Telstra chief executive David Thodey has maintained a clause in his company’s $11 billion contract with Telstra and the Federal Government unveiled yesterday that will block wireless technologies being marketed as fibre alternatives would have negligible impact on Telstra’s business, despite other company leaders having slammed the clause as being anti-competitive.
In Telstra’s presentation to the Australian Stock Exchange, the company states that part of the NBN deal is that it “may not promote wireless services as a substitute for fibre-based services for 20 years” from the commencement date of the contract, although it “otherwise remains free to compete in the market for the supply of wireless services”.
The news comes as debate has swirled continuously over the past several years — fuelled by comments from the Opposition, as well as certain elements of the telecommunications and business sectors — about the potential for wireless services to act as replacement for fixed-line broadband. Telstra is currently upgrading its flagship Next G network to the Long-Term Evolution standard, which is expected to offer significantly enhanced speeds and broadband capacity to Australian users.
Thodey faced several questions on the matter in a media and analyst teleconference on the deal yesterday morning, however he denied the clause was an issue.
“We have agreed not to actively promote wireless broadband as a direct substitution for fixed broadband … It will have absolutely minimal impact on our business,” the executive said. He added that Telstra had the aim of selling a variety of services into the residential market — fixed-line fibre broadband and voice services, and also wireless, in a comment which appeared to refer to the bundled offerings which Telstra is currently taking to market.
Thodey also noted that Telstra would continue to develop and push wireless technologies. However, the executive added that Telstra’s first priority was to get Australians onto the NBN fibre. “We want to get as many people across to the fibre as possible and get paid for that,” he said.
However not everyone is happy about the clause.
Former AAPT chief Paul Broad, who has long been a staunch critic of the NBN policy, reportedly told The Australian yesterday that the wireless clause in Telstra’s contracts seemed anti-competitive. “That just tells you that they’re going to try everything in the book to make this stack up,” Broad said.
The news also comes as the uptake of wireless broadband has continued to boom over the past several years, with Australians adopting 3G mobile broadband via USB dongles and smartphones in record numbers. In September last year, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released a report showing that there were some 3.4 million mobile wireless broadband services in use in Australia as at June 2010 — a number which had rocked up by about $1.4 million in just a year.
All of Australia’s major mobile telcos — Telstra, Optus and Vodafone — are currently engaged in significant network upgrade projects to deliver higher speeds and capacity to their users — and also to be able to keep up with demand.
Image credit: Telstra
The fact that the clause even exists shows that Conroy and the NBN Co are seriously worried about wireless data eating into their market.
I read this clause to mean Telstra have to “be honest about the limitations of wireless and ensure that consumers know the difference.”
Something you’d expect them to do anyway. Why is this a problem? It isn’t.
It’s not like they were told they have to promote fixed-line first and only offer wireless when the consumer says that they can’t use the NBN.
Another pointless political statement to score points from people who should know better.
What’s the point in debating with people who resort to this kind of underhanded tactic?
@Nightkhaos
“I read this clause to mean Telstra have to “be honest about the limitations of wireless and ensure that consumers know the difference.”
Oh did you, so why doesn’t the ACCC force Telstra and the other wireless providers to provide that limitation today, what is so unique about the NBN FTTH rollout that it requires such a clause.
The NBN Co and Conroy are worried about wireless that’s why.
“Something you’d expect them to do anyway”.”
Yes because they are seriously worried about wireless eating into the viability of a multi billion dollar FTTH rollout.
.” Why is this a problem? It isn’t.”
Your flip flop arguments are outstanding, if it’s not a problem why is the clause in there in the first place?
Wireless IS a threat, that’s why!
“It’s not like they were told they have to promote fixed-line first and only offer wireless when the consumer says that they can’t use the NBN.”
Poor old NBN Co and Conroy, not satisfied with eliminating ALL fixed line infrastructure competition off the face of the Australian landscape they feel the need to ensure that wireless doesn’t eat into their protected babies revenue.
“Another pointless political statement to score points from people who should know better.”
Well it’s not just me, and you ain’t seen nothing yet, believe me.
“What’s the point in debating with people who resort to this kind of underhanded tactic?”
Underhand WTF? please give me a break, poor old NK, is your feel good fantasy world image of the so called ‘level playing field’ (yeah what a joke that is!) NBN taking a bit of a battering?
Too bad.
Oh did you, so why doesn’t the ACCC force Telstra and the other wireless providers to provide that limitation today, what is so unique about the NBN FTTH rollout that it requires such a clause.
They do actually. And the ACCC do intervene. Just like you can’t say ADSL2+ provides “up to 24Mbps” any-more, Telstra were forbidden from saying that you can get “up to 22Mbps”. Notice they tag their products with “usually between 1.5Mbps and 20Mbps” whenever they talk to about performance, and how “performance depends on where you are and what handset you are using”.
Yes because they are seriously worried about wireless eating into the viability of a multi billion dollar FTTH rollout.
No, you’d expect them to be honest in their advertising.
Your flip flop arguments are outstanding, if it’s not a problem why is the clause in there in the first place?
Because it’s a commercial contract. You don’t omit contractual clauses “on good faith”, that’s just plain stupid business practice. Have you ever read a contract before? The majority of the time half the clauses are “obvious”, but they’re still there, just in case.
Wireless IS a threat, that’s why!
Are you going by the logic by if I keep on saying something it’ll be true? Wireless is as much of a threat as gumboots are to hiking shoes, they have difference niches, and can and do co-exist in the same market.
Poor old NBN Co and Conroy, not satisfied with eliminating ALL fixed line infrastructure competition off the face of the Australian landscape they feel the need to ensure that wireless doesn’t eat into their protected babies revenue.
They’re not doing that. Did you even read the paragraph you’re replying to here? I said “it’s not like” meaning “this isn’t happening”.
Well it’s not just me, and you ain’t seen nothing yet, believe me.
Of course not, you’re just a puppet. You don’t know anything.
Underhand WTF? please give me a break, poor old NK, is your feel good fantasy world image of the so called ‘level playing field’ (yeah what a joke that is!) NBN taking a bit of a battering?
No, it’s not, I’m just tired of half-arsed arguments taking only snippets of information to suit an agenda. From both sides. I’m tired of hearing that wireless is the only way to deliver smart-grid technology and that it will bring unprecedented access to rural communities when most rural committees are serviced by wireless, as well as agreements like these from the opposition.
It’s not rocket science. Anyone other than Telstra (and maybe Optus) can offer wireless as a direct replacement for the NBN. Telstra doesnt see fixed wireless operators as a threat to fixed line services so they agreed to the clause.
NBN put the clause in because the Telstra customers are not worth 4 billion if Telstra decided to coax people to fixed wireless whatever the merits.
You can still buy your fixed wireless base station from someone else if you really want, and in 20 years if wireless is good enough Telstra can do what they like.
I’m not sure if that’s a big deal. Conroy pointed out yesterday that Vodafone Australia is now offering fixed-line services in Armidale.
If wireless was the fibre killer, why would a global player like Vodafone jump on board when it could simply keep expanding its wireless only offering in Australia?
Exactly. No serious telco sees wireless as a threat to fixed line services, that’s why it’s not an issue for Thodey. It’s only an issue if you see it through the prism of a small minority of players.
Well if they thinks it’s an issue then put their money where their mouths are and sell the product to the market place. No-ones going to stop them, and now Telstra can’t stop them so the markets wide open if they believe it’s there.
I think obviously this clause is designed to stop a direct marketing campaign from being made to Telstra customers when switched to the NBN. The scenario would be something like this –
Customer Disconnected from Telstra copper and moved to NBN.
Telstra paid for said customer.
Customer direct marketed by Telstra to switch to an attractive wireless offering instead of staying on NBN.
Telstra recapture customer at the expense of NBN.
Its a pretty natural and proper clause to include so as to make sure all parties “play fair”
Nothing to do with wireless being a threat to the NBN, more to do with making sure that Telstra don’t give their customer away with one hand, then lure them back with the other one filled with sweet, sweet candy =P
Ahh logic… how I miss thee.
I entirely agree with you, Paul. The clause is only there to ‘keep the bas**ds honest’. It doesn’t stop Telstra promoting wireless, or continuing to develop wireless technology. It just ensures they cannot develop a sneaky and underhand marketing campaign to try and falsely convince uneducated users that wireless is, somehow, a superior technology to fibre. It isn’t. It is complementary – and definitely required as such.
And before anyone suggests that a ‘holier than thou’ Telstra would never have done such a thing, I have one comment. Get real!
” try and falsely convince uneducated users that wireless is, somehow, a superior technology to fibre. It isn’t. It is complementary – and definitely required as such.”
No, it’s only a complementary service if you can afford both… If you can only afford either wireless or fibre, then wireless is a direct competitor.
The question is, what does the user see as more important, bandwidth and reliability, or mobility..?
You can’t generalise that answer, so you’ve come directly into the why we should offer both territory.
*No, it’s only a complementary service if you can afford both… If you can only afford either wireless or fibre, then wireless is a direct competitor.
The question is, what does the user see as more important, bandwidth and reliability, or mobility..?*
this simple yet incisive explanation by L is worth re-quoting a zillion times. pure gold.
the most intelligent statement i’ve read on delimiter so far.
*clap* *clap*
Just going to ignore my reply? Do you disagree? Do you think you can make such decisions for consumers?
“Consumers want mobility, so why should we offer fixed-line” is just as dangerous territory as “Consumers are opting for wireless, why should we invest in fixed-line”, which is often what a lot of the “market based” debates come down to.
buddy, there’s a difference between “investing” and “gambling”.
pouring a couple of billion into building new fibre nodes would constitute a form of “investment” – albeit quite risky in the face of booming wireless take-up (which chews up limited discretionary expenditure) and a financially-stressed consumer.
pushing fibre to every residential premise in one-horse towns hundreds of kilometres inland when thousands of businesses within <1km of existing fibre rings in the major capital cities can't even afford or economically justify a dedicated connection is "gambling" at best.
in fact, that's being rather generous – it's absolute stupidity and tantamount to "economic suicide".
nonetheless, it's quite obvious that NBN fanbois are deaf to economic reasoning or simple commonsense.
it's ultimately futile to engage in a rational debate with people who believe in the existence of a "Father Christmas" flying around in a Labor-designed sledge distributing "cheap fibre" to every man, woman and child…
Investing and gambling… interesting.
Interesting that deteego tried to pull the exact same, ridiculous spiel 2 or 3 months ago… hmmm!
Are you 2 ever seen in the same room together or are you simply reading from the same FUD book?
I am not your buddy.
pouring a couple of billion into building new fibre nodes would constitute a form of “investment” – albeit quite risky in the face of booming wireless take-up (which chews up limited discretionary expenditure) and a financially-stressed consumer.
So it sounds to me you don’t even support minimised investment in Broadband infrastructure. Do you fail to understand why governments across the world are pouring money into subsidy programs (such as the National Broadband Plan of the United States, or the continued investment in by South Korea), despite the strains in the various economies mentioned? Risky indeed, but still necessary.
pushing fibre to every residential premise in one-horse towns hundreds of kilometres inland when thousands of businesses within <1km of existing fibre rings in the major capital cities can't even afford or economically justify a dedicated connection is "gambling" at best.
That is because dedicated links are needlessly expensive, and in some cases, zealous for businesses and residential households. GPON infrastructure doesn’t imply everyone will take the greatest bandwidth connection, nor need it, but it gives options to everyone to allow them to pick and chose which service they want. You seem to be thinking that GPON infrastructure is somehow on par with dedicated fibre, but it isn’t, it is inferior to it, and as such less expensive to deploy. In the same way VDSL/HFC is inferior to GPON.
in fact, that’s being rather generous – it’s absolute stupidity and tantamount to “economic suicide”.
Only if you continue with the closed sighted thinking that the market is the best determination for what technological solution is best to deploy. The market is not always good at doing this, as has been proven time and time again. Asbestos, although cheap and easy to obtain, caused unforeseen health complications that forced regulations to ban it’s usage. CFCs caused unprecedented environmental damage, again requiring regulations to ban it’s usage. You can’t always trust the market.
So you shape it when you see a problem. You regulate the market. And in the case of Broadband, there are problems:
One of the concerns that continues to plague the telecommunications industry in the wireless sector is if the microwave emissions are safe. Precautionary regulations have been continually been amended and strengthen to this end. The transmission power allowed by cell phones continues to be decreased by regulators.
Another to add to that is spectrum concerns, despite a plague to bring another 500MHz of spectrum to carriers by the US government there is still concerns from the FCC is there is going to be a shortage.
nonetheless, it’s quite obvious that NBN fanbois are deaf to economic reasoning or simple commonsense.
That is an assumption, and one I, and others who support the NBN will likely, consider insulting. I can understand how the economy is turning towards wireless infrastructure. I can understand how any the NBN fixed-line solutions will struggle to find users in this economy, especially if the CVC charges continue to remain as high as they are, but despite all this, I still support the NBN. Because I don’t think that allowing the wireless infrastructure to saturate the market is a wise decision, because it has long reaching technological and health complications. Complications that will quickly turn into economic ones if preventative measures aren’t taken.
You have to understand the time-frame we are talking about here. We are talking about decades. Anything you do over such a long time-frame is a risk, so of course there is going to be debate, but to do that you need to consider all factors of the problem. Have you noted continuing resistance to expanding wireless networks by telecommunications companies? Have you noted Telecommunications companies requiring more and more spectrum despite improvements to spectral efficiency?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Australia, and the rest of the world, need to be doing everything in their power to offload as much traffic from the mobile networks as possible. We can’t do that if we leave it to the market, or an opposition who thinks that minimal investment (which will make the convergence of performance and pricing a reality for the majority of people) is the way to go. Notice that fixed-line Broadband takes approximately 10 times the amount of data wireless, and in some areas the wireless networks are stretched way beyond capacity.
it’s ultimately futile to engage in a rational debate with people who believe in the existence of a “Father Christmas” flying around in a Labor-designed sledge distributing “cheap fibre” to every man, woman and child…
If you are talking about rational debate, why are you belittling us with the disillusioned belief such as the one you put together there? How can a rational debate occur when you refuse to hear our side?
Do you even care about what we think, and thus attempt to abate our concerns with any policy the opposition care to throw at us? Conversely, why are you so adamant at showing the NBN is completely flawed policy with no hope of being at all useful or helpful instead of tabling useful amendments to it, or accepting amendments we come up with as credible to abate your concerns?
You are concerned about the CVC charges being too high pushing up prices, okay, and I suggested we sink some money directly into the NBN instead of expecting a return from everything invested?
You are concerned about the cost being too high because of the roll-out into “woop-woop” as you put it? Okay, have considered suggesting we reduce the roll-out from 93% fibre? Possibly even make it a four way with FTTN technology deployed to towns with less than say 10K people down the 1K point?
You are concerned about the uptake figures of the active networks possibly being too low, okay, have concerned how reducing the prices may increase the demand for them?
Do you prefer this constant “Labor bashing” and accusing NBN supports of incapable of rational debate over thinking up creative ways like these to amend the policy for the better? Face it, you’ve got another 2 years of this to deal with at least, might as well settle in. But maybe you like the constant frustration that comes from your position. We all have our vices, I understand.
*So it sounds to me you don’t even support minimised investment in Broadband infrastructure.*
it’s not an issue of how much investors are prepared to invest as such, it’s an issue of how much consumers are willing to spend on the new services.
if i voluntarily spend money on a good or service, i’m exercising my right to spend my hard-earned income according to how i see fit. if the government mandates a good or service and taxes me to subsidise it*, they’re impinging on my personal right to exercise an economic choice in how i spend my income.
*Do you fail to understand why governments across the world are pouring money into subsidy programs…*
i don’t give a fuck what governments and bureaucrats do. the smart money is where private investors are investing their capital.
*That is because dedicated links are needlessly expensive, and in some cases, zealous for businesses and residential households.*
the entire last-mile access network is being replaced under FTTP – that’s the crucial point from a cost perspective.
*Only if you continue with the closed sighted thinking that the market is the best determination for what technological solution is best to deploy.*
stop deluding yourself – fibre has been laid for by the private sector for yonks. however, unlike retarded politicians, smart businessmen won’t push fibre to places where it doesn’t make economic sense to do so.
*Another to add to that is spectrum concerns, despite a plague to bring another 500MHz of spectrum to carriers by the US government there is still concerns from the FCC is there is going to be a shortage.*
we have “shortages” of economic goods. so what? economic life is all about shortages. if there were no shortages, we wouldn’t have to work. there’d be no need for a price mechanism. economics, business, finance as disciplines would be useless.
the solution to network congestion and competition for scarce bandwidth is to price it. just like every other economic good.
*I can understand how the economy is turning towards wireless infrastructure. I can understand how any the NBN fixed-line solutions will struggle to find users in this economy*
you have to learn to think in terms of “changes on the margin” – kind of like first differentials in calculus. the current $11bln a year being spent on “fixed-line services” at the retail level presumably won’t diminish.
the question is: if consumers are increasingly directing their extra spending dollars on wireless products as well as other non-telco categories of spending (higher utilities bills, bigger mortgages, etc), how much can “fixed-line” revenue grow?
the underlying cost structure of any network (even a monopoly network), or the increased cost burden of a new network, has to be proportionate to the incremental revenue growth that the new network can generate. otherwise, it will surely go bankrupt.
*Because I don’t think that allowing the wireless infrastructure to saturate the market is a wise decision*
oh? so you’re now whispering into Conroy’s ear that we should restrict the growth of wireless by denying spectrum or otherwise in order to make the NBN more viable? frankly, i wouldn’t be suprised if the Labor government tried this in the future if they could hang on to office for another decade.
*Have you noted continuing resistance to expanding wireless networks by telecommunications companies?*
really? there’s a global resistance towards investing in wireless? (you’re not even a good lawyer if you can’t get your facts right.)
*Have you noted Telecommunications companies requiring more and more spectrum despite improvements to spectral efficiency?*
there’s a “shortage” of spectrum just like there’s a shortage of skilled labour, copper, iron ore, rare earth metals, hot babes, etc. so you fucking price it – that’s what you do in a market economy.
*I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Australia, and the rest of the world, need to be doing everything in their power to offload as much traffic from the mobile networks as possible.*
no need for the government to do anything about that other than:
(i) releasing as much unused spectrum as possible;
(ii) ensuring that there’s a functioning market for trading available spectrum so that it’s always allocated to the highest value uses.
congestion on mobile networks? shortage of capacity? fucking price it (just like every other economic good).
*Notice that fixed-line Broadband takes approximately 10 times the amount of data wireless*
so? and what is the value of 1GB of “fixed data” as opposed to 1GB of “mobile data”? given that the price in terms of $/GB is substantially higher for mobile than fixed, obviously, there’s a “premium” placed on “mobile data” in terms of the marginal GB being consumed.
if someone is paying $10 (say) for the marginal MB downloaded using wireless when that marginal MB can be downloaded at a cost of 10c (say) via a fixed-line, it’s because the value to him of accessing that marginal MB wirelessly is 100 times greater than accessing it via a fixed connection. (having unlimited ADSL at home is of no value to me if i’m stuck on a train for 2 hours wanting to access the internet at that immediate moment.)
if you build the NBN and jack up the cost of downloading the marginal MB to 20c (say), how does making “fixed data” more expensive relative to “mobile data” encourage greater bandwidth-offload from the wireless network?
it doesn’t – it makes wireless even MORE attractive relative to fixed.
*You are concerned about the CVC charges being too high pushing up prices, okay, and I suggested we sink some money directly into the NBN instead of expecting a return from everything invested?*
the reason why Labor is not financing the $50bln NBN on-budget is because there’s no room in the Federal Budget for that kind of non-essential expenditure.
you can’t “sink money” you don’t have. what do you want to do? sack half the public servants in Canberra? claw back Medicare entitlements? raise the retirement age for pension entitlement? close down a couple of universities? introduce a general NBN levy or surcharge? all of the above?
*You are concerned about the cost being too high because of the roll-out into “woop-woop” as you put it? Okay, have considered suggesting we reduce the roll-out from 93% fibre? Possibly even make it a four way with FTTN technology deployed to towns with less than say 10K people down the 1K point?*
listen to Turnbull and listen to Telstra (i.e. least-cost blended mix of infrastructure upgrades) – those are the voices of reason backed by sound economic reasoning.
those spruiking “fibre for all” are either people motivated by vested interests or retarded communists.
*You are concerned about the uptake figures of the active networks possibly being too low, okay, have concerned how reducing the prices may increase the demand for them?*
just about everyone i know would love to have a Ferrari in their garage. imagine how many more Ferrari’s could be sold if the price was reduced by 90% from the current price points. don’t you think Ferrari S.p.A. would do so if it would result in HIGHER overall revenue and profit?
* or shuts down all competing suppliers of that good or service
it’s not an issue of how much investors are prepared to invest as such, it’s an issue of how much consumers are willing to spend on the new services.
Government investment cannot and should not be equated to private investment. I was talking about government investment.
if i voluntarily spend money on a good or service, i’m exercising my right to spend my hard-earned income according to how i see fit. if the government mandates a good or service and taxes me to subsidise it*, they’re impinging on my personal right to exercise an economic choice in how i spend my income.
Is that a bad thing? No. Governments do this “impinging” because they want to encourage a particular behaviour, or subside an item that is not necessary affordable to all under the current market.
the entire last-mile access network is being replaced under FTTP – that’s the crucial point from a cost perspective.
Ignoring my entire point are we? Note the following:
You seem to be thinking that GPON infrastructure is somehow on par with dedicated fibre, but it isn’t, it is inferior to it, and as such less expensive to deploy. In the same way VDSL/HFC is inferior to GPON.
So talking about last-mile links in terms of “dedicated fibre” isn’t analogues to last-mile links in terms of GPON. Businesses may be able to afford GPON Fibre, but not dedicated fibre, as dedicated fibre links are built with less contention in mind, and thus are considerably more expensive. Businesses that couldn’t afford these dedicated links may be able to afford a GPON fibre under the NBN.
stop deluding yourself – fibre has been laid for by the private sector for yonks. however, unlike retarded politicians, smart businessmen won’t push fibre to places where it doesn’t make economic sense to do so.
News flash Tosh: the methodology for determining if it is a viable deployment for Government Owned Enterprise is different to Privately Owned Enterprise. Government Owned Enterprise can, does, and should deploy infrastructure where private enterprise may not find it viable.
the solution to network congestion and competition for scarce bandwidth is to price it. just like every other economic good.
Only in pure capitalism, which is, in practice, never possible. Consumers don’t always act as economic theory would have you believe. And the government can, and should, make decisions to short-cut the economy from reaching undesirable economic states. Look up from your economics textbooks every once and a while.
the underlying cost structure of any network (even a monopoly network), or the increased cost burden of a new network, has to be proportionate to the incremental revenue growth that the new network can generate. otherwise, it will surely go bankrupt.
Again, this only applies to private enterprise. Government enterprise, can and does, write off the cost of the infrastructure because of indirect economic or social benefits that can be gained from the enterprise. This is something the NBN should be doing, but isn’t.
oh? so you’re now whispering into Conroy’s ear that we should restrict the growth of wireless by denying spectrum or otherwise in order to make the NBN more viable? frankly, i wouldn’t be suprised if the Labor government tried this in the future if they could hang on to office for another decade.
No Tosh. The spectrum will dry up on it’s own if we’re not careful. That is my point. This is a classic case of trying to twist my words.
really? there’s a global resistance towards investing in wireless? (you’re not even a good lawyer if you can’t get your facts right.)
How many newspaper articles have you read recently about residents being unhappy with a new tower going up?
there’s a “shortage” of spectrum just like there’s a shortage of skilled labour, copper, iron ore, rare earth metals, hot babes, etc. so you fucking price it – that’s what you do in a market economy.
Again look up from your economics textbook for a moment here Tosh. Allowing the pricing to get out of hand is what you want to prevent. Given the timeframes involved in upgrading fixed-line infrastructure it is a good idea to pre-emptively upgrade this infrastructure before the market deems it necessary. This has two benefits, if the problem you’re trying to avoid occurs, the impact of it is reduced because there is an already deployed solution, and it might even prevent the problem from occurring at all.
if you build the NBN and jack up the cost of downloading the marginal MB to 20c (say), how does making “fixed data” more expensive relative to “mobile data” encourage greater bandwidth-offload from the wireless network?
So ignoring another point of my post Tosh? *tsk tsk*
Obviously if I acknowledge that CVC is too high I want to attempt to reduce it to prevent the above scenario from occurring.
the reason why Labor is not financing the $50bln NBN on-budget is because there’s no room in the Federal Budget for that kind of non-essential expenditure.
So you make room. I’m sorry but that’s a poor retort even for you. You seem to have some kind of idea into your head that it’s all or nothing. You also seem to forget this is a decade long project. If Labor play their cards right they might be able to make a many billion dollar surplus by the end of the project.
And also, I didn’t specify financing the entire thing as a subsidy, you only have to do it enough to bring the pricing down. More would be better of course.
listen to Turnbull and listen to Telstra (i.e. least-cost blended mix of infrastructure upgrades) – those are the voices of reason backed by sound economic reasoning.
Telstra I can understand, but Turnbull has a social right to ensure the best solution for Australia is deployed. Currently he’s not doing that, he’s just defacing the NBN at every turn. Hardly a compelling case to consider him “reasonable”.
those spruiking “fibre for all” are either people motivated by vested interests or retarded communists.
Everybody has a vested interest, and the NBN is hardly communist. It’s socialist, yes, but not communist. For someone who spends so much time under economic textbooks you should know that. Also you sound like an old Amercian patriot, which isn’t a good look.
i don’t give a fuck what governments and bureaucrats do. the smart money is where private investors are investing their capital.
Then why are you here at all? Why did you spend probably close to an hour forming this reply?
oh. my. god.
i hope Reality Check doesn’t read your post during breakfast…
he’d be spewin’ blood into his pristine white porridge ;)
you obviously don’t get it – so let me explain it to you a final (*hopefully*) time.
the marginal cost of consuming “wireless data” is 20 times (say) that of consuming “fixed data” (not to mention the potential frustration from high latency, etc).
given this, why are people still accessing the internet wirelessly?
because the value derived from consuming “wireless data” is platform-dependent – it cannot be realised by consuming it through a fixed platform. in some circumstances, “fixed internet is not a substitute for wireless internet”.
simple example: if i’m stuck on a train for 2 boring hours, i want to watch my internet videos on my 3G smartphone *now*, and not when i get back home with tons of other stuff to do (even though it’s cheaper to watch the videos on ADSL). you have to factor in the “cost of time”.
the only way “wireless traffic” can be off-loaded onto “fixed broadband” is if the wireless providers are artificially pricing the cost of “wireless data” below “fixed data”. if this was the case, then some portion of “internet data” is being efficiently consumed via “wireless” as opposed to “fixed” because of perverse pricing incentives.
how many people do you know who are downloading entire blu-rays or torrenting wirelessly?*
most of the data consumed wirelessly cannot be shifted onto fixed broadband because if it was possible, it would already be done due to existing pricing or cost incentives in terms of $/GB.
hence, all these suggestions that building the NBN will alleviate wireless network congestion is COMPLETE UTTER GARBAGE.
the desire to consume data wirelessly is independent of residential fixed broadband capability.
* i’m not talking about war-driving or raping campus wireless networks.
I agree with you with the reasoning. I can’t see what sort of limits they would set to contractually enforce this though.
Unless its something very strict such as: “once Telstra receives migration payment, Telstra is not allowed to sell DSL/Wireless services to customer in either retail or wholesale form unless the same customer also takes up NBN service”, otherwise Telstra is required to refund the migration payment.
You can’t set realistically set limits on ‘marketing’ basis. Not to mention that there’s always competitors who will market wireless as fixed line replacement anyway (eg, Vivid).
@paul
“Nothing to do with wireless being a threat to the NBN, more to do with making sure that Telstra don’t give their customer away with one hand, then lure them back with the other one filled with sweet, sweet candy =P”
That’s called competition, it’s funny how competition is defined as a one way street when it suits, it’s ok for the NBN Co to take customers away from Telstra wireless to FTTH but for some reason the other way is just not playing fair.
If the taxpayer bankrolled Government owned subsidised plans NBN Co cannot compete against the wireless providers for customers it says more about the viability of a nation wide FTTH rollout in the first place rather than anything Telstra or the other wireless providers do to entice customers.
WAA (wrong again alain)…
You say – “That’s called competition, it’s funny how competition is defined as a one way street when it suits, it’s ok for the NBN Co to take customers away from Telstra wireless to FTTH but for some reason the other way is just not playing fair” {END}
No, NBNCo aren’t taking Telstra customers from Telstra’s wireless, Telstra are being paid for migrating their fixed customers. Plus, you keep telling us that wireless numbers are increasing so WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FIXED NBN WILL BE/IS TAKING TELSTRA’S WIRELESS CUSTOMERS?
If you supply it (LOL) you will be disproving your earlier claims, eh Mr Contradiction…LOL!
Also “you” are talking about the definition of competition…???
Because also in your usual inimitable, contradictory way, you love to talk about the big ogreish NBN monopoly with no competition… then tell us how wireless will be a fervent competitor eating into the NBN’s viability so much that a buyer will be able to buy the NBN for next to nothing…DON’T YOU!
Oh no that’s changed A G A I N now hasn’t it… fixed NBN is now eating into Telstra wireless…
PRICELESS the incessant back-flips and I bet in your mouth frothing anti-NBN rage(s) you don’t even realise you are forever contradicting yourself…LOL
Keep ’em coming tiges, you are the NBN’s best friend…!
Stay of the caffeine RS, that’s just incoherent verbal diarrhea.
Sorry alain,
Sorry that…
a) the truth of your ridiculous contradictions hurts you so
and
b) for you wrongly believing I breached your copyright/patent/exclusive rights to comments which are nothing more than incoherent verbal diarrhea.
Rest assured such commenting style, was, is and will always be, your domain alone…!
Is that you again NightKaos,
Here to spread you feeble coverup again.
Yeah Im sure there’s nothing to worry about,
Those business leaders unanimously shouting “anti-competive” and those lawyers about to briefed about to take action are all just kidding !
Seriously though are you so infatuated with a telecommunications product that you think its ok to pay the price of so many of society’s liberties’.
Legislative Blackmail, not my term, a term used by many journalist in writing. just to name 1.
May I honestly, objectively, and without any malice point out you truly are monumentally fool.
*pats RC on the head* It’s so cute! Squee.
bwahahahahaha
The funny thing is that he is right though, there is no reason for this clause other then NBN is scared of the growth of wireless
Did you read the rest of the replies? Namely the one about using smoke and mirrors to try “steal” migrating customers?
It may seem unnecessary but it is still something you would do on a commercial contract. Let’s say Apple decided to make iOS tablet only and signed with Microsoft to provide the iPhone under license, would Microsoft not try and protect itself from Apple attempting to market iPad as a phone replacement?
The same (although the analogy is I’m using is unlikely) protection clause applies here. It ensures Telstra are honest. Not that they’d do that anyway.
My god, this is so sad
There is a difference between a deal with the government and Telstra which is being legislated and a deal between two companies in the background. Also your example would be illegal, its called collusion (the only reason this is not illegal is because its government intervention)
Next time, try to provide at least a relevant example
Telstra should be able to steal customers, thats the god damn point of competition. If people wan’t to use wireless only, because that product is better for them then fibre only, and Telstra is being legislated not to that, thats being anti-competitive, right to the bone
Thats the governments problem that NBN is only viable with a monopoly, they are basically legislating this whole bunch of backwards already shown to be derivative to society legislations just to make NBN work, because of the sad and sorry state that Labor is in
How long will you continuously defend NBN, no matter though, all this stuff will be reverted in two years time, and you can probably forget another labor government for at least a decade
Telstra should be able to steal customers, thats the god damn point of competition. If people wan’t to use wireless only, because that product is better for them then fibre only, and Telstra is being legislated not to that, thats being anti-competitive, right to the bone
That Isn’t how I read the clause, so your argument is invalid. They aren’t allowed to compete, and show the benefits of wireless, but not show that the products are directly comparable. You’re trying to make this into a big deal, but again, this has to be reviewed by the ACCC and it isn’t stopping them market wireless.
This is not legislation, it’s a private contract between NBNCo and Telstra.
Yet to be approved by the ACCC , the Senate and Telstra shareholders, other than that it’s home and hosed.
@alain
The only anti-NBN argument you have left now, is this poor excuse above…
Since the old “well the Coalition will win the next election anyway”… is no longer so pertinent, with them saying they won’t dig up the cables and will in fact nurture rather than kill off the fabled “white elephant” [sic] after all, eh…?
LOL!
Excuse? – it’s fact and the further the Telstra share price falls between now and October the less chance Telstra shareholders will be in the mood to approve it, it’s not looking too good so far.
WTF does that have to do with the election, you so desperately want, so the coalition can win (even though you aren’t politically biased [sic]…) sigh!
Anyway, I’ll say it again…
If Telstra shareholders are “stupid enough” to vote this down, this will mean a “vote of no confidence” in the current board/management, who have negotiated and vindicate the NBN deal. As such, if voted down, they will have no choice but to resign or be booted, imo….
Then let’s see the shares tumbled amidst such turmoil.
So which way are you going to vote alain, better think about it…LOL?
The vagaries of the share market falls and rises is not always based on rational thought processes, Telstra has many 100’s of thousands of shareholders from investment firms, superannuation funds having vast holdings down to the individuals to whom for many Telstra shares are the only shares they own.
If the trend of the Telstra share price through to October is generally down many will be having a long hard think about the offer, the consequences of not endorsing the agreement is irrelevant if the share price tanks over the coming months.
Is this really Australia. We have seen the bludgeoning of Telstra with blackmail and threat by the Labor Government to exclude Telstra from competition with the Government monopoly NBN Co.
The outrageous demands that have been put on Telstra are without president in the history of Australia. Now the dominators deny Telstra the right to promote their wireless product and the oppressors say Telstra “otherwise remain free to compete in the market for the supply of wireless services”. How wonderful and charming that Telstra can sell their product as long as they don’t promote it.
Telstra shareholders have suffered enough and it is time for them to demonstrate their displeasure to this Government and ensure the the Gillard Government is cast from Office at the earliest possible opportunity. Shareholders look for guidance to the large Institutions who are Telstra owners and ask them to let fellow Australians know their feelings as to their voting intentions at the Telstra AGM.
The clause is really disguising, its anti-competitive to the extreme and only something you would find happening in a second world socialist country
Our telecommunications industry is seriously reverting back to a communist state, and it seems all the younglings posting here are completely oblivious as to what is happening, patting themselves on their back and reassuring that “its all going to be allright”
Well it’s just over 24 hours since the announcement and the outcry especially about the ‘wireless lockout’ for 20 years is just gaining momentum, not bad for 24 hours, imagine what the momentum will be by October 18th.
LOL
Rob Burgess – Business Spectator… “CEO David Thodey explained to analysts that his company will get a dollop of cash for every customer it disconnects from its copper network – except those who then choose a Telstra wireless broadband product as their main internet connection”. {END}
So NBNCo are again damned if they do/don’t in the eye’s of you lot, who imo, are clearly politically motivated to oppose the NBN at all costs.
I’m sure if word came out the the government would still pay Telstra for every customer who decided NOT to connect to the NBN and simply transfer from Telstra fixed to wireless… you would be screaming waste.
And for once, I’d then have to agree with you… so good thing they eliminated that, eh?
I want to go to a third world socialist country that will pay be 11 billion dollars for me to:
Retain customers on a network I no longer have to maintain
Continue selling my other wares on a cheaper to maintain wireless network.
With the only restriction being I can’t claim my wireless is a direct fibre replacement.
THAT is an awesome “socialist” (lllololoool) agenda.
Oh did anyone else notice that Telstra AGREED to this? No one forced the 11 billion dollars into their hands.
You worry too much, the clause does not in any way limit the type of wireless services that Telstra can offer, it merely limits the way they “promote” those services. So all that happens is Telstra promotes the fact that wireless services are portable, if some people happen to buy those as a substitute for a fixed line, that’s the customer’s choice.
No big deal.
Also, non-Telstra point-to-point microwave (e.g. Big Air) are still going to be available.
Exactly Tel… +1
For anyone to suggest otherwise is pure FUD, imo.
I’m really impressed with you guys on this one. I mean I can see people actually taking your “anti-competitive” argument seriously but you seem to be forgetting: this contract must be reviewed by the ACCC before it is signed off.
Didn’t you forget about the part where Conroy can overrule any ACCC decision?
It just shows how desperate this government has become just to make their polices “work”, because politically they are in the complete shits
This is a new power?
Seriously though…it’s not quite as simple as you want to believe.
Conroy may WANT to overrule a negative ACCC response, but it’s unlikely that he would need to. The ACCC rarely blow an entire agreement out of the water. They might ask for certain clauses to be modified, but an entire agreement?
Dream on.
Well the new guy at the ACCC might give it all a very close look.
“The incoming chairman of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Rod Sims, has got his eye on the $36 billion National Broadband Network, declaring that the government-owned network is a “straight-out monopoly” and will therefore be a key focus.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/acccs-new-chief-puts-national-broadband-network-on-notice/story-e6frg9hx-1226079509257
Err, of course he will…that’s part of what he does/his job…!
Wow what a revelation, eh?
Thanks for the URL to “we all know where”!
So he didn’t say that?
I’LL SAY IT AGAIN AND THIS TIME SHOUT…
OF COURSE HE WILL…THAT’S PART OF WHAT HE DOES/HIS JOB…
So what was the point of this?
“Thanks for the URL to “we all know where”!
I cant believe the UFD being beaten up about this clause. The only problem with the clause is that it hasnt been applied to ALL wireless service providers. Simple fact is that wireless is NOT a replacement for fibre. Never will be. Wireless will never be as reliable and scalable at fibre. It will not be able to offer the speeds fibre can because of simple physics, cell fade, and the lack of available spectrum. To claim its a viable replacement for fibre is false advertising, Given Telstras poor history in false advertising and anti-competitve practices it is no wonder the govt wanted this clause in there to ensure Telstra dont repeat history, and falsely market their wireless services.
So the people using wireless as a replacement for fibre dont exist then?
Where are people using wireless as a replacement for fibre? I know of some who get a wireless USO service, because they dont get copper. I know of many who use it as complementary to their fixed line home or business connection.
I am curious as to where they are and how they are getting equivalent speeds and reliability to fibre. Not as curious as some service providers who will be no doubt interested in such an amazing version of wireless! You better fill us all in!
@The Truth (haha – the name is direct satire, I get it!)
“I am curious as to where they are and how they are getting equivalent speeds and reliability to fibre.”
Consumers don’t buy wireless BB because it is not as fast as fibre, or ADSL or HFC they get it because it is portable across many portable devices and, for casual browsing,email,Facebook and Twitter etc it’s just fine.
The avalanche of new sign ups every week from all wireless providers indicate that the trend is that more and more end users think it’s just fine.
The avalanche of fixed line disconnections from the incumbent telco Telstra indicate that that trend is just fine by end users also.
The NBN Co and Conroy is really worried about wireless, hence the clause in the agreement.
How come the avalanche of new wireless signups isn’t accompanied by a massive drop in fixed line connections. Instead of quoting the Australian, I’ll point you in the direction of actual statistics.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0/
The stats show increases in basically every type of connection, except for dial-up.
Telstra is reporting a drop in fixed lines because they have crap customer service (amongst many other problems). Across all telco’s, fixed line connections are going up.
The reality is that people get phones with broadband, so they can use the internet on the go, but they aren’t always on the go. I still don’t know anybody who has ditched a landline for mobile broadband.
Don’t bother Lime, I’ve showed Alain these stats on several occasions. He doesn’t seem to understand what they mean.
Flip flop Nightkhaos and his constantly moving statistics story, when he gets slammed he changes it and says it means something else, when it is slammed again he moves the goal posts yet again and says that’s not what he meant and goes off on another tangent.
I have never changed my story when it comes to my interruption of the statistics.
And the fact the Lime has come to exact same conclusions I did should be telling to you, Alain.
You also omit to mention the conclusion we came to in the other discussion on these statistics, Telstra fixed line disconnections don’t seem to be reflected in the ABS statistics anywhere.
Why would they be? One is talking about telephony, the other about Broadband.
Just because broadband is often delivered over telephone lines, doesn’t mean every single telephone line that is disconnected equates to one broadband disconnection.
So not one single disconnection is broadband, why?
@Lime
This gem:
Telstra is reporting a drop in fixed lines because they have crap customer service (amongst many other problems)”
BTW where did you get the ‘crap customer service (amongst many other problems)” as being the cause of disconnections?
That’s right you just made it up.
Is followed by this conflicting statement.
“. Across all telco’s, fixed line connections are going up.”
Telstra is the only Telco (other than Optus HFC) providing fixed line connections, where are these Telco’s getting their fixed line connections from if not from Telstra?
Alain, like my analysis he is referring to fixed-line broadband connections. How many times do we need to go over this?
Despite the fact the fixed-line connections (telephony) are going down, the absolute number of fixed-broadband connections is going up.
>BTW where did you get the ‘crap customer service (amongst many other problems)” as being the cause >of disconnections?
>That’s right you just made it up.
You’re right, my statement regarding Telstra’s customer service is not a ‘provable fact’. Just my own opinions based on my dealings with them. That and stories from friends, family, co-workers etc. I withdraw the comment :)
>Telstra is the only Telco (other than Optus HFC) providing fixed line connections, where are these >Telco’s getting their fixed line connections from if not from Telstra?
Yes, that is an interesting question. Something doesn’t add up here. The ABS collect these statistics from who? ISP’s such as Telstra!
So, did Telstra lie when the ABS asked for stats?
or
Did the ABS get the real numbers, then change them to promote some ‘fixed line is still popular’ conspiracy?
Or did you just make up that argument?
I’ve given you a report with facts, you simply say that Telstra are reporting a decline.
It’s up to you to prove now that fixed lines usage is declining.
@Lime
“I’ve given you a report with facts, you simply say that Telstra are reporting a decline.
It’s up to you to prove now that fixed lines usage is declining.”
Sure, have read of this, it’s good and it’s ACMA statistics.
“Even though the population is increasing and more homes are being built, new fixed line connections are being offset by the decline in people cancelling their fixed line telephone service.”
http://www.whistleout.com.au/blog/no-dial-tone-on-landline-growth
*le sigh* You know, considering this is the third time this week you’d think you’d actually understand the difference between Broadband and Telephony and how it applies to the particular data provided (ABS) as compared to the counter data you have provided (ACMA).
But obviously not. Beating on the same drum.
Especially considering the very quote he pasted even finishes by stating…
…”cancelling their FIXED LINE ((((TELEPHONE)))) SERVICE”.
@Nightkhaos
The question from Lime was:
“It’s up to you to prove now that fixed lines usage is declining.”
It was a direct question about FIXED LINES DECLINING, I did that and they are, you and RS don’t like the answer as given in the ACMA statistics, and it’s time for some diverting tap dancing, but that’s too bad.
@ alain,
Thank you for at least supplying something… which is refreshing to you normally saying lots but delivering well, absolutely 0.
But tyour job is only half done…(which I’m sure you know, but the ego won’t allow you to admit)!
Now that you have supplied information re: “fixed telephony” only (as YOUR copy/paste clearly says), please now do likewise with “fixed broadband”, the other half of the equation, you conveniently pretend doesn’t exist.
(Perhaps you could get your figures from the Telstra National Broadband Network website…LOL)?
You will note (well everyone else, except you and TP will note and accept) that Lime and previously NK, DID NOT ask for fixed telephony figures “alone”! You need to supply both sets of figures, to fulfil what they actually asked for… Just because you are happy with the half that suits you, doesn’t fulfil your quest tiger!
Once we we have both sets of figures we can then come to a conclusion…! As such, please feel free to use NK and Lime’s URL, which has already done the job for us…!
I now look forward to laughing at your further stupid excuses, choosing parts which suit you and ignoring parts which do not (like say ignoring fixed broadband figures) blaming us, using words like corner, goal posts, verbal diarrhoea (not diarrhea). Or better still a how about surprising us with newy…!
Entertain us………………………now!
So that’s a YES then, fixed line usage is declining.
Good glad we got that out of the way.
Hollow victory is hollow.
@ alain…
Do think it would be wasteful for the NBN to pay Telstra for customers to migrate to the NBN and then have them not actually migrate to the NBN?
Yes or no…?
Good to see you agree that wireless is not a replacement for fibre. It should also follow therefore that you can see why this clause is a non-event. Wireless is never going to be a replacement for fibre. The govt doesnt have a problem admitting it, Telstra are happy to admit it. Its just a handle of posters on an IT article that have an issue with it. Not hard to see where the problem actually lies.
“therefore that you can see why this clause is a non-event”
If it’s a ‘non-event’ perhaps you can explain why it is in there?
Already done above. Telstra’s history of anti-competitiveness and false advertising has already been pointed out. Now, tell us where all these people are who are replacing their fibre connections with wireless? It would be interesting seeing as there are very few on fibre to start with already.
Direct quote from a previous post addressed at you:
Because it’s a commercial contract. You don’t omit contractual clauses “on good faith”, that’s just plain stupid business practice. Have you ever read a contract before? The majority of the time half the clauses are “obvious”, but they’re still there, just in case.
You still have not explained if it’s a ‘non-event’ why is it in there?
@ alain… And you haven’t answered both me (surprise, surprise) and Dean from above…
AGAIN…
1. Do think it would be wasteful for the NBN to pay Telstra for customers to migrate to the NBN and then have them not actually migrate to the NBN?
Yes or no…alain?
2. (from Dean to alain). You are yet to explain why you think the obvious exponential growth in internet speeds over the last 20 years has all of a sudden stopped.
Well we are waiting.
As usual you talk the talk but can NEVER EVEN ONCE walk the walk…!
1. Your question has nothing to do with the matter under discussion (again), that is if the ‘no marketing wireless clause’ is a non event why is it in there, but then you always ask questions that are totally and completely irrelevant, it diverts the subject matter and then you can bang on about ‘ you haven’t answered my question’ incessantly across all blogs across all web sites you partake in for infinity (even if they have been answered!), as some fantasy fulfillment of your own making that you are the pro-NBN super hero that nails any anti-NBN comment.
2. I have answered Dean.
WAA (wrong again alain)…
2. Hasn’t been answered it has been avoided, skirted around and FUDded…please answer now!
1. LOL, how convenient plead the 5th to avoid…even when it IS THE TOPIC. But to cry off topic is simply a coward’s way of escaping the truth anyway (because if you had an answer to “cut me down”, LOL, you would)!
So alain, it IS the topic… the clause contained within the Telstra/NBNCo agreement, pertaining to wireless! Are you unable to comprehend anything?
Again here is what David Thodey said – (Rob Burgess – Business Spectator…) “CEO David Thodey explained to analysts that his company will get a dollop of cash for every customer it disconnects from its copper network – except those who then choose a Telstra wireless broadband product as their main internet connection”. {END}
So AGAIN alain…since we are on topic, I ask..!
Do you believe NBNCo should pay Telstra for anyone who is supposed to migrate to NBNCo but chooses not to migrate to the NBN and goes Telstra wireless instead”?
Yes or No!
the people if there are any using wireless if fibre is available are daft. Unless of course they travel a lot and need the wireless out and about and as a side effect have it for home use.
That would be FUD not UFD lol
DODO currently advertise their wireless as a replacement to fixed line services.
If anyone for the slightest second think there is truth in that, feel free to sign up, I’m sure you won’t regret it.
This is just a sensible clause that affirms both Telstra’s and NBNco’s commitment to fiber, and prevents Telstra from backstabbing NBNco in the future.
NPSF3000 are you the full quid? That’s not backstabbing that’s called competition pal.
Sorry Syd, Telstra are known for being ANTI-competitive. They are also known for their false advertising. Its good the govt has picked them up from the outset on this. Wireless will not provide the same reliability and speed fibre can.
Ask yourself this question Syd. If it were such a travesty, why arent Telstra crying from the rooftops about it? They certainly have never had a problem doing that in the past.
If you buy a business, you have the right in the contract to exclude the seller from competing directly against you.
Not that you can call current wireless competition, but if Telstra were to contravene the trade practices act and advertise a wireless only solution as a suitable alternative to the NBN, this clause strictly forbids it.
If you wanted to stop and think about the argument, you could say that instead of a 20 year moratorium, a definition of what would constitute a competitive service could be agreed on.
This would allow Telstra to market wireless as an alternative technology, say, when it is capable of delivering speeds of 100 mb per second at peak times.
David Thodey is right, and is helping Telstra’s long-term profitability when he accepts this sensible clause, by keeping down its wholesale costs of doing its future business.
The permanent cost base of the NBN will be lowest if fibre is laid to every premises for which it is the cheapest solution. Fibre means never having a bandwidth limit, so every fibred premise is a potential customer for lucrative higher-bandwidth services. Telstra will have a big share of the national broadband pie, so the bigger the pie the better for Telstra.
Telstra also wants to deliver mobile broadband and voice at lowest cost, i.e. fewer towers, and this likewise means maximising the fibre footprint to get as much data congestion as possible offloaded from its mobile network onto domestic Wi-Fi tied to the household fibre.
So Telstra’s cost of sales, both for resold NBN fibre, and for its own mobile phone services, will be permanently lower if it doesn’t try to lure anyone to use its mobile broadband only and refuse a fibre connection. It makes perfect commercial sense to Telstra, guys.
Nailing down this and the deactivation of the copper in the contract just prevents [insert idiot’s name here] with his destructive agenda from white-anting the fibre rollout in the next few years by conning home owners into refusing fibre when it is offered, in favour of an inferior alternative.
The Truth at times speaks with a forked tongue or at best handles the truth carelessly. Telstra has always been exceptionally competitive, much to the consternation of their opponents and has used every effort to carry an honest advertising campaign to consumers with much success.
The answer to your question The Truth is that it is beyond the powers of Telstra to stop consumers from using, by choice, the ever improving Telstra wireless system and there will certainly be many who will decide that a fast broadband wireless service satisfies their requirement.
Nobody knows where the next generation of transmission will come from and I would think that only a fool would rule out any possibility of a system that would equal, or supersede the FTTNOF. Probably David Thodey is right to believe that a ban on promotion of the wireless will have little result and in all probability the ACCC will rule that the ban on promotion is illegal.
Syd… I’ll ignore your first paragraph as it needs no response..
Let me ask you the same question i asked alain, who…look, what a surprise, didn’t answer…sigh!
Do think it would be wasteful for the NBN to pay Telstra for customers to migrate to the NBN and then have them not actually migrate to the NBN?
Yes or no…?
Oh come on Syd, all those court cases and disputes at the ACCC about Telstras anti-competitiveness were just a figment of our imagination? You are the one that doesn’t seem to have a handle on the truth and reality. telstras recalcitrant actions landed them exactly where they are today.
Telstra has crippled and hindered consumer choice for years. For example, there was no reason they couldnt offer high speed ADSL services for years, but instead they crippled speeds to just 1500kbps. It was retail COMPETITIORS that have driven the sector forward. Telstra desrve no clredit for the offerings consumers get now. Up until very recently, Telstra have always been the WORST value for money plans, and the WORSt customer service. There are numerous surveys outlining that.
That is the reality Syd. You dont like it, but thats how it is.
There is no better future proofed option than fibre Syd. Why sit around with our fingers crossed and hopw something better comes along? Another decade would be gone, another decade of Telstra hindering process and we would be even further behind the eight ball. Expert agree, even the head CTO at your beloved Telstra said that fibre is the gold standard and the best way to move forward. YOur beef is that Telstra wont be controlling it. Everyone is happy about that.
I am cuirous also Syd. What is FTTNOF Fibre to the Node Optic Fibre? It would seem you dont even understand what the govt is building (FTTH) or the technology you are arguing against. Oh dear!
RS I hear what you say and understand the logic that you explain with your question.
The undeniable fact, and indeed the basis for our democracy and the foundation for our business success is the freedom for consumers to choose and for business to compete without restrictive regulation. I think you would agree that the Government is trying to lock Australia into a technology for twenty years which would deny Australians advantage of any future advances.
Sure Telstra and Optus are being remunerated to stop them competing with the NBN Co., which if happened, would render the NBN totally unviable, but to try to hold Australia in a time warp is counterproductive, unlawful and just plain silly. Of course the Australian people will survey the situation, look at all options and choose the product which best suits their needs. For a Government to try to deny its citizens this freedom of choice is outrageous and impossible.
People aren’t going to be denied the option of switching to wireless-only. The only thing that the clause requires is for Telstra to not market wireless as an alternative to fixed-line broadband. People will still be able to do as they please.
Given that they don’t do it today (i.e. they don’t market NextG as an alternative ADSL), I don’t see it being a huge problem.
@ Sydney Lawrence
YES or NO?
Dean if it is not a problem they why does the NBN Co stipulate its requirement?
Syd, the clause is there, as has been explained to you several times now, to stop Telstra engaging in false and misleading advertising, as they have a long history of doing. The govt is NOT dening the chance of wireless growing or of people being able to use it.
Well, why wouldn’t they? It’s a contract and I guess NBNCo are just thinking about the potential for Telstra to decide that they might want to start advertising NextG as an option instead of migrating to the NBN.
But Thodey says they’re not planning on doing that anyway (I assume because they’re happier to see customers on the NBN and NextG, rather than just NextG-only), which is why I don’t see the stipulation as a big deal.
Dean if it is not a problem then why does the NBN Co stipulate its requirement.
SYD read my lips…
NBNCo are not willing to pay Telstra to migrate customers to the NBN who then don’t use the NBN and go to Telstra’s wireless…
It’s quite simple and quite fair!
As usual you talk complete BS, having been one to vehemently support “Telstra monopoly” and “lack of democratic choice” for years.
I would suggest since Telstra and NBNCo don’t have a problem (only a few greedy TLS shareholders, the opposition and the usual suspects in places like theses do) that you mount a campaign for TLS shareholders to vote AGAINST the NBN deal and put forward a “vote of no confidence in Telstra’s Board/Management and with the aim of replacing them all”…!
Well off you go!
“NBNCo are not willing to pay Telstra to migrate customers to the NBN who then don’t use the NBN and go to Telstra’s wireless…”
But it’s ok if they go to Optus, Vodafone or 3 wireless, why?
I don’t think it matters if they go to Optus, Vodafone or 3. NBNCo doesn’t want to pay Telstra to migrate a customer if that customer doesn’t use NBN fixed-line broadband.
Obviously, a contract between Telstra and NBNCo cannot stipulate what other companies are or are not allowed to do.
@Dean
A few questions for you.
1. Why would a HFC or ADSL2+ BigPond customer faced with the choice of the new glossy high speed cheap FTTH and wireless decide that they will drop fixed line altogether and go Telstra NextG, sufficient to the point that the NBN Co and Conroy requires a ‘marketing’ lockout clause to ensure that BigPond doesn’t advertise wireless as a NBN substitute?
2. If FTTH is so great and it keeps being rammed down our throats that it is, ‘nation building’, ‘the economy will fail without it’, ‘ the digital future’ spin spin spin… what is Conroy worried about?
3. What about Optus, iiNet, TPG just to pick the next top three ISP’s, if their HFC/ADSL2+ customers decide to go to Telstra, Optus, iiNet, 3, Vodafone or TPG wireless plans instead of the NBN FTTH then that’s ok, even if those ISP’s (selling resold wireless) or non-Telstra wireless providers market wireless as a substitute for NBN FTTH.
Why is that?
1. I don’t think an existing ADSL/HFC customer would choose wireless over the NBN.
2. This is a contract between NBNCo and Telstra
3. This is a contract between NBNCo and Telstra, obviously it cannot stipulate what Optus, iiNet and TPG can or cannot do in their own marketing campaigns.
@alain,
There may be a similar clause for Optus (as they too are receiving money for migration of fixed customers – albeit a small percentage compared to Telstra)..
But the other’s aren’t migrating fixed customers are they? So yes, it is ok.
Silly question really… at least you are consistent there too!
“But the other’s aren’t migrating fixed customers are they? So yes, it is ok.”
Yes they do, it’s not only Telstra that has fixed line customers, ISP’s have PSTN customers on their own (resold Telstra) PSTN plans, they have fixed line customers using Naked DSL and they have fixed line customers using ADSL/ADSL2+ either on Telstra DSLAM’s or on non- Telstra DSLAM’s.
Each ISP customer will be migrated to the NBN FTTH depending on the timing of their exchange area PSTN/HFC shutdown and what their ISP offers them at the time, I feel it will be the biggest upheaval of cross ISP migration for all time as customers are forced to make a decision as to whom they want to have their NBN voice and BB service with.
Understandably the NBN Co and Conroy are worried a high percentage will say stuff it I’ll stay with or transfer to wireless ONLY.
I am sure other than the top 3 ISP’s all other ISP’s would have to be seriously worried about this mass ‘change of mind’.
Understandably the NBN Co and Conroy are worried a high percentage will say stuff it I’ll stay with or transfer to wireless ONLY.
I see what you’re doing here, let me guess “…and this clause is to ensure customers migrate to the NBN and thus removes this option.” Is that right?
Except it doesn’t. Nothing is preventing Telstra from advertising wireless, nothing is preventing customers from migrating.
Also:
Each ISP customer will be migrated to the NBN FTTH depending on the timing of their exchange area PSTN/HFC shutdown and what their ISP offers them at the time, I feel it will be the biggest upheaval of cross ISP migration for all time as customers are forced to make a decision as to whom they want to have their NBN voice and BB service with.
Do you seriously think ISPs, especially when they may have time remaining on contract for their ADSL or HFC plans, won’t attempt to make the migration as seamless as possible? Why leave your customers out in the cold to make that decision when you can say “we’ll migrate your existing plan and terms to the NBN, all you have to do is plug this new modem into the ONT come migration day.”?
WAA (wrong again alain)…
Since when have Vodafone and 3 (the companies YOU mentioned and I replied to) had fixed customers and DSLAMS? They aren’t receiving payment for their fixed clientele to migrate from their network (as they have neither) so the same reneging clause simply doesn’t apply to them.
Read my lips. Telstra are being paid to migrate fixed clientele.
(((( As such, do you believe NBNCo should pay Telstra for anyone who is supposed to migrate to NBNCo but chooses not to migrate to the NBN and goes Telstra wireless instead ))))?
As for those who do have their own DSLAMs, they also ARE NOT being paid to migrate their customers either, because it is NOT their network…!
And as someone else clearly mentions, it simply forms part of the negotiated and agreed deal between Telstra’s management and NBN Co. It’s not law or legislation, it the terms of the contract, like any other contract has clauses!
Seriously, a lot of the time it is seem that you just play dumb alain… However the more you comment the more obvious it is that you aren’t actually playing!
RS as an intelligent person I ask you this question.
The TransACT Network have released to the public the percentage mix requested by their customers which is as follows,
80% = 10 Mbps.
18% = 30 Mbps.
2%= 100 Mbps.
Considering that only 2% of customers require or want 100 Mbps why would any intelligent person think that the NBN could be a financial success unless all competition was removed and the NBN allowed to be a total monopoly?
With a view like that you must be a Liberal voter too Syd? They have no vision for the future either!
If you had a look at the same comparison when ADSL was introduced, there would be far more people on dial up than ADSL, so following your logic (?) ADSL upgrades should never had been done.
The NBN is being built for the future Syd, and as much as you try to deny it, higher speeds WILL be needed in the future. The exponential growth of broadband is well proven, and there is absolutely no indication of it slowing (on fixed line or wireless). Just as you cant believe how you ever used dial up today, in 10 years you wont know how you coped on ADSL2 (this is of course unless you are in an area that Telstra wont supply) The NBN needs to be started now to be ready for the future. Thankfully we have people in charge who have the necessary future vision and arent leaving it to people like you and the Liberals to leave us in a broadband backwater.
That’s the usage today. Have a look at the following graph:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3642/4564866018_1060158878.jpg
Why do you think broadband speed, which has shown very clear exponential growth right from the beginning, is going to suddenly stop and the speeds we have today is the speed we’ll always need going into the future?
When there is such a clear trend, I think the onus is on you to tell me why you think the trend will stop, not on us to tell you why the trend will continue.
You don’t really explain the TransACT figures, or do you think if you ignore them they therefore don’t exist?
What’s to explain? They’re pretty self-explanatory as far as I can see.
You are yet to explain why you think the obvious exponential growth in internet speeds over the last 20 years has all of a sudden stopped.
There is a direct conflict between your two sentences, but you have decided for some unknown reason the second one holds sway over the first.
Have another look at the graph I posted: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3642/4564866018_1060158878.jpg
I’ll try to explain this in as simple terms as I can.
On the X axis, trace a line from “2010” up to the trend line. See how it intersect with “10Mb/s”? The graph shows that today’s demand is for around 10Mb/s — which lines up with the TransACT figures quoted by Sydney.
Now. on the X axis, look for “2000” and trace a line up to the trend line. See how it intersects with “256Kb/s”? That means in 2000, the average person was using a 256Kb/s connection. Think back to the year 2000. You might have still been on dial-up, maybe you had some of the first ADSL available in Australia (available in speeds of 256/64, 512/128 or 1500/256) — did you ever imagine that in 2010 the majority of people would be demanding 10Mb/s?
Now back to the graph. Trace a line from “2015” up to the trend line. See how it intersects at 100Mb/s? Trace a line from 2020 up to the trend line, see how it intersects with “1Gb/s”? Given the past trend of exponential growth, why do you think it has suddenly levelled-out at 10Mb/s?
@Dean
What is going to happen to BB requirements between now and 2015 that means that 100 Mb/s will be the minimum speed requirement in just 4 years?
“— did you ever imagine that in 2010 the majority of people would be demanding 10Mb/s?”
No I didn’t ‘imagine that’ because it is not the case, how did you draw the amazing conclusion that the ‘majority of people’ are demanding 10 Mb/s in 2010?
I don’t know what will happen between now and 2015, what do you know that I don’t which suggests to you that the current trend of exponential growth will not continue?
No I didn’t ‘imagine that’ because it is not the case, how did you draw the amazing conclusion that the ‘majority of people’ are demanding 10 Mb/s in 2010?
I was using the numbers quoted by Sydney above, but if you have a different number, then we can talk about that if you like.
“I don’t know what will happen between now and 2015”
Hang on your assertions are based on the fact that you do, you cannot have it both ways.
“, what do you know that I don’t which suggests to you that the current trend of exponential growth will not continue?”
I’m not making the decision in spending $43 billion on a FTTH build, you sell it to me.
“I was using the numbers quoted by Sydney above, but if you have a different number, then we can talk about that if you like.”
Yes but that’s TransACT’s lowest fibre speed, it doesn’t mean that’s therefore what everyone wants if they don’t have TransACT outside or inside Canberra does it?
Hang on your assertions are based on the fact that you do, you cannot have it both ways.
My assertion is that the trend we’ve been observing for the last 20 years is going to continue. You’re the one claiming that it’s suddenly come to an end — why do you think the trend in exponential growth has stopped?
I’m not making the decision in spending $43 billion on a FTTH build, you sell it to me.
Well, I’m not making the decision, either. All I am doing is telling you that the trend we’ve been observing for the last 20 years is going to continue. If you don’t think it will continue, tell me why.
Yes but that’s TransACT’s lowest fibre speed, it doesn’t mean that’s therefore what everyone wants if they don’t have TransACT outside or inside Canberra does it?
OK, so what number should we be using?
@Dean
“My assertion is that the trend we’ve been observing for the last 20 years is going to continue.”
Well all we have established with ‘trends’ is that even when higher speed broadband is available the majority give it a miss, it would be sad to think we are spending $43 billion on high speed FTTH when in reality many would be happy with ADSL2+ speeds or even less and a simple ‘works like PSTN’ phone connection.
” You’re the one claiming that it’s suddenly come to an end — why do you think the trend in exponential growth has stopped?”
I didn’t say it has come to a end only that high speed infrastructure available today In Australia is severely under utilised, so why are we building even higher cost and speed capability?
“All I am doing is telling you that the trend we’ve been observing for the last 20 years is going to continue.”
See above about the so called trend we are observing.
“OK, so what number should we be using?”
You need to look at ABS statistics to see what speeds the majority of fixed line DSL BB users use, as at December 2010 it is 1.5 Mbps to less than 8Mbps.
Well all we have established with ‘trends’ is that even when higher speed broadband is available
the majority give it a miss, it would be sad to think we are spending $43 billion on high speed
FTTH when in reality many would be happy with ADSL2+ speeds or even less and a simple ‘works like
PSTN’ phone connection.
Right, few people buy the highest speed available at any given point, nobody is disputing this. Back in 2000, Bigpond had a 1500Kb/s plan available — they were evening beginning the rollout of HFC — but the graph clearly shows the “demand” was for 256Kb/s — 6 times slower than the maximum available at the time. If people were “happy” with 256Kb/s back then, why are we getting ADSL2+ speeds today?
Sure, ADSL2+ speeds are not the fastest available today (some people can get 100Mb/s on HFC) but it’s certainly much faster than what people were using in 2000. Today’s “maximum” is tomorrow’s “average”.
I didn’t say it has come to a end only that high speed infrastructure available today In Australia is severely under utilised, so why are we building even higher cost and speed capability?
So if you’re not saying it has stopped, then it must continue?
See above about the so called trend we are observing.
Now you’re saying that there’s no trend? Which is it?
You need to look at ABS statistics to see what speeds the majority of fixed line DSL BB users use, as at December 2010 it is 1.5 Mbps to less than 8Mbps.
You mean this data here: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0/
I’ve made a handy graph of that data here: http://codeka.com/tmp/bb-speeds.png
Looks to me like all of the growth between 2009 and 2010 is in the 8-24 and 24+ categories (around 75% growth each, compared to only 25% growth in the 1.5-8 category and negative growth in the lower speeds). Given all that growth, what do you think the data looks like today?
Point 1:
that chart doesn’t illustrate “consumer demand” – it illustrates “technological implementation”.
Point 2:
all the gains in speed so far have been due to ADSL implementation* – this is a very cheap technological platform to adopt because you’re just adding equipment at the end-points of the copper line.
Point 3:
despite the fact that current broadband is “cheaply-delivered” over the old copper network, only 62% of Australians choose to subscribe to broadband – the remainder either can’t afford ADSL or are disinterested.
Point 4:
Points 1 & 3 are interrelated. the NBNco marketing chart does not illustrate “consumer demand”. it illustrates what technology has been viable to implement at different points in time.
essentially, rational investors only make incremental investments in infrastructure which is cost-effective and affordable by a significant proportion of the end-consumer market. all the gains in broadband speeds we’ve witnessed so far have been viable because the incremental benefits in terms of marginal value-added is greater than the incremental costs of rolling-out DSLAMs in Telstra exchanges.
the only reason no private investor has put up their hand to build FTTH is because the incremental costs of ripping out the entire last mile copper and replacing it with fibre far outweigh the incremental revenue gains from any consumer take-up of high-bandwidth applications.** furthermore, to justify pushing fibre to (almost) every home, the take-up of premium services has to be widespread across the country. otherwise, the burden on “active” fibre connections of subsidising “inactive fibre” (low ARPU) will be exponentially greater.***
* aside from HFC and greenfields FTTH.
** look at Foxtel’s first decade of operating losses and the current poor market penetration relative to actual platform reach. your average mum & dad is cash-strapped with massive mortgage payments and rising living costs and will not fork out extra for “symmetrical internet speeds”, “remote cloud storage”, etc (or even understand what those terms mean).
*** in fact, NBNco could well raise charges to extract greater rents from the inelastic users of the fibre network if there is underutilisation of the average fibre connection. the end result of more expensive fixed-line broadband is that more households, on the margin, will migrate to wireless as the price point gets pushed higher and higher. wireless may not be a “perfect” substitute for fibre, but it’s still a substitute. real people living in the real world face real budgetary constraints (unlike politicians).
Dream on… sounds vaguely familiar eh?
Point 1: How does the graph not follow consumer demand? Obviously consumer demand and “technological implementation” are related, since you can’t sign up for a 10Mb/s connection before it’s been implemented, but if you think consumer demand doesn’t follow “technological implementation”, then why are people signing up for ADSL2+ today? Why don’t they stick with dial-up?
Point 2: Of course the speed increases are because the technology became available to provide it. How else does it happen?
Point 3: I don’t understand the point of thisargument, nobody is suggesting broadband penetration is 100%, and it’s unlikely to be 100% in the short-term as well. So what?
Point 4: What “incremental investments” are available to us to cope with a projected 1Gb/s demand in 2020?
I understand you think that whole graph is a big lie, but you’ve yet to present any evidence that the demand for ADSL2+ speed is not there today, or that demand for 256Kb/s was not there in 2000, or that demand for 28Kb/s was not there in 1995.
you’re missing the point. there’re some key facts you have to understand:
(i) demand is ultimately a function of price:
there has been reasonable take-up of ADSL technology and a general migration from dial-up speeds to ADSL speeds because ADSL as a technological platform is relatively cheap to implement and is relatively affordable to the consumer end-market.
(ii) the historical growth in broadband speed availability merely reflects what has been economically feasible to implement technologically over time:
ADSL is cheap to implement because it doesn’t involve replacing the entire last-mile access network with fibre. it merely involves tinkering with the end-points of the old copper network.
further improvements in broadband speed with necessitate pushing fibre closer to the premise (either to a node as in FTTN or right up to the premise as in FTTP). the cost of trenching and replacing parts of (or the entire) access network represents a dramatic shift in the cost structure of broadband provision (unlike merely tinkering with the end-points of the access network).
hence, you can’t just extrapolate (or assume) that it’s economically feasible and affordable to migrate from 10mbit to 100mbit just because we’ve experienced proportionate gains in internet speeds in the past when we transitioned from dial-up to ADSL.
going forwards, the infrastructure costs incurred are totally different in dimension. this is important because these costs will determine the affordability of the new broadband services to consumers and demand for non-essential services such as IPTV, high-def video calling, etc are highly sensitive to price.
*what “incremental investments” are available to us to cope with a projected 1Gb/s demand in 2020?*
again, demand for superfast broadband is a function of price and is highly-elastic. you’re arguing that there is a supposed “demand for 1Gbps pipes in 2020″. demand by what percentage of consumers at what price? at a price high enough to justify the costs of delivering the 1Gbit services? why is the judgment of Labor politicians and internet geeks better than that of experienced private investors?
*I understand you think that whole graph is a big lie, but you’ve yet to present any evidence that the demand for ADSL2+ speed is not there today, or that demand for 256Kb/s was not there in 2000, or that demand for 28Kb/s was not there in 1995.
in terms of the chart, the data plotting itself is meaningless and the title ‘fixed bandwidth demand” is erroneous and misleading. i’ll break it down into simple titbits for you to digest:
(i) demand for broadband is a function of price;
(ii) the price of broadband is a function of the cost of providing the infrastructure;
(iii) the little dots representing the pre-2010 increase in internet speeds reflect the implementation of cheap and affordable ADSL technology;
(iv) the implementation of the “Alcatel dots” of 100Mbit and 1Gbit would necessitate a huge structural shift in the broadband cost structure due to last-mile replacement.
hence, the chart doesn’t tell us anything about “broadband demand”.
more importantly, you can’t extrapolate the historical growth in broadband speed availability and try to make inferences about what is economically feasible to implement going forwards because we got to where we are today without replacing the last-mile which is a super-expensive endeavour.
Why do you think the cost to the consumer of access to the NBN is going to be significantly higher than the cost of ADSL2+ today? The business case shows pricing that’s pretty much on-par with what we pay today for ADSL2+.
The point is, once the fibre is in place, the cost to upgrade from 12Mb/s to 1Gb/s is basically zero for NBNCo (obviously, ISPs will need to upgrade their own equipment, just like they do today).
*Why do you think the cost to the consumer of access to the NBN is going to be significantly higher than the cost of ADSL2+ today?*
only an economic/business/finance illiterate would question the impact on general broadband affordability of pouring $50bln into a brand spanking new network.
*The business case shows pricing that’s pretty much on-par with what we pay today for ADSL2+.*
does it? for which products? at what implied contention ratios? with what assumptions? have you even READ the document that NBNco claims as its “business case”?
*The point is, once the fibre is in place, the cost to upgrade from 12Mb/s to 1Gb/s is basically zero for NBNCo*
yea, the Government should go out and procure Ferrari’s for every household. the universal “demand” for Ferrari’s in every garage is irrefutable. once the Ferrari is “in place” in every garage, the cost of polishing it and replacing the spark plugs is “basically minimal” compared to the initial showroom price-tag.
look, just stop trotting out NBNco marketing garbage as “evidence” of the need for universal fibre access.
every politician and million-dollar executive involved in spruiking this 93% FTTP NBN garbage is an idiot.
every politician and million-dollar executive involved in spruiking this 93% FTTP NBN garbage is an idiot
Well, I’m convinced.
Tosh,
Your demand is a function of price gem is nothing but over simplification to suit your argument.
I will always need petrol, water, food etc.
You can all be stuck in the past, running your windows 95 on your spanking 200mhz pentium, wondering why no one calls your CDMA phone anymore and why your 15 year old CRT TV can’t seem to find even a single channel anymore… Or you can realize technology advances and there are different stages of its lifecycle. The reason copper is cheap is because it has been in the ground forever. As far as a future technology goes, it has close to peaked.
If it was left to private enterprise, Australia would be a jumble of networks, with a variety of capable speeds dependent on population density, geographical location, existing infrastructure and the political landscape at the time of installation.
What NBNCo are being commissioned to create is a single network, with clear responsibilities and upgrade paths so to avoid what would likely be a greater communications nightmare than we have today.
The monopoly being created will at least have government oversight, a crucial requirement that would not exist in an NBN less future.
All in all the reason that this is such a polarizing issue is because for the most part there are two view points that people come to this issue with. Either that the NBN is a waste of money, I don’t need it -or- The NBN is visionary investment for the future.
There is not much middle ground between those two arguments.
I guess, sitting on the pro NBN side, I can take satisfaction that despite the continued fear, uncertainty and doubt spread as to the viability of the project, it’s full steam ahead. Like it or lump it, the NBN is here to stay.
*Your demand is a function of price gem is nothing but over simplification to suit your argument.*
so, in your world, demand is a function of…….?
*What NBNCo are being commissioned to create is a single network, with clear responsibilities and upgrade paths so to avoid what would likely be a greater communications nightmare than we have today.*
with the mass roll-out of white elephants and the concurrent rehabilitation of economically-inefficient cross-subsidies, NBNco IS the communications nightmare.
*The monopoly being created will at least have government oversight, a crucial requirement that would not exist in an NBN less future.*
oh, and the current telecommunications regime isn’t already heavily-regulated with massive government intervention… sorry, i mean… “oversight”…
*There is not much middle ground between those two arguments.*
……for NBN zealots who think in terms of “FTTP or nothing”.
*I guess, sitting on the pro NBN side, I can take satisfaction that despite the continued fear, uncertainty and doubt spread as to the viability of the project, it’s full steam ahead.*
the only falsehoods, rubbish, garbage being spread in this whole NBN debate is by the paid Labor forum trolls and greedy, fibre-obsessed, business-illiterate internet geeks.
as for “full steam ahead”, tell Quigley to peddle hard!
*Like it or lump it, the NBN is here to stay.*
…until 2013. to quote the relevant future policymaker, unravelling the Labor backroom deals is “difficult, but not impossible”. but, we’ll see.
Demand is a function of need as well as cost, the petrol companies sure as hell know this. Agree with it or not, we are moving into an age where access to the Internet is a requirement. As this technology develops, so too does the data requirements we each have.
A real communications nightmare is different networks, servicing different area’s, offering different levels of service to different regions, all falling outside the governments control of the CAN.
Your thoughts on NBNCo’s viability are somewhat valid. If it was an attractive venture in it’s own right, it obviously would have been created already. This does not mean that it will be unviable, simply that it is not sweet enough to interest business groups to take on the project themselves.
5000 per Australian house hold would pay the debt outright.
600 per year would equate to less than a 20 yr payback.
Factor into this businesses (many of whom pay massive voice and internet bills already) and a predicted growth in IPTV/paytv, e health etc, results in a further decrease in cost per household.
$30 per household per month is 360 per year for paying off the network. This is what most of the population are already paying just for phone line access.
Of course I will fully admit that there’re additional cost to take into consideration, such as depreciation, op’s and such but in essence, we can pay similar amounts to maintain aging infrastructure and the telco’s cost of maintaining copper, HFC and fibre or alternatively, invest a bit more for numerous advantages that FTTP will bring.
just to give you an idea…
total revenue for the fixed-line sector is currently $11bln – this comprises WHOLESALE and RETAIL margins.
NBNco’s projecting that it requires WHOLESALE margins (alone) of $9bln to make their numbers stack up at the wholesale level.
digest that slowly.
Syd I was going to answer your exact same rubbish over at ZD this morning. But seriously, why should I…as you refuse to accept my answers and go off on another TLS share fuelled rant.
Dean and the Truth have answered you admirably…so ditto is ma answer to you…
As for “monopoly”…LOL.
You the most fervent supporter of the Telstra monopoly, now derides the NBN monopoly…sigh?
Glad to see you can comment without your most treasured word in the English language “Telstra” within, though Syd…!
“Considering that only 2% of customers require or want 100 Mbps why would any intelligent person think that the NBN could be a financial success”
You are not intelligent. The lowest speed on TransACT is 10mbps while the average ADSL2+ speed is much lower. What does this tell you? Nothing about speed wants or requirements that’s for sure… I’m sure even you will be able to figure it out eventually.
“What does this tell you? Nothing about speed wants or requirements that’s for sure… I’m sure even you will be able to figure it out eventually.”
It tells you that even though higher speeds are available most customers don’t want it, in the same way that most customers that have high speed HFC running past their residence don’t want it.
I’m sure even you have figured that out.
@ alain.
You say – “in the same way that most customers that have high speed HFC running past their residence don’t want it”.
Now tell us AGAIN, Mr. Contradiction, just what a competition injustice it is, having the HFC network (that most don’t want anyway) closed down…
LOL……!!!!!!!
“It tells you that even though higher speeds are available most customers don’t want it, in the same way that most customers that have high speed HFC running past their residence don’t want it.”
Bzzzzz wrong. (You are far too predictable btw) It’s all about price and raising the standard. Do you really think a 100mbps connection will/should cost the same amount in say 2015 as it does now? I’m sure you never would have figured that out without my help. You’re welcome!
“. Do you really think a 100mbps connection will/should cost the same amount in say 2015 as it does now?”
With NBN’s CVC/AVC pricing it definitely will
“With NBN’s CVC/AVC pricing it definitely will”
Really? So your magical crystal ball says that a 100mbps NBN connection in 2015 will cost as much as a 100mbps TransACT connection in 2011? Ok I’m bookmarking this page. See you in 4 years.
“Really? So your magical crystal ball says that a 100mbps NBN connection in 2015 will cost as much as a 100mbps TransACT connection in 2011?”
No NBNCo’s business case says this, which I am guessing you haven’t even read
“No NBNCo’s business case says this, which I am guessing you haven’t even read”
Actually since I’m asking you the question the business case is irrelevant… btw it also says the market will demand 1gbit connections by 2020, do you agree with this as well? We better start building it now then dont ya think?
So just to be clear I’m asking YOU the question: Do YOU think a 100mbps NBN connection in 2015 will cost as much as a 100mbps TransACT connection in 2011?
“Actually since I’m asking you the question the business case is irrelevant”
If the business case is irrelevant then so is the NBN, in any case there is no point in arguing with you when so called “intelligent punters” ignore what the don’t like
“If the business case is irrelevant then so is the NBN”
No, the business case and the NBN are both relevant but the business case is not relevant to the question I am asking you, pay attention, it’s pretty simple: Do YOU think a 100mbps NBN connection in 2015 will cost as much as a 100mbps TransACT connection in 2011?
“in any case there is no point in arguing with you when so called “intelligent punters” ignore what the don’t like”
Of course not, you’ve been defeated again, time to scurry off to another thread instead of answering a simple question… you sounded so sure earlier what happened? Did you crystal ball break?
If you think the business case is not relevant to your question, then you clearly haven’t read it (or didn’t read it properly)
Come back when you do
“If you think the business case is not relevant to your question”
The question is pretty simple, yet you still don’t seem to get it, I’m asking for your opinion, if YOU want to base that on what is in the business case if YOU wish it makes no difference… is there an answer?
@deteego…
My we (by we I mean you) are getting desperate and/or contradictions are catching there at anti-NBN HQ…
Saying the business case says this and the business case says that as evidence to support some out there FUD. Because when the business case was released what did you call it..
“Toilet paper” didn’t you?
Sigh…!
*It’s all about price and raising the standard.*
you got the first bit right.
according to NBNco’s corporate plan, broadband will be so expensive that ~50% of subscribers will be stuck on 12/1 connections (~ADSL speeds) until 2028.
so much for raising the standard.
“~50% of subscribers will be stuck on 12/1 connections (~ADSL speeds) until 2028.”
See you in 17 years.
see you in two.
^.-
“see you in two”
How so? 2028 is 17 years away not 2. Are you revising your claim to 2013 now?
2013. D(estruction)-day for NBNco.
With nothing left the old, but, but my party will win the next election anyway, so ner, just had to come out…
How adult!
Keep up the great work tiger, you are catching on your mate WAA, day by day
I see. So your claim is based on the coalitions patchwork plan or them doing nothing (it’s basically the same thing) not if the NBN is completed?
my claims are:
1. NBNco is telling us that the exorbitant cost of pushing fibre to Whoop Whoop will condemn half the population to ADSL speeds until 2028 at least.
2.we’ll never find out what the eventual outcome is (it could be even worse) because in two years time, the stupid communists currently in power will be kicked out of office for the betterment of our country.
3.turn off your PC, go out into the real world and open your eyes – we live in a patchwork world full of diversity and heterogeneity; and not a communist world where everyone and everything is the SAME.
Tosh seriously… you are not a stupid person (please feel free to say I am, if so desired…and thus prove me wrong…). But let’s face facts here…
* NBN or no NBN, the taxpayer (you and I) will not receive any more or any less benefits. We will still pay the same amount of tax and receive the same in return. So regardless of the argument of who is paying, building an NBN will make no difference to the taxpayer…
* You are knowledgable in relation to ICT (obviously in the business). As such, you know but (for other reasons, imo) will never admit it… that FTTP is the best “technological” choice for Australia’s future.
* You attack the Labor party (not so much mentioning government, but emphasising so called Labor incompetence) more so than even the NBN, at every opportunity.
It would therefore seem apparent to me, that you are simply forever toeing the party line!
Look, that’s cool we all have our vices…
But it’s such a shame when intelligent, knowledgable people are reduced to sheep, due being brainwashed by political cults… either side of centre!
“condemn half the population to ADSL speeds until 2028 at least.”
See you in 17 years.
HC I do not claim to have the superior intelligence that you claim to possess and I admit I am a simple person struggling to understand the NBN imbroglio but I do know that if there was an intense call and desire for 100 Mbps speeds from the majority of Australians there would be no need for the NBN Co to enact regulation that bans every opponent to create the NBN monopoly.
Nobody doubts that faster and faster speeds will be required into the future and as a natural progression this will happen it is just that at the present time I would have thought that the formation of a Government monopoly monster is a dangerous precedent to set for Australian business. Seriously, can anyone explain how the ACCC could allow such an anti-competitive situation to be created?
Simply my question is, why would it be necessary for the NBN Co to pay billions of dollars to other companies (to remove them from competing) if the NBN product was so superior with customers willing and eager to pay the price for the 100Mbps speed. The fact is that Australians are being FORCED to join the NBN where really, with other options, that may not be the case.
“HC I do not claim to have the superior intelligence that you claim to possess and I admit I am a simple person struggling to understand the NBN imbroglio blah blah blah”
Perhaps the reason why you are struggling is because you lack the foresight, not the superior intelligence that I have. Fact of the matter is fibre is the future, by the time the NBN reaches critical mass 100/40mbps connections will be the norm, it’s really irrelevant what dinky little isolated companies like TransACT are doing now as one or two small areas does not make a network and that’s before you even take into consideration prices and marketing issues.
You don’t think fibre should be rolled out now? Ok congrats you have something in common with Mr Rabbitt and his zoo crew chums, you think a patchwork and incremental upgrades is the way forward but Telstra and Optus think you are wrong. Practically the whole world thinks you are wrong, that is why we are saving ourselves trouble and money by building it now.
“I would have thought that the formation of a Government monopoly monster is a dangerous precedent to set for Australian business.”
Explain how.
“The fact is that Australians are being FORCED to join the NBN where really, with other options, that may not be the case.”
Currently I am FORCED to use Telstra copper for my fixed line ADSL2+ where is my fibre and HFC options? I’d like to swap between them on a whim.
“Simply my question is, why would it be necessary for the NBN Co to pay billions of dollars to other companies”
I have a better question: would you be ok with NBNco simply “rolling over the top” of Telstra not using any of their infrastructure to get fibre into 93% of Australian homes, costing the taxpayers more $$$ and do you think Telstra shareholders would be happy about this?
“Perhaps the reason why you are struggling is because you lack the foresight, not the superior intelligence that I have.”
Foresight is a personal and subjective matter
If thats all your argument boils down to, then you should stick to watching star-trek movies.
“Foresight is a personal and subjective matter”
In my case apparently not.
“If thats all your argument boils down to”
My argument was more than just that line designed solely to appease Sydney, you however failed to read or understand it… too many words in that one?
“then you should stick to watching star-trek movies.”
No, I’ll leave the star trek watching to you and anti-NBN crusaders still dreaming and waiting for that magical wireless subspace technology while I’m enjoying a real and stunning 100/40mbps connection in 2013.
“In my case apparently not.”
Why because you said so
Foresight is a human construct done by your mind a thought process, its subjective matter
Just because you think you are right, doesn’t change anything
“My argument was more than just that line designed solely to appease Sydney, you however failed to read or understand it… too many words in that one?”
No that is all your argument boils down to, you think we need fibre everywhere because you are predicting that people will need fibre anywhere. The rest of what you said is ignorant waffle
“No, I’ll leave the star trek watching to you and anti-NBN crusaders still dreaming and waiting for that magical wireless subspace technology while I’m enjoying a real and stunning 100/40mbps connection in 2013.”
And my foresight says, with the current Labor government doing a great jog governing the country, you will stick to your lovely copper in 2013 since they will get kicked out by then, if not earlier
“Why because you said so”
Yes.
“Foresight is a human construct done by your mind a thought process, its subjective matter”
Is this what I’ve reduced you to? Arguing about what foresight is? Oh my, that was too easy but in any case you are wrong, I have the foresight to see the benefits of a FTTH network you simply do not…
“Just because you think you are right, doesn’t change anything”
What does me being right about the NBN have to do with changing anything? Change what?
“No that is all your argument boils down to”
This statement is incorrect.
“you think we need fibre everywhere because you are predicting that people will need fibre anywhere.”
No, I’m not predicting that, predicting has nothing to do with this. I’m saying that a broadband network in Australia with 93% FTTH coverage is a good place to start.
“The rest of what you said is ignorant waffle”
This statement is also incorrect.
“And my foresight says, with the current Labor government doing a great jog governing the country, you will stick to your lovely copper in 2013 since they will get kicked out by then, if not earlier”
If Labor “gets kicked out by then” it is irrelevant, the NBN can still go ahead but in any case I still get proven right either way. NBN goes ahead everything is great, alternatively coalition baboons destroy it Australia gets left behind, get it?
“Yes.”
Wrong Answer, Try again
“Is this what I’ve reduced you to? Arguing about what foresight is? Oh my, that was too easy but in any case you are wrong, I have the foresight to see the benefits of a FTTH network you simply do not…”
Thats the whole basis of your argument
Don’t like it, start arguing rationally instead of dreaming in the clouds
“This statement is incorrect.”
So is this one
“No, I’m not predicting that, predicting has nothing to do with this. I’m saying that a broadband network in Australia with 93% FTTH coverage is a good place to start.”
It wouldn’t be much of a good start if no one actually used the fiber to a productive capacity. Unless you are saying its a good start because its there for ornamental reasons and good to look at
“This statement is also incorrect.”
As is this one
(jeez, I should use your logic more often, I can refute anyone as incorrect with just a sentance. Man this is easy)
“If Labor “gets kicked out by then” it is irrelevant, the NBN can still go ahead but in any case I still get proven right either way.”
The coalition saying they will stop the NBN says otherwise
” NBN goes ahead everything is great, alternatively coalition baboons destroy it Australia gets left behind, get it?”
No, if NBN gets destroyed Australia goes ahead
Applying the converse to your arguments is quite hilarious, because they are just as valid, since everything you say is just empty, ignorant, unintelligent rhetoric
*Applying the converse to your arguments is quite hilarious, because they are just as valid, since everything you say is just empty, ignorant, unintelligent rhetoric*
roflmao.
HC = Hubert Cumberdale?
dear old Hubert, i thought you said delimiter was a “low grade, riff-raff forum”? why keep posting your “NBN gets me off” garbage here? the irony is so thick you could slice it with a knife.
“HC = Hubert Cumberdale?”
Wow such insight! Just mind blowing. How on earth did you figure this out?!?!?!
“i thought you said delimiter was a “low grade, riff-raff forum”? ”
Nope, I said that about Whirlpool, perhaps you should go back and read that thread.
This is a good sign/sign of progress HC.
Our friend has finally used the little foresight he may possess, and worked out who HC is, woo-hoo!
Now…
Next step is to try to teach him what NBN stands for and then take incremental steps from there.
But let’s not jump too far forward, one step at a time, the HC bonanza, is more than enough for this month, we’ll try to progress to NBN next month…
Nice job HC, seems the message is slowly penetrating the (imo) layers of politically partial FUD!
Indeed RS.
You know what I find curious though is the more progress NBNco makes the more noise the anti-NBN crusaders make. I would have thought they would have run out of things to be wrong about by now but apparently not…
They’ll just keep inventing new FUD HC, like trying to make something out of this clause, for example.
But I suppose when they actually have “nothing”, they have to make BS up, contradict themselves, talk about goal posts moving, etc!
progress? lmao….
parading politicians around in hard hats on “test sites” with eternal “pilot testing” isn’t “progress”.
let me educate you on what “progress” means in the “real world”:
(i) meeting specific construction milestones ON TIME WITHIN BUDGET;
(ii) garnering enough subscribers across the entire fibre footprint to justify the exorbitant cost of replacing the entire last-mile.
so far, NBNco has achieved NONE of the above – they can’t even generate meaningful subscriber interest in the “test sites”!
the only “progress” achieved so far is strong-arming existing fixed-line infrastructure operators into shutting down their competitive infrastructure so that NBNco’s inevitable bankruptcy is delayed by a couple of years or more.
well, buddy, assuming that the Telstra deal is ratified in Oct, you got approx. two years to roll-out as much fibre as you can.
good luck! tell Quigley to peddle hard!
building the NBN fibre footprint is essentially a civil engineering or construction job – and you’ve got a CEO who has ZILCH experience in managing construction tenders (or even running a telco).* and i don’t think he’ll get much help either from the Alcatel cronies he has installed into NBNco to help divvy up the $50bln NBN gravy train.
* as opposed to engineering products and flogging billion dollar IT equipment to governments with the help of so-called “consultants” ;)
Blah, blah, blah…
If you’re unable to admit to the obvious PROGRESS MADE, even with all the stifling and BS from (imo) your political masters… and Telstra, well I’m feel pity for you and your partial view….
Wow, it’s almost as if my last post was predicting the future. I should get a powerballz ticket this week. I feel lucky.
At least Michael Wyres comments are more intelligent and he tries to argue his point (even though he resorts to personal attacks and squibbles when he gets backed into a corner).
You on the other hand are the arrogant punter who thinks he knows it all
“You on the other hand are the arrogant punter who thinks he knows it all”
I know more than you that is for sure and remind us who exactly has been backed into a corner here…
“blah blah blah The coalition saying they will stop the NBN says otherwise”
Like I said get proven right either way.
“blah blah blah Applying the converse to your arguments is quite hilarious, because they are just as valid, since everything you say is just empty, ignorant, unintelligent rhetoric”
Well here is the thing and I’ve said this before, I post on the “reap what you sow” policy if you had stuck to the subject at hand rather than get distracted by an irrelevant comment I made to Sydney then you wouldn’t be having this problem would you? Thanks for stopping by.
“I know more than you that is for sure and remind us who exactly has been backed into a corner here…”
That statement is incorrect
“Like I said get proven right either way.”
Holy shit a miracle, you said one thing correctly, whats next, someone walking on water?
“Well here is the thing and I’ve said this before, I post on the “reap what you sow” policy if you had stuck to the subject at hand rather than get distracted by an irrelevant comment I made to Sydney then you wouldn’t be having this problem would you? Thanks for stopping by.”
Your whole and only argument is about foresight, which makes you about as correct as anyone else that argues their own foresight
Gee the anti-NBN circus is in town with all the star clowns in attendance… strangely except one…LOL!
“Your whole and only argument is about foresight”
Wrong. Go back and read my original comment to Sydney.
“That statement is incorrect”
It’s actually true. If you bother to read your own comments here you’ll see how you’ve had to resort to the most trivial things to argue about.
“Holy shit a miracle, you said one thing correctly, whats next, someone walking on water?”
No, a miracle would be the coalition coming up with a decent broadband plan. Me being right about the NBN is as natural as the sun rising every day.
“It’s actually true. If you bother to read your own comments here you’ll see how you’ve had to resort to the most trivial things to argue about.”
Incorrect statement
“No, a miracle would be the coalition coming up with a decent broadband plan. Me being right about the NBN is as natural as the sun rising every day.”
Incorrect statement
if you haven’t got it yet, saying that something is true does not make it so.
“Incorrect statement”
Actually both statements were factually correct.
“if you haven’t got it yet, saying that something is true does not make it so.”
Of course not, see even you can figure this out but facts are facts, I’m just pointing them out for you.
“Actually both statements were factually correct.”
Actually both statements were factually incorrect
“Of course not, see even you can figure this out but facts are facts, I’m just pointing them out for you.”
Facts are facts only if you say they are facts, else they are not facts
I like your logic here mate, keep up with it!
“Actually both statements were factually incorrect”
Like I said if you bother to read your own comments here you’ll see how you’ve had to resort to the most trivial things to argue about. You are doing it right now, thus the statement was correct.
“Facts are facts only if you say they are facts, else they are not facts”
No, fact are facts regardless of what I say, like I said I’m just pointing them out for you. Not my fault if you lack the ability to understand them.
“I like your logic here mate, keep up with it!”
Well it’s pretty easy to figure out, it’s not rocket science so I’m sure even you can do it. Keeping up on the other hand you seem to have trouble with that one unfortunately.
Seriously, you arguing that someone resorts to personal attacks and squibbling is like a rubik’s cube calling a dice a cube…
All good intelligent comment and we should always remember the words of Thomas Fuller who said “He that converses not, knows nothing”.
This is not a simple and easy delivered piece of infrastructure and the end result is unknown even to those in the highest authority, but we all have opinions and that is healthy. The interview of David Thodey on this mornings Insiders Business Program was most enlightening and would go some way to arresting the fears that the NBN will be a disaster. Still so many unknowns, eg the political future, although Malcolm Turnbull has now stated that the high speed NBN system would be delivered to the Australian people should his Party be elected at the next election.
Hey everyone,
Thodey’s made some additional comments regarding the wireless issue — I’ve posted a brief yarn here:
‘Will Telstra’s LTE hit price parity with the NBN?’
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/06/26/will-telstras-lte-hit-price-parity-with-the-nbn/
Thanks!
Come and Experience…
Mobile Filmmaking Seminar with Adobe’S tech guru Stephan Nichols will
help mobile filmmakers and photographers shoot and edit with a mobile
phone or tablet device- http://ow.ly/5Efhg
Comments are closed.