From Communications Day yesterday comes the news that Telstra will force other ISPs who sign up to sell services over its new fibre network in South Brisbane to also resell a compulsory voice service alongside broadband. The industry newsletter reports:
“A Telstra spokesperson confirmed that “if wholesale customers want to provide a broadband service then they need to take a voice service too.”
Now, this just strikes your writer as incredible. In a fibre broadband world, voice is nothing more than an application running over the network — an application just like email, web access or even Twitter. Why should ISPs be forced to charge their customers what CommsDay reports could be $27 or more for “line rental” … when they’re already paying for the broadband service? Strictly speaking, there is no “line” to rent. And if you place all your calls over Skype or another Internet telephony service … why pay for a line you don’t use?
We’ve tried to speak with Telstra about this one but haven’t received a response yet. It’s worth noting that under the National Broadband Network plans, there is no compulsory voice component that we know of. Telstra’s going it alone on this.
Image credit: Clix, royalty free
Trust Telstra to try and screw people.
It’s not a matter of them screwing anybody. their antiquated plant recording system simply can’t support the existance of a broadband service unless it’s associated with a phone number.
If this was the reason, I’m sure Telstra could charge a “line rental” to a wholesaler at $1 per month, offer a $1 per service credit on the bill and block all incoming and outgoing services on this ‘virtual’ line.
Telstra trying to change their spots but the old spots just keep coming back
Well considering the fibre services meet the USO obligation it makes sense. It’s just a little weird to call it voice bundling.
Pretty sure the USO doesn’t force then to provide a voice service the client doesn’t want, as much as Telstra try to make it the case.
“It’s worth noting that under the National Broadband Network plans, there is no compulsory voice component that we know of.”
Hmm, I wouldn’t be so sure about that.
“As well as the access charges, the pricing that NBN has announced predicates a bundling of services. It predicates that you need to bundle in a voice service as well.”
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20110428-experts-warn-internet-usage-prices-to-rise-under-nbn.html
“Similarly, NBN Co is going to offer a bundle of voice and data services as a uniform product across its fibre, wireless and satellite networks. Apparently to protect the government’s promise of uniform national pricing of NBN services, NBN Co will have the ability to deny supply to any service provider that doesn’t want to take the bundle,”
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Stephen-Conroy-NBN-Co-Telstra-Optus-pd20110324-F9A44?opendocument&src=rss
And this is the same mob that the Coalition would have us entrust our telecommunications future too. Has the last 10 years not taught them anything?
Howard fucked up when he sold Telstra. Just admit it and let us move on with reality.
“And this is the same mob that the Coalition would have us entrust our telecommunications future too.”
They have? – where did the Coalition say that?
BTW you did read my post above yours Giddy?
Don’t play dumb, Alain. You know full well that’s what Abbott would do. The Shareholder decision in November can’t come soon enough.
As for your post, yes I did read it, and if that’s whats required to keep competition even (which isn’t what Telstra is doing in South Brisbane) then fine, so be it.
He’s not playing ;-)
@Goddy
“You know full well that’s what Abbott would do”
Well I don’t actually that’s why I asked, nothing I have read indicates Coalition policy is all about ‘giving it all back to Telstra’, perhaps you can enlighten me where you got your info from?
“The Shareholder decision in November can’t come soon enough.”
Whoa, you are jumping all over the place, what has the Telstra shareholder decision got to do with what is happening at Brisbane South exchange exactly?
“and if that’s whats required to keep competition even (which isn’t what Telstra is doing in South Brisbane) then fine:
Well it is exactly what Telstra is doing in South Brisbane, which is just like the NBN will do according to the links I provided, I understand your blind motivation to hang shit on Telstra no matter what because your RIM is full, but this particular story is not it.
It is bleeding obvious, unless you’re blind or deaf. If the libs come to power, they will either not do anything, or, according to turnbull, pretend to save some cost by giving Teltra money to build a metro FTTN. It will never by publicly owned, and natrually it will be another Teltra monopoly.
“If the libs come to power, they will either not do anything”
You are absolutely right tony and if the coalition did come to power at the last election they certainly wouldn’t be taking broadband as seriously as they are now (if you could even call their patchwork plan serious) it’s only now ever since NBNco lit a fire under their collective asses that they’ve decided to do something. But of course it’s too little to late, they will always be one step behind as NBNco make progress they’ll continually have to modify their patchwork plan.
@HC
“if the coalition did come to power at the last election they certainly wouldn’t be taking broadband as seriously as they are now”
Well the Coalition stance on the NBN is exactly the same before the election as it is now, I don’t see any change, like most of your post content it’s a figment of your imagination.
BTW keep up (patchwork) the (patchwork) repetition, merely saying patchwork over and over in your (patchwork) mindless agenda driven (patchwork) droning mantra , not that the Coalition have published their policy yet, but it’s patchwork, patchwork and more patchwork anyway.
Even when they do (patchwork) announce their policy they can change their minds like (patchwork) Rudd and Conroy did after the (patchwork) 2007 election.
oh noes I seem to have hit a raw nerve with my patchwork plan remark advocate is in full meltdown mode again, apparently liberal party voters are a bit sensitive about this since even they realise just how dismal and pathetic the plan they put forward is. Tell you what advocate I’m a reasonable guy I’ll stop calling their plan a patchwork plan from now on just placate you, instead I’ll call it a hodgepodge network… come to think of it that is far more accurate too.
“I don’t see any change”
Exactly. It’s just as bad as it’s ever been. Thanks for stopping by.
The Coalition have not published their policy.
But interestingly alain, here you are supporting a policy which you yourself even says, isn’t released yet!
Is that called blind faith, foolishness or as I have been saying all along, subserviency?
Maybe it should be BAA not just WAA ;-)
So when they announced their $6 billion hodgepodge network plan last year that was just a ruse???
It’s election time 2013 already, jeez that was quick.
LOL.. the naivety and stupidity is wonderful…
In March 2011 Labor were sitting pretty in the polls, Gillard was immensely popular and Abbott was at all time lows… now just 4 months later things have turned around completely…
Remember that guy Rudd, the one stabbed in the back by the internal mafia.. yes, most popular PM ever (iirc)…
Things change elaine… and if the only hope you have is resting on a Coalition win in 2013…well…!
I remind you, YOUR leader is presiding over a party with a healthy lead, an opponent at al time lows and in opposition to a government, also at all time lows!
Yet his own approval rating is still 1% below his disapproval rating…! Unbelievable… a government at record lows, yet more people dislike Abbott than like him…????
Yes your mate datego, supplied a chart suggesting the leaders don’t matter. But I can only go from my POV, which say, I could vote for Turnbull or Hockey, but will never vote for Abbott, and the stats show many feel the same…!
I’d suggest to you and the rest of the Lib faithful, dump the nodding idiot which is Abbott and I will agree Labor are all but gone, but while ever this bumbling fool leads the opposition, they are NOT over the line by a long shot…imo
Revisit this… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXdcS_7CA1o
Priceless…!
@tony
according to turnbull, pretend to save some cost by giving Teltra money to build a metro FTTN. It will never by publicly owned, and natrually it will be another Teltra monopoly.
Where has Turnbull said this is what the Coalition will do?
And to take that, typical alain, let’s ignore reality semantics/pedantics and run with it, where has Turnbull NOT said that…?
There are many media coverages of Turnbull’s “plan”, if you’re in this circle you should have read them. His ultimate goal is not to follow labour’s plan, even if he knew this is an excellent plan. He has to propose something different in the name of saving money. He first touted wireless, but shot himself down shortly afterwards knowing wireless just won’t cut it. Now his line is FTTN.
You may argue he did not say to give money to telstra to build. But again it is bleeding obvious, Telstra being the last mile copper owner, whoelse can build FTTN economically?
Lib’s never interested in owning or operating a telecom infrastructure, so they will sell the network. Who will buy it? Can you think of anyone other than Telstra?
@tony
“There are many media coverages of Turnbull’s “plan”,”
Really? sorry I missed the links to those ‘media coverages’ did you copy & paste them but they didn’t appear in your post, anyway must have been a technical hitch, have another go.
” His ultimate goal is not to follow labour’s plan, even if he knew this is an excellent plan.”
err yeah ok, where has Turnbull said Labors plan is excellent, or do you have a full time job as a clairvoyant?
“He has to propose something different in the name of saving money.”
Not sure where you are going with this, saving money is not a good idea?
“He first touted wireless”
No he didn’t, he has never said wireless is a total replacement for fixed line BB.
” but shot himself down shortly afterwards knowing wireless just won’t cut it”
Well seeing he didn’t say it in the first place I’m not sure where all the shooting was.
” Now his line is FTTN.”
It is? where did he say that?
“You may argue he did not say to give money to telstra to build. But again it is bleeding obvious, Telstra being the last mile copper owner, whoelse can build FTTN economically?”
That’s confusing I don’t what you are saying here, if you are saying Coalition BB policy is to give Telstra taxpayer money to build FTTN that is utterly incorrect.
“Lib’s never interested in owning or operating a telecom infrastructure, so they will sell the network. Who will buy it? Can you think of anyone other than Telstra?”
Well Labor wants to sell the NBN eventually as well, and you are right Telstra might be the only one interested in it, but that’s not what you meant I take it?
I think I got your point, RC, typical alain. I’m not going to waste my time to post for any references for alain. No point to argue common sense.
Indeed Tony, because it doesn’t really matter what he says today, tomorrow he will simply contradict himself if the thread calls for it, anyway…
@tony
“I’m not going to waste my time to post for any references for alain.”
No I didn’t think you would – bye.
“No point to argue common sense”
Before common sense there was no common sense then alain came along and told us all about roads…
@Tony… this is obviously the sort of things you meant …
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/394290/coalition_commits_delivering_high-speed_broadband_faster_than_labor_nbn_co/?fp=4&fpid=5
From within from Malcolm…
* “On ‘day one’ of taking power, the Coalition would immediately set the Productivity Commission to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the NBN — a process Turnbull said would take about six months to carry out.”
* The Opposition would also attempt to renegotiate the deals Labor and NBN Co had signed with Optus and Telstra to ensure existing HFC networks were not decommissioned in favour of fibre.
(((( “The approach we have to this industry structure is one which would benefit Telstra,” he (MT) said.))))
* “The Opposition would also look to run fibre-to-the-home in some brownfields areas and in other instances run fibre-to-the-curb in areas where the existing copper network was old or where wet ground conditions would cause damage to copper networks.*
* Following the signing of the deal, Turnbull said the Coalition would seek to change the mix of fibre, wireless and satellite technologies NBN Co uses — a far cry from the September 2010 remit from Tony Abbott to “demolish” the NBN.*
And this – (from the Australian) –
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/telstra-in-for-billions-if-nbn-plans-change/story-e6frgaif-1226055622468
* ((((TELSTRA could receive a multi-billion-dollar windfall if a Coalition government sought to redesign the National Broadband Network, opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has warned)))).
* “Mr Turnbull had recently visited the South Korean city of Inchon and said he had seen there “compelling evidence” that FTTN could deliver fast broadband.
And of course right here on Delimiter –
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/06/03/fibre-to-the-node-would-do-60mbps-turnbull/
* “However, in a major speech in Parliament yesterday, Turnbull suggested the idea still had legs. An affordably priced NBN, the Liberal MP said, would see a mix of technologies used – including FTTH in greenfields estates, but also FTTN”.
So to recap the oppositions plans (without being policy)…
CBA would be undertaken
CBA = 6 months!!!
FTTN is preferred anyway (regardless of CBA) with mixture of other technologies
They would “renegotiate with Telstra and Optus”
Telstra would benefit
Telstra gets multi $B windfall
Pretty much what you said Tony… nice job!
Welcome to Helstra Fibre. Been on the Point Cook trial with Internode but with Helstra as the wholesaler I have been paying $20 per month extra for a phone line I don’t use or want (using voip).
Don’t get me wrong fibre is brilliant but it takes Helstra, to overprice it and force you to have product you don’t want, to take the gloss of it.
Typical of Telstra really and some people actually like the company?
Its like yes please I would like to have cancer with my chips.
I think my response re what the NBN Co will do re a voice service which after all is what this article criticism of Telstra wholesaling out of South Brisbane exchange is all about must be written in that special ‘invisible ink’ anti-Telstra and pro-NBN pundits love to use.
why should telstra supply free internet connection for other isp’s on telstra’s network.
Um … wholesale customers don’t get stuff for free from Telstra. They pay for it. What ppl are complaining about here is that both wholesale customers and ordinary joes are being forces to buy something along the way which they may not actually want.
No wonder there are anti telstra folks around
““A Telstra spokesperson confirmed that “if wholesale customers want to provide a broadband service then they need to take a voice service too.””
It’s hardly surprising that Telstra would mandate redundant voice services merely to boost revenue per connection. Telstra also cripple the uplink speeds so they don’t lose revenue from ridiculously overpriced “business” internet services with higher uplink speeds.
Telstra has always and will always milk Australian consumers for every dollar by crippling their products deliberately so that their higher profit legacy services aren’t cannibalised.
It’s almost a given that Telstra will insist on voice bundling on all their NBN internet services as well (at some outrageous ~$30 per month price point even though they no longer have a copper line to maintain). Bring on the NBN so we don’t have to put up with this Telstra BS profiteering any longer. With true wholesale competition Telstra will lose a lot of customers if they don’t want to offer what customers really want.
I have actually just been told by Simon Hackett that NBN Co is planning bundling as well. You can apparently choose not to bundle; but you don’t pay any less. Seems fairly ridiculous; I’ll be querying NBN Co about it.
No. It makes sense, the cost of providing voice services is negligible on fibre infrastructure. Why charge for a service it costs you nothing to provide if your motive is not for profit?
It’s as I said before in my comment, it makes sense as to why they require you to bundle as they are using the “voice” part to meet their USO requirements and part of the fibre expensive, but it probably shouldn’t be called that, or, as NBN Co do, bundled directly into the fibre offering rather than as some “compulsory add on”.
@NightKhaos
“. Why charge for a service it costs you nothing to provide if your motive is not for profit?”
The NBN Co’s motive is not for profit? – really?
“but it probably shouldn’t be called that, or, as NBN Co do, bundled directly into the fibre offering rather than as some “compulsory add on”.
Well the NBN Co call it voice as well, voice is voice, but I assume what you mean is that the kind NBN Co voice bundling is a much better than the ( hey everyone hates) Telstra one because umm err it just is.
The NBN Co’s motive is not for profit? – really?
Repaying debt and operating expenses as an operating goal does not equal the pursuit of profit. That is all NBN Co is supposed to be doing for the first 20 years or so of it’s lifetime. In fact I highly doubt they will even make a profit for at least a decade.
Well the NBN Co call it voice as well, voice is voice, but I assume what you mean is that the kind NBN Co voice bundling is a much better than the ( hey everyone hates) Telstra one because umm err it just is.
Actually yes, because it’s calling it what it is. Everyone knows voice is a negligible cost on fibre infrastructure, so what NBN Co are doing (treating it a negligible cost) is in fact better than Telstra. I didn’t say Telstra shouldn’t be charging this extra $27 dollars or so, I just thought that adding it as a “compulsory add on” is kinda retarded.
It’s like airlines on an eight hour flight (who are legally required to serve you food considering the duration of the flight) deciding to charge you “extra” for this food despite the fact you have to pay for it anyway.
@NightKhaos
“In fact I highly doubt they will even make a profit for at least a decade.”
Seeing as they will still be building it then err yeah and keep going, and if they don’t get the (tell them they’re dreaming) 70% uptake, keep on going.
“so what NBN Co are doing (treating it a negligible cost)”
How do you know what the ‘voice’ cost component of a NBN fibre plan is to determine if the cost is negligible or not?
Also another point, I like the way the massively taxpayer subsidised NBN Plans are compared directly with a private company like Telstra who has to make return to its investor shareholders,as if Telstra South Brisbane exchange wholesale costing should equal to NBN FTTH wholesale costing.
I am sure Telstra would love the luxury of taxpayers bankrolling the new South Brisbane exchange build and the fibre runs to all residents and business’s on that exchange, and then have the luxury of 20+ years to pay it all back interest free, if at all.
*facepalm*
Really? that well used ‘Get out of jail free’ card is the best you can come up with? – ok.
“Jail”?
Jail. Seriously. You seriously think you’ve got me cornered and that I must only be face-palming at your response because of some selfish desire to continue on with the NBN regardless of it’s flaws?
No. I’m face-palming because that was a non response Alain. You didn’t even understand my argument did you?
Two videos that might interest you.
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
@NightKhaos
“No. I’m face-palming because that was a non response Alain.”
I must remember that one, when it all gets a bit awkward I can either just respond with *facepalm* or that’s a ‘non response’ followed up with some diverting links to irrelevant off topic videos.
“You didn’t even understand my argument did you?”
I understand them all right, they are quite simplistic, perhaps the problem is you simply don’t like my responses to them.
I linked the videos only because I thought you would be of interest. I even stated thus, they are therefore by definition off-topic.
If you understand my argument so well, then please go ahead and explain it to the forum.
Then while you’re at it, could you enlighten me as to what NBN Co ability to make a profit (or not) and how Telstra would “love” to get a 20 year+ government supported loan to roll out fibre has anything to do with said arguments. Because as far as I can tell, they don’t.
I will address one point, on “how do I know?” that I decided to leave because the answer was seemly obvious to anyone who bothers to read the rest of the comments on this article with a word for word replication from a prior response.
No, he doesn’t have too Alain, because if you’ll note, NBN Co are not charging for their bundled voice services and also they are optional. These two things do not apply to Telstra’s offering.
Hmm, alain, when things get awkward for you, you simply refuse to correspond further and pretend the awkwardness doesn’t exist…LOL
KnightKaos you do realize that NBNCo is planned to be privatized into a company that will be held accountable to its shareholders and thus expect to make a profit?
There is no such thing as a company (or a government) who doesn’t have one of their goals as making a profit. We don’t live in communist Russia
Governments need to make profits so they are able to properly take care of the country (so you know, they have actual money to build things, we don’t want to turn out like Greece or America)
NBNCo is just as driven to make profit as any other company is, and them being a monopoly makes it even more abusable, as we have seen with what happens with Telstra
First of all, learn to spell my alias correctly. It’s not hard. If you can’t do it, copy and paste.
You do realize that NBNCo is planned to be privatized into a company that will be held accountable to its shareholders and thus expect to make a profit?
Not until after it has paid of the majority of it’s debt to the commonwealth as I understand it, which won’t be for 20 years. At which point, assuming it actually does continue and is not cut off either by political decisions (Coalition in power) or simply for being to expensive to maintain, it should be making a profit.
And this is also assuming that the Greens don’t hold the balance of power and block the privatisation of it at the time, as they have already stated they intend.
There is no such thing as a company (or a government) who doesn’t have one of their goals as making a profit
You’re confusing long term goals with short term goals. Is it not better to pay off debt quickly and therefore make a loss, “break even”, or marginal profit than to make a profit, of the type agreeable to shareholders, when you have a huge debt? How many companies can make a profit in their first few years of existence? None. They all make significant losses as they try and take market share, and pay of their initial debts. NBN Co is no different. For the next decade or so NBN Co should not be making a profit, and if it does, everyone will be asking “why wasn’t this profit put straight back into repaying the debt to the people of Australia?”
NBNCo is just as driven to make profit as any other company is, and them being a monopoly makes it even more abusable, as we have seen with what happens with Telstra
Also being a government owned enterprise you could argue they are more directly accountable as any “abuse” reflects badly on the government as well as NBN Co.
Your argument is a meaningless one then, because the only reason that NBNCo doesn’t make profit is because it can’t (since its so overriden with debt)
The point is however, that its driver to make money just as any other company is, even moreso due to the fact that it does have such ridiculous debt.
If you think that NBNCo is less motivated then Telstra to make money, you are sadly mistaken. At least Telstra doesn’t have legislation protecting its monopolistic practices
Read what my arguement actually was deteego.
Repaying debt and operating expenses as an operating goal does not equal the pursuit of profit. That is all NBN Co is supposed to be doing for the first 20 years or so of it’s lifetime. In fact I highly doubt they will even make a profit for at least a decade.
That’s neither here nor there, they’re both monoploys, and as such they need to be have a close eye on them by the ACCC. As I said, being a Government Owned Enterprise I think you’ll find that the government will be more likely to try and nip any bad practice by NBN Co in the bud because it reflects badly on them.
Apologises that last comment was in reply to:
If you think that NBNCo is less motivated then Telstra to make money, you are sadly mistaken. At least Telstra doesn’t have legislation protecting its monopolistic practices
That’s neither here nor there, they’re both monoploys, and as such they need to be have a close eye on them by the ACCC. As I said, being a Government Owned Enterprise I think you’ll find that the government will be more likely to try and nip any bad practice by NBN Co in the bud because it reflects badly on them.
Yup in the same way that ACCC looks over Telstra, how well that has worked out
Just replacing one monopoly with another, incredibly genius idea…..
Okay that makes even less sense than I thought it did when I posted it.
I should probably add after the quoting myself:
I never said they won’t be pursuing revenue. Of course they will, they kinda have too. It’s just profit isn’t going to be their aim for a while. Making the leap to profitability is actually more like a mountain pass.
Your point about making profit makes no sense for the reason I outlined earlier
Opposed to what deteego?
Given the current monopoly even more power and leverage over their competitors? Yes that’s also a great idea.
Face it, Australia is always going to have some sort of monopoly at the core of it’s residential broadband and fixed-line voice service providers. The only way to split it up from a monopoly would be to do it regionally, which is still an effective monopoly, just through several different, non-competing entities. The damage has been done by the original state owned enterprise.
That makes no sense, the reason they can’t make profit is because they can’t because they have debt. They therefore won’t be aiming for profit, because they have debt. So, my point was simply that they can’t make profit for a while… oh never-mind. Arguing with you when we’re making the same point but you seem to think I have some different interruption because I didn’t phrase it in perfect unambiguous terms always turns out to be a pointless debate.
@KiteKhaos
lol…. funny watching you tie yourself up in knots – and how you don’t fully understand the concepts you’re trying to argue, so you turn it into a game of semantics. hilarious.
Regardless he still makes more sense than deteego…!
@ alain…
Perhaps “you betcha the NBN will be a success” and “the NBN will fail” is the answer – well it is your’s! Ah nothing like an each way bet just so that one can say “told ya”!
Yes interesting those so called, subsidised NBN plans and comparing them to Telstra’s exchange in Brissy but shhh don’t mention the bush to Telstra or any private company and their shareholders… Funny the way it works, eh?
Sigh…
The RSP might not pay any more or less to NBNCo with or without a voice port, BUT you can bet that they will charge somewhere in the $15 to $40 range for voice service rental just because they can (in line with charging the same as non-NBN connections).
Telstra isn’t going to be offering a $0 monthly line rental like many VoIP providers currently do.
Actually there are associated costs with providing a voice service over fibre infrastructure that is not directly related to the use of the fibre itself. Remember NBN Co are only providing a Layer2 bit-stream service. This means that RSPs will need to provide all the necessary infrastructure to handle and direct calls, as well as take voice-mail, etc, or hire those services from somebody else (i.e. Telstra, who currently have this infrastructure already in place) so it won’t be a “we’re charging you $15 just because we can” it’s “we’re charging you $15 to meet our operating costs of providing you voice services.”
So many VoIP providers offer $0 monthly rental plans even though they have all the interconnect costs at their end. It’s just greedy telco’s like Telstra that insist on charging rental just because they can (on top of outrageous call rate charging and call connection charges).
The fact is the majority of so called VoIP providers provide sub-par quality service. The “VoIP” services offering under the NBN will be of far higher quality than that. That extra quality comes at a price, so expect voice services on the NBN to start at around $20/month line rental a drop with competition.
To give you an example: a VoIP provider via the NBN will likely need a dedicated “voice-only” back-haul conduit between the POI and their infrastructure. A standard VoIP provider that “operates over the internet” doesn’t need that as their traffic is treated just like everything else. This dedicated back-haul costs money. Money that providers might not be able to recover by flagfall on calls.
“so expect voice services on the NBN to start at around $20/month line rental a drop with competition.”
Oh you are making it up as you go along now I see, where did you get that NBN voice service figure from, and is it wholesale or retail, amazing how it is the Telstra Homeline Budget rental figure, but that’s just a incredible coincidence I take it?
Again you’ve missed the point that you shouldn’t have to pay any extra for a special dedicated quality VoIP service if you don’t want it because you’d rather use a cheaper VoIP service transmitted via the general purpose internet link with no QoS (or just use your mobile).
Forcing subscribers to get an overpriced (due to QoS costs) PSTN service bundled with their internet is just utter BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You’re not required to have a PSTN service with cable internet now, so why force the requirement on FTTP users now just because the prehistoric poorly designed billing system at Telstra was designed by clueless morons??????
“so why force the requirement on FTTP users now just because the prehistoric poorly designed billing system at Telstra was designed by clueless morons??????”
You know this is the sole reason how?
@Renai LeMay
“I have actually just been told by Simon Hackett that NBN Co is planning bundling as well.”
So you will correct your headline?
Telstra and NBN Co forcing fibre voice bundling
No, he doesn’t have too Alain, because if you’ll note, NBN Co are not charging for their bundled voice services and also they are optional. These two things do not apply to Telstra’s offering.
fact #1: on the copper platform, you can either have “voice only” or “voice plus broadband”.
fact #2: under the NBN, you can’t “unbundle” voice from data.
when you pay $24 AVC, you get a “voice port” and a “data port” bundled together. if you ask NBNco, “can you give me a price discount on the $24 AVC if i just take the “data port”?” – they will say “NO.”
in terms of product bundling flexibility, we’re actually worse off under the NBN.
*facepalm*
Any fucking excuse? Ignore the fact that Fact #2 applies to Telstra Velocity as well. Ignore the fact that the reason for this is that the voice service is a negligible expense to provide (you provide a 150kbps/150kbps high priority conduit, well shit that’s a lot of bandwidth to account for on a 2.5Gbps GPON with about 32 users!).
Also ignore the fact the NBN Co is slated to provide discounted voice only packages which means that effectively we have the same thing as what we get on copper now. See the FAQ.
Will my landline phone cost more if I connect to the National Broadband Network?
No. The government is committed to the continued availability of voice only services for those who need it, at no greater price than they pay now.
@NightKhaos
“No. The government is committed to the continued availability of voice only services for those who need it, at no greater price than they pay now.”
That’s $20.95 RETAIL , the minimum NBN Plan cost is $24 WHOLESALE to that add ISP retail margin – hmm spot the discrepancy
Hey don’t shoot the messenger. That’s what is says in plain sight on the FAQ.
Yes but you prefaced it with your own comment emphasising the point:
“Also ignore the fact the NBN Co is slated to provide discounted voice only packages which means that effectively we have the same thing as what we get on copper now.”
So you have nothing to add to the seeming discrepancy other than a nothing to do with me ‘shrug of the shoulders’?
Precisely.
**facepalm**
stop doing Michael Wyres impressions.
*Any fucking excuse?*
dunno, ask “Any”. (she might tell you to MYOB.)
*Ignore the fact that Fact #2 applies to Telstra Velocity as well.*
i was comparing the copper access regime vs fibre access regime. since when did this become a corporate battle between Telstra and NBNco? as a consumer – all i care about is choices.
with copper, i have a choice between:
1/ pay $30 for phone
2/ pay $30 for phone plus $30 for broadband
with NBN fibre, i’ll be choosing between:
1/ pay $60 for bundled voice and data
2/ pay $60 for bundled voice and data
which platform offers more product bundling flexibility?
*Ignore the fact that the reason for this is that the voice service is a negligible expense to provide (you provide a 150kbps/150kbps high priority conduit, well shit that’s a lot of bandwidth to account for on a 2.5Gbps GPON with about 32 users!*
the difference in operating costs to NBNco between:
1/ a fibre core carrying a 0.15Mbit service
2/ a fibre core carrying a 2,500Mbit service
is precisely ZERO. what matters is the VALUE of the service and this has nothing to do with the bandwidth involved. for example:
1/ say, you push fibre to John Smith’s cottage and you need to earn $30/mth to cover your costs;
2/ John has $30/mth of discretionary income to spend;
3/ John is interested in having a telephone connected but is disinterested in an internet connection;
what sort of service would you sell John? Ans: $30 phone.
*Also ignore the fact the NBN Co is slated to provide discounted voice only packages which means that effectively we have the same thing as what we get on copper now. See the FAQ.*
okay – consider this:
1/ say NBNco pushes fibre to 10 residential customers at a cost of $X per premise;
2/ the $X is funded by debt to be repaid at the rate of $20/mth;
3/ the Government mandates that a “voice-only service” be sold at the wholesale price of $2/mth;
4/ 8 customers demand a “voice and data” service and 2 customers demand a “voice-only” service.
how does NBNco price the service?
Ans: $24.50/mth for wholesale bundle (voice and data) and $2/mth for wholesale voice-only.
implication: the majority of subscribers end up paying a hefty 25% premium over the actual cost of their bundled service to subsidise provision of “unbundled voice” to a minority.
is that a “free lunch” i see lying on the table?…. oh, pardon me – that’s just NBNco’s business case.
i was comparing the copper access regime vs fibre access regime. since when did this become a corporate battle between Telstra and NBNco? as a consumer – all i care about is choices.
You seem to associate all bad pricing metrics and ideas with NBN Co, and somehow the fact that the same problem can occur outside of NBN Co is not relevant to you? I find that curious. Are you against FTTH in general, don’t you support Telstra rolling out Velocity estates?
which platform offers more product bundling flexibility?
So the costs of providing voice services for RSPs is zero? They won’t need to invest in other infrastructure besides the conduit as provided by NBN Co to provide services? Bullshit. There are other costs associated with providing Internet and Communications Services than just the cost of the conduit.
the difference in operating costs to NBNco between is precisely ZERO. what matters is the VALUE of the service and this has nothing to do with the bandwidth involved. for example:
Thank you for proving my point. To NBNCo the fact they are providing a conduit for “voice” is irrelevant to them, hence why they don’t charge extra for it. The extra costs associated with providing voice services, and extra value that can be extracted from it, lays purely on RSPs.
implication: the majority of subscribers end up paying a hefty 25% premium over the actual cost of their bundled service to subsidise provision of “unbundled voice” to a minority.
Oh wait, so you don’t want them to provide unbundled voice now because it’ll result in Broadband subscribers paying to much? I thought you said you wanted choice for consumers? The fact that they are providing this choice under NBN Co is now bad because, what, it’s NBN Co?
No, really, do you seriously think you actually pay the actual value it costs to service your voice or broadband plan today, that you’re not subsiding a heavy user, or not paying to make up the difference of a light one? Of course you do that today, so what’s different? Is it the fact that it’s a government owned enterprise under NBN Co that gets you all up an arms?
Your bias is really starting to show now Tosh. I’d recommend holding back on it just a little bit.
*YAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn…..*
i’m going to bed. –.–
@NightKhos
Speaking of voice.
How’s that retail price for voice only calculation under the NBN going? – the Excel spreadsheet starting to smoke a bit when it gets to the published base minimum NBN $24 wholesale cost as it tries to turn that into $20.95 retail available today?
basically, NBNco’s pricing model and the ACCC’s enforced pricing model for Telstra are the same in terms of the centrality of voice services in the product/cost bundling.
the key differences are:
1/ with copper, you pay $20 WLR plus $2.50 LSS ($22.50)
i/ for that you get access to both the low and high frequency spectrums for voice and broadband delivery;
ii/ there are no other charges (or data tariff) on the tail circuit;
iii/ you get a full “voice” and “broadband” product on the tail circuit
2/ with fibre, you pay $24 AVC upfront
i/ for that you get access to a single voice port and a single data port, plus 150Kbit CIR for voice only;
ii/ there’s a data tariff on the tail circuit, i.e. you have to additionally provision bandwidth for broadband by paying the $20/Mbit CVC charge;
iii/ you get a full “voice” product and a CRIMPED “broadband” product on the tail circuit
more importantly, how much does it cost to “uncrimp” the broadband product on fibre?
1/ people claim that the average ADSL speed in Australia is only 2Mbit;
2/ the cost of provisioning avg bandwidth of 2Mbit on the NBN = 2Mbit x $20/Mbit = $40 (CVC charge)
what does that tell us? it means to get the equivalent ADSL service on fibre costs:
$24 AVC plus $40 CVC (2Mbit provision) = $64
$22.50 on copper vs $64 on fibre.
broadband quotas will surely get decimated once we move over to the super-expensive fibre network.
Then how does a ULL get in on the act?
For all intends and purposes ULL doesn’t exist under the NBN. Voice services are “free” in terms of wholesale costs paid to NBNCo, so I think this is a null issue, considering that there is now an extra expense (provisioning the servers and back-haul for dedicated voice services, or getting that from someone else (i.e. Telstra)) associated with providing voice services via the NBN.
Well voice services are not free on current NBN plans available in the activated areas, if you want a voice service you pay extra on top of the chosen NBN BB plan, Internode for example require you to stay on copper and buy a PSTN voice service, iiNet let you use their extra cost VoIP product, but of course you need a VoIP modem.
Alluding it is free and is included in the NBN ‘wholesale cost’ is disingenuous.
Actually I’m planning a separate follow-up article :)
I hope it’s really objective, something like ‘My opinion of the South Brisbane Exchange’ by Simon Hackett.
:)
To correct a view just a few posts above, where Umm you say “Telstra one because umm err it just is”
Excuse me …
A recent post from a Mr Dalby of well know Aussie ISP iinet, mentioned the MINOR FACT about the “QUALITY” of Telstra fibre – the South Brisbane type and others that have been rolled! THAT MINOR FACT THAT Crap Telstra fibre DOES NOT SUPPORT MULTICAST (IPTV support)
So I postulate that it would NOT be equivalent Hmm
Of course you overlook I was referring ONLY to the voice component, but then you know that.
No you were directly comparing the Telstra Brissy rollout to the NBN…!
But of course now found out FUDging, you again want to use “your get out of gaol/jail free card”…!
Telstra under USO guidelines has to provide a voice service that is compatible with our phone system
This does not mean skype, or other forms of so called voice services
1) Doesn’t the USO also state something about providing the voice service only if requested? The article is about people who want to opt-out of the Telstra provided voice service and only get the Broadband service, however they are actually being charged for a voice service regardless.
2) Skype is compatible with our standard phone system. You can request a STS number to associate with you account, and you can make calls to STS numbers. Unless you are referring to some other definition of compatible?
You have to be able to link your standard phone line to the service (or a mobile phone). You can’t do that with Skype, and Skype isn’t even a standardised phone service in Australia because you can’t get assigned a phone number yourself (you can only be reached by skype name, even if you can call other numbers)
Umm. You’re not really up with the times are you deteego?
Skype Online Number FAQ. That could easily be used to replace for a STS service in all but emergency calls. Not that I’m recommending it over say an actual mobile phone or STS voice service, but you can do it.
grr.. why does delimiter load so sh!t on Chrome.
Nothing to do with Chrome. I think Renai needs to invest in a better server. Sometimes it just refuses to load pages completely.
We’ve had our first real delays on the site tonight since we moved to powerful new Australian hosting several months ago.
Perhaps it’s hung off the South Brisbane exchange, you need to move it to Smithton Tas, they need the business.
:)
I love that the usual suspects have turned this into an NBN-bash thread.
The migration of the South Brisbane exchange from copper to fibre has nothing to do with the NBN, and was a decision taken by Telstra when a land development deal saw the need for the exchange to relocate.
Whether Telstra maintained the exchange area with copper or moved to fibre, the existing copper needed to be cut off, and significant underground rewiring needed to be performed to make sure that all premises within the exchange area were connected to the new location of the exchange itself.
Given – (at the time) – that a deal with NBN would likely be reached, Telstra made the (sensible) decision to do it with fibre. This is where any relationship between this project and the NBN ends.
Now, under the current circumstances in regards to the USO, as it stands, Telstra has a legal requirement to provide a standard telephone service to all connected premises in Australia.
Since there will longer be any serviced copper – (with or without the NBN) – in this area, to meet their USO requirements, Telstra must connect a standard telephone service to each premise, and can only do it with their new fibre.
This does not mean you have to have a phone service actually operating. If you have your phone service “disconnected”, the line still works, and you can still make 000 calls. The line is still there.
Telstra insisting that a voice service is connected to all premises simply maintains their legal requirement to do so. There is nothing sinister going on here.
The USO requirements change in an NBN world, but the NBN is not here yet, and is certainly not in South Brisbane yet. It is however probably reasonable to suggest that this area would get the NBN fairly soon – but not before the Telstra/NBN is completely finalised.
“I love that the usual suspects have turned this into an NBN-bash thread.”
I love it how you ignore in reality it is a Telstra bash thread, and the main heading starts that theme off, in my case I was comparing voice bundling under the NBN with voice bundling out of the South Brisbane exchange, because the article stated that Telstra was ‘going it alone’ with that strategy.
The Queensland Government wanted the South Brisbane exchange site to build a new hospital, the new South Brisbane exchange site and the FTTH feeding the suburbs off that exchange is a contract between Telstra and the Queensland Government, and you are correct it has nothing to do with the NBN Co.
If the NBN Co want it in the future they will have to buy it off the owners.
I love how you change the subject.
Changing the subject??? -the subject is the new South Brisbane exchange and that is what most of my post discussed, I love it how you hate anything negative being said about the NBN even though the NBN was mentioned in the lead article in direct comparison with the Telstra FTTH offering.
While I have your attention, you attend the NBN Co industry briefings, perhaps you can ask a question at the next one after getting Quigley’s autograph on your hat, ‘”What will the retail price be for the cheapest voice only NBN component be”?
You know, the direct equivalent of Telstra Homeline Budget at $20.95.
How about you attend them and start getting some facts for yourself – instead of assuming I’m wrong about everything – that would be far more useful.
Are you scared of hearing facts from them directly? Go on. Do eit!
hmm. i don’t think alain is a big fan of fibre brain-washing.
Probably get ejected for not going with the flow and embracing all that taxpayer funded goodness.
LOL
whassamatta, alain? not happy with the showbags crammed with glossy, laminated Alcatel “bandwidth extrapolation” (we will surely all need 1Tbits in the future…) charts they hand out? don’t worry – those are paid for by Alcatel, not the taxpayer ;)
“This does not mean you have to have a phone service actually operating”
Yes it DOES have to be operating, or have you completely missed the point?????
Telstra WILL require all FTTP exchange internet users to have an active phone service ~$30 per month if they want a BigPond internet service (no option any more for Telstra Internet Direct services either but that is another issue), or you can get internet access from another reseller however Telstra WILL charge a $27 wholesale voice port access charge each month.
Do you think Internode etc will just absorb the $27 voice port charge and not charge it on to you????? Internode will either inflate their internet plans by $27 or force you to have an active phone service for $25-30 per month.
I don’t know why you’re flappin on about USO obligations. They only require Telstra to CONNECT a voice service if you want it. The USO does NOT force telcos to supply a voice service if you only want internet access. It’s the as*holes at Telstra that want to force that option on users.
Anyone can currently have a BigPond HFC internet service connected and active to their home if available but they don’t need to have a PSTN service if they don’t want it.
Sorry Michael, you are just totally wrong here.
USO does not force a wholesale/retail voice service onto everybody, like Telstra are doing in this instance.
Perfect counterpoint to your argument is Naked DSL – unless you opt for some sort of VOIP, there is NO voice service. You cannot call 000.
I wasn’t specific enough, I apolgise. Completely wrong? No.
Telstra must provide the facility by where an STS can be provided. Naked DSL is both an exception to that – (as you point out) – and also not an exception.
By signing up to a Naked service you agree to have the voice component removed, absolving Telstra of the requirement. But the “physical” service may not be disconnected, in case the next occupier choose to have a POTS service put back on.
I shall be more specific next time. I was just commenting towards the requirement that the line must be connected. Given this is a “non-NBN” application, I was applying the rules as they stand now.
now i have to ask: if we, in some parallel universe, decided to all get lobotomy’s and build a wireless-based nbn, would telstra / nbn still bundle what would probably (ironically) be called a land-line?
forcing voice ‘line rental’ over fiber is stupid enough (from the consumer’s perspective; i can appreciate the business model though i dont care for it), the same announcement in a wireless scenario would keep me laughing all the way to another country…
“now i have to ask: if we, in some parallel universe, decided to all get lobotomy’s and build a wireless-based nbn, would telstra / nbn still bundle what would probably (ironically) be called a land-line?”
Yes, they would force you to use only their own BigPond branded combo internet & NextG voice access device, but you’ll have to bundle it with Foxtel services as well in conjunction with a BigPond branded TV, whilst your seated on BigPond branded chairs and sofas whilst occasionally taking sips of BigPond branded drinks from your BigPond bundled fridge inside your BigPond branded and supplied house.
If you don’t like it then you’ll have to live in a tent.
I wonder how many people in the South Brisbane exchange area (particularly renters etc) will actually move out of the area because of the higher cost and lack of choice in internet access driving up their cost of living?????
@dave
“I wonder how many people in the South Brisbane exchange area (particularly renters etc) will actually move out of the area because of the higher cost and lack of choice in internet access driving up their cost of living?????”
What higher cost?
“We expect pricing for phone and broadband services to be largely in line with what is available today however the pricing impact will depend on the service you currently have with your service provider.”
http://fibretosouthbrisbane.com.au/#faq
oh alain, what’s wrong with you? having trouble following the Telstra-bashing logic [sic]?
let’s see….
1/ customers of South Brisbane used to be serviced by copper
2/ Telstra used to earn minimum $20 line rental of each connection
3/ Telstra spent shitloads of money upgrading everyone to fibre
4/ Telstra jacks up their fixed take to $27 per connection (to account for higher depreciation of newly-installed fibre)
see the failure in your logic, alain? clearly, Telstra should now have a guaranteed take of $0 per connection and just let the other ISPs free-ride on the new infrastructure for a measly $2 (say) per connection to provide broadband only.
so, from now on, every time Telstra spends millions upgrading the access network, their guaranteed revenue per connection falls from $20 to $2. i bet they’d be falling over themselves and rushing to upgrade everybody!
works great, no? (imho) i hope the ACCC get on to them soon! such a massive scam on consumers!
you Lib-serving, Telstra-lover! precious…. !
(do you also know that the Mid East crisis is caused by [you guessed it] Telstra too? but that’s for another time ;))
I like it the way iiNet got stuck in to Telstra because multi-cast IPTV is not switched on at South Brisbane so apparently that alone makes the ‘Telstra fibre crap’.
Perhaps iiNet should have negotiated a deal with the QLD Government and built their own exchange and showed everybody how it should be done.
They are not that silly, they are just happy reaping in the $$$ reselling Telstra, and the cheaper it is to them the better, (waa we want multi-cast) those 14 year old ACCC apron strings are stronger than ever.
alain, you recalcitrant Telstra-lover… ! when will you see the errors of your ways? other posters here have already shown us the path to fibre salvation… !
did you know we can actually get 100mbit internet for FREE…. ? Yes or No?! answer the Q.. ! it’s true…. !
the logic has been explained on this thread quite concisely….. ! in case you missed it, you Lib-servant, i’ll post it here again for your benefit…. !
“Ignore the fact that the reason for this is that the voice service is a negligible expense to provide (you provide a 150kbps/150kbps high priority conduit, well shit that’s a lot of bandwidth to account for on a 2.5Gbps GPON with about 32 users!).”
read it TWICE. the magic elixir is contained within….. ! since you’re so blinded by your political faith to figure it out, i’ll explain it to you step by step like the Lib-child that you are…… !
1/ provisioning 0.15Mbit involves “negligible expense”…. it doesn’t cost Telstra or NBNco anything….! (close to) ZERO DOLLARS [sic].
2/ now, imagine splitting a 100Mbit connection into 667 “0.15Mbit circuits”…… ! the cost is then 667 x $0 = ZERO DOLLARS [sic] to provide 100Mbit internet…. !
you finally learnt something from old me, eh…. ? now, be gone, Lib-subservient, Telstra-lover…… !
100Mbit on the NBN is virtually free [sic]…….. ! they’ll charge you for the steak knives instead…. ! Precious…. !
Yes I heard the Australian mint is printing a new zero dollar note with Conroy’s head on it to celebrate the release of voice on the NBN, you send the note into your NBN ISP as payment.
Oh look Tosh was unsuccessfully, trying to be sarcastically clever… but ironically what he achieved was his most believable comment yet…LOL!
I can see the big cats at Telstra wearing their shiny silk suits with the dollar sign logo printed all over it.
Mercifully I live at an area that I can chose a provider that isn’t Telstra.
I pity the ones who are in a Telstra monopoly driven area. :-(.
I can’t help but read all of these comments defending Telstra, and all of them but Michael (whose the only one that has made sense defending them so far) are diehard Lib supporters.
Defending Howard’s decision to the death, aye? Admirable, but stupid.
I’ll get in before they try and twist what you’ve said against both of us.
I’ve been accused of being on the Labor payroll. I’ve been accused of being on the NBN Co payroll. I’ve been accused of losing all my money on Telstra shares. I’ve been accused of being an extreme lefty with communist leanings.
None of the above are true. Never been a member of any political party, or worked for NBN Co. I’ve never owned shares – (except whatever my super funds have my money in) – and I’m certainly anything but a “lefty”.
My political leanings are very much towards Liberal. I’ve never voted for Labor in my life. I have little love (if any for them).
That doesn’t mean they don’t come up with good policy sometimes.
I’m happy to put my name up as a supporter of the policy. Others around here just hide behind various, multiple pseudonyms, and will fade off into the ether when this all settles, never to be heard from again.
I they truly believe in what they say, they’d have the guts to put their names on their statements. Have some courage.
“Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear.”
~Ambrose Redmoon
quoting Ambrose Redmoon won’t save the NBN.
Speaking crap won’t kill it… :)
seriously, Michael… do you really think any of this stuff on internet forums actually has an impact on broadband policy at the real policy level ?
@Micheal Wyres
“I they truly believe in what they say, they’d have the guts to put their names on their statements. Have some courage”
That old red herring gets a airing again, the rational behind that is amazing, which means any comment on any subject matter pro or anti NBN Telstra Apple, IBM etc etc is only valid unless the author uses their own name (not that you would know if it was their real name or not), but never mind.
You have eliminated 99% of all posts in Delimiter, Whirlpool, ZDNet, Twitter etc instantly, doesn’t leave much does it?
Also I hope you mean ALL posters, not just those you disagree with.
Using your full name doesn’t absolve you from posting BS.
Telstra fans are like shooting fish in a barrel.
1/ customers of South Brisbane used to be serviced by copper
Fact
2/ Telstra used to earn minimum $20 line rental of each connection
Incorrect, although they did lease their copper and exchange space to other carriers for a reasonable return.
3/ Telstra spent shitloads of money upgrading everyone to fibre
Correct. Probably the same money that they were ‘compensated’, for the costs of the exchange relocation. Compensation by QLD Govt.
4/ Telstra jacks up their fixed take to $27 per connection (to account for higher depreciation of newly-installed fibre
Correct. I would do it also if I could. If someone could buy me a house so I can lease it out, I would appriciate it.
Telstra is not the only one to blame here. They are a very agressive opportunistic company, and the QLD Govt should have put more restrictions on the relocation plan than they did. It was (I assume..)very short sighted of the negotiation team. Had someone in private enterprise negotiated that agreement, they would be collecting a dole check by now.
*2/ Telstra used to earn minimum $20 line rental of each connection
Incorrect, although they did lease their copper and exchange space to other carriers for a reasonable return.*
for every line that is being used, the minimum charge is $16 ULL. please tell me, what other way is there to access the copper line other than paying WLR/LSS/ULL?
*3/ Telstra spent shitloads of money upgrading everyone to fibre
Correct. Probably the same money that they were ‘compensated’, for the costs of the exchange relocation.
Compensation by QLD Govt.*
well, without knowing the full deal, it’s also possible that in the absence of the “QLD govt subsidy”, the $27 could instead be $40 (say).
*4/ Telstra jacks up their fixed take to $27 per connection (to account for higher depreciation of newly-installed fibre
Correct. I would do it also if I could. If someone could buy me a house so I can lease it out, I would appriciate it.*
you’re basically assuming that 100% of the costs of the fibre replacement/exchange relocation exercise was funded by the Qld govt.
*Telstra is not the only one to blame here. They are a very agressive opportunistic company*
and Telstra’s competitors who cherry pick where to build competitive backhaul and DSLAM infrastructure aren’t opportunistic. RIGHT.
Comments are closed.