financial results, with a substantial amount of those accessing Internet services on the company’s network through either a smartphone or a USB or Wi-Fi device connected to a PC, laptop or tablet.

In addition, Vodafone is on the verge of becoming a supplier of fixed broadband services in Australia as well, signalling earlier this year that it was working to conduct a trial over the fledgling National Broadband Network fibre in the second half of 2011.

Telstra has already implemented the Interpol filter, while Optus is planning to do so by the end of this month. If Vodafone follows suit, the IIA will be one major step closer to its stated aim of having ISPs representing between 80-90 percent of the Australian Internet user base complying with its scheme by the end of 2011.

Image credit: Matt Wakeman, Creative Commons