news National broadband provider iiNet has rejected the competition regulator’s statement that it is satisfied with Telstra’s contentious fibre network replacement project in the South Brisbane Exchange area, pointing out that the bigger telco was still imposing a number of “ugly” conditions on its wholesale customers.
Telstra has chosen to replace the copper connections to about 20,000 premises in the region as the exchange — where the copper cables terminate — is being closed in order to make way for the new Queensland Children’s Hospital in the area. The region is one of the first in Australia to receive fibre services to the home — but is not part of the Federal Government’s flagship National Broadband Network project, although the long-term plan is for the infrastructure to become part of the NBN.
However, over the past year other major ISPs such as iiNet and Internode have expressed strenuous complaints about Telstra’s handling of the situation, with issues ranging from the company’s wholesale prices — which are claimed to be markedly higher than equivalent broadband prices on the previous copper network — to the lack of equivalent services such as the ability to stream IPTV services via multi-cast.
In late November, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission noted in a statement that it was satisfied that Telstra’s new terms of access to its fibre were “capable of resolving the primary commercial concerns raised by access seekers”.
However, in an email last week, iiNet regulatory chief Steve Dalby highlighted a number of ongoing problems in the region. “[The] South Brisbane situation is largely unchanged,” he wrote.
For starters, Dalby noted, ISPs could not sell broadband services in the region without an attached telephone line (known as ‘naked’ broadband), despite the substantial popularity of such services around Australia on the existing copper network. And the compulsory bundled service was a traditional Telstra telephone line — not the Internet telephony service which iiNet offers to many customers around Australia.
ISPs were forced to resell Telstra products, forced to use Telstra’s back-haul services to provide data transit to customers, Dalby added. Prices with relation to iiNet’s FetchTV IPTv service were “prohibitive to the point that it is unsaleable”, and additional costs also applied to the necessity of developing new interfaces with Telstra’s systems.
Wholesale customers wouldn’t receive an equivalent service to the planned NBN network, Dalby added — and there was no equivalence of access between Telstra’s retail arm and wholesale customers. As a consequence, iiNet’s Naked and FetchTV services would not be available to customers in the South Brisbane area.
Dalby said the entire situation was “ugly” — and a better solution would be to transfer the South Brisbane area into the hands of NBN Co. Telstra was only believed to have sent wholesale customers the revised agreement shortly after the ACCC issued its decision on the issue. The regulator had been consulting with Telstra on the issue for more than a year.
Several weeks ago, Optus CEO Paul O’Sullivan added his voice to the complaints. “It’s a great example of how a monopoly will behave,” O’Sullivan said at the time.
“The minute you take the pressure off any company that has the opportunity to create structural barriers to competition, and allow it to go unregulated, it will do it. South Brisbane is a great example of the incumbent reverting to its former DNA, which is to block competition and try and win customers with its structural advantage.”
opinion/analysis
To say that I am disappointed in the ACCC’s judgement in this matter is an understatement. The regulator has left wholesale customers and their ISPs in the South Brisbane area in the lurch, abrogating its responsibility to the community.
Sure, the regulator has a stack of other stuff going on. This little tiff between the ISPs and Telstra in South Brisbane is minor indeed, compared with the ACCC’s ongoing negotiations with Telstra and NBN Co on a whole range of areas that will impact the rollout and future of the much larger National Broadband Network program.
But South Brisbane is still very important. The area is viewed by the non-Telstra aspects of the telecommunications industry as a prime example of monopolistic behaviour by Telstra, and within its boundaries, many are speculating, resist a microcosm example of what might happen to much of the rest of Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure if Telstra were ever given free reign. This one needs to be fixed, before the industry loses faith in the regulator to a large degree.
Image credit: Hans Gerwitz, Creative Commons
There is a simple solution here, if NBN Co are eventually going to take ownership of this fibre rollout and make it part of the the NBN, then for this area the plan is advanced, Telstra is paid now, and it falls under standard NBN pricing.
for once, the ACCC has made a very wise decision.
companies that risk substantial capital to build brand new infrastructure should not be forced to adjust their business models to suit opportunistic cherry-pickers who prefer to build nothing and perpetually leech off other companies’ efforts.
Build nothing? T.E.B.A.
agreed, it shows accc might be finally awake the competitors are using them as a profit builder.
iiNet made the following comments in an interview with Business Spectator:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/KGB-iiNet-Michael-Malone-internet-NBN-broadband-Te-pd20111124-NW6B3
which i noted here at the time:
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/11/22/optus-slams-anti-competitive-telstra-south-brisbane-strategy/#comment-221185
QUOTE:
“I’m delighted about the NBN, because it provides customers with a faster, more reliable product for similar prices, and iiNet’s NOT FUNDING THE CAPEX for that – THE TAXPAYER IS!”
“The [TransACT] INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR US, IS A BONUS; as always, WHAT WE’RE BUYING HERE IS A RETAIL BUSINESS,” said the iiNet CEO. “They have 40,000 customers; that’s wonderful, in profile those customers are very similar to iiNet’s.”
interestingly, the comments have subsequently been edited out of the interview transcript posted on the KGB website!
“companies that risk substantial capital to build brand new infrastructure should not be forced to adjust their business models” … Toshp300
That doesn’t apply here, so we can ignore your comment. The Qld government has funded the Sth Brisbane network construction in order to get their hands on the exchange title.
Even if it was true, what you are saying is that companies with sufficient cash should be allowed to behave however they like and to hell with public policy and the law.
I can’t agree with that point of view.
As a company you have decided long ago not to roll out fibre into Greenfield estates like Telstra and Opticomm have done, it would have been nice to have some sort of baseline wholesale ‘Naked’ FTTH comparison from Chime the could have shown us all how it should have been done.
Never mind you have TransACT now, how much is Naked wholesale and what is included in the package on TransACT fibre infrastructure?
‘The Qld government has funded the Sth Brisbane network construction in order to get their hands on the exchange title.’
Well yeah that’s what happens when you want a large inner city commercial real estate site for a major hospital build requiring the previous owner to shut a communications hub down and move it elsewhere.
But let’s get the emotion out of the story and look at the facts of how the funding actually works on that deal.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/telstra-wins-77m-in-hospital-deal-20100917-15g1h.html
*That doesn’t apply here, so we can ignore your comment. The Qld government has funded the Sth Brisbane network construction in order to get their hands on the exchange title.*
all the media reports suggest that the Qld govt deal with Telstra was done at arms-length on commercial terms. Telstra needed to invest capital to build a new fibre network. whether that capital is sourced by an equity raising, issuance of senior debt, borrowing from NAB or borrowing from the Qld govt is irrelevant. the crux of the issue is that Telstra is carrying the risk on the project.
it makes no difference to Telstra whether the money is borrowed from the Queen or from Bendigo Bank. regardless of how much revenue the SB fibre network generates, the loan principal has to be repaid at commercial rates of interest and any shortfall or loss on the project will be borne by Telstra (and not by the Qld govt).
*Even if it was true, what you are saying is that companies with sufficient cash should be allowed to behave however they like and to hell with public policy and the law.*
Telstra hasn’t broken any law with regards to SB.
The government is BUYING the exchange site in order to build the hospital. In other words, pure cash into Telstra’s hands, and not a small amount either. You really think there is any cost to Telstra? All they have to do is forfeit an exchange – which was in its death throes anyway – and the state gives them millions and MILLIONS of dollars, all hard currency; they then roll out fibre (i.e. no new exchange), do it on the cheap and probably still have a ton of money left over. Net cost to Telstra: zero. No “equity raising”. No debt to pay back. Pure profiteering.
Complain to the QLD Government then if you don’t like the deal, there are two parties to the contract, one offered it the other accepted it.
alain, you just don’t get it…..
when iiNet and Internode make a profit, they are “industry shining knights” because the profit they make is “good profit”.
Telstra is “special” because everything they own or plan to build (in the future) is automatically “communal property”. hence, every single cent of earnings generated is “profiteering” and any wealth created by Telstra shareholders should be confiscated and redistributed to the other players in the industry.
ZOMG! you mean an “asset sale” transaction involving a piece of prime real estate resulted in cash changing hands?! OUTRAGEOUS!
there’s a secret backroom deal so that Telstra doesn’t need to repay the State govt loan? call ICAC!
Come on, stop being so short sighted. You are suggesting that all companies should build redundant infrastructure if they want to service customers?
Do you not remember why Optus and Telstra mutually agreed to stop rolling out their cable networks?
*Do you not remember why Optus and Telstra mutually agreed to stop rolling out their cable networks?*
there was no “mutual agreement” between Optus and Telstra to stop rolling out cable networks. they were individual decisions separately undertaken by both companies due to disappointing pay-TV take-up.
Optus’ business case for HFC during the roll-out was solely built on telephony and pay-TV.
Telstra didn’t need to roll out HFC to compete against Optus in telephony because they already had an extensive PSTN network. Telstra rolled out HFC to enter the cable pay-TV market. surely, it’s good for “competition” that there’s more than one pay-TV operator in the fixed-line market, as opposed to leaving Optus with a fixed-line pay-TV monopoly.
the subsequent development and growth of the broadband market should have re-awakened the commercial possibilities for Optus’ HFC assets.
unfortunately, the ACCC’s policy of pushing down copper ULL below replacement cost effectively sidelined Optus’ HFC network and made it more advantageous for Optus to provide broadband by accessing and reselling Telstra’s CAN rather than fully-utilising their own HFC network.
that’s the story of HFC in a nutshell ;)
The history of the HFC rollout is as Tosh states, that is it was rolled out for Pay TV access, BB use of the cable came soon after.
Telstra has a major investment in Foxtel and so it was a given they would also provide the infrastructure to compete with Optus Pay TV, uptake for both was not as predicted (reminds me of what will happen with the NBN but I digress), especially for Optus TV.
There has been somewhat of renaissance of BB HFC with both Telstra and Optus offering higher speeds in targeted areas with Telstra recently announcing they will increase the 100Mbps footprint.
You have to remember also that under the Telstra/NBN agreement Telstra gets to keep their HFC for Foxtel, which understandably Conroy and the NBN Co are keeping a low publicity profile on.
That makes it even more crazy that the Telstra HFC is being kept going but the BB is being switched off because the NBN Co is so desperate for customers to justify its existence it’s prepared to pay millions to get customers off existing working maintained high speed cable infrastructure, and unless Telstra makes a future decision to put Foxtel on the NBN in HFC cabled areas that’s how it will remain post NBN rollout.
It’s also a lot to do with keeping the old tried and true ‘Telstra is a ogre’ theme going just in case the ACCC are inclined to take the eye off the ball when scrutinising the structural separation proposal before them from Telstra
Seriously, Renai, the real blame should be laid on the Queensland Government for choosing to build a new hospital in the same location as an existing Telstra exchange. The result is that significant investment is required to replace the copper with fibre and wholesale customers have to pay more. What’s the big deal? Why doesn’t iiNet stop wasting money buying out small-town ISPs and actually INVEST in substantial infrastructure? A simple reason: it’s too easy to whinge to the ACCC. Telstra shareholders should not be made to subsidise the business models of its competitors.
This is now the defacto response from the ACCC on Telstra activities.
It can be summed up as “.. we don’t give a rats arse”.
“companies that risk substantial capital to build brand new infrastructure should not be forced to adjust their business models to suit opportunistic cherry-pickers who prefer to build nothing and perpetually leech off other companies’ efforts.”
That old chestnut. One could argue that Telstra shouldn’t have to adjust their business model (forced or otherwise) and that given they would be considered “cherry-pickers” from a fibre point, in respect of the NBN, the same rules of “suck it up princess” would apply, right?
Is that violins I hear playing?
How much are ISPs being recommenced for their build of “brand new infrastructure” deployment costs? Sorry? Can’t hear you over the violins.
People can bleat on about how hard-done-by Telstra is until the sun goes supernova; it doesn’t change the fact that the TPA and competition regulations require certain outcomes. They may not suit Telstra share-holders, but that’s the situation.
This whole thing is a great example of how the ACCC has dropped the ball and is all but an incontinent, incompetent old fool yelling from the sidelines at this point, lest it be thought redundant through inaction. It’s taken months for it to even get around to looking at the NBN.
If iinett can continue to buy its competitors out, then its not being hurt as much as they claim.
The accc did the right thing in not giving isps another leg up to make profit.
Enshrine it in a museum as a shining example of why Labor made the correct call on the NBN.
The only alternative to the Labor NBN is one special example dictated by a state government need for a hospital building site?
Really?
Just out of interest, is there any cost comparison against any of the other FTTH providers out there? Like Opticomm or TransACT or Open Networks. All the non-NBN FTTH wholesalers seem to be charging huge amounts. Not that any of it is GOOD… just wondering.
Its ok, I believe in Telstra. Give Telstra the NBN, they will fix it all up..
Hang on, doesn’t Telstra still have the USO. If they rip out their current exchange to make way for the hospital and choose to replace it with fibre it doesn’t excuse them from that obligation.
The still need to provide access to declared services and should be doing so on an equitable basis. This is what they owe Australia for being gifted the infrastructure and a monopoly in Australia.
This whole situation should have been handed to the NBNco from the begining and had nothing to do with Telstra. They are just gouging as much as they can before they hand it over to NBN. Its plainly obvious and disgusting.
The USO has nothing to do with the BB services.
*Hang on, doesn’t Telstra still have the USO. If they rip out their current exchange to make way for the hospital and choose to replace it with fibre it doesn’t excuse them from that obligation.*
LOL
the USO is a “universal service obligation” to provide fixed-line telephony services to SB residences. it’s not a “universal obligation to fatten the profits of opportunistic cherry-pickers”.
*The still need to provide access to declared services and should be doing so on an equitable basis.*
none of Telstra’s fibre estates are “declared services”. the only equitable approach to a private company spending its own money building brand new fibre estates is to allow it to implement a business model that maximises the chance of capital recovery in a declining fixed-line market.
all these complaints over the lack of “naked broadband over fibre” nonsense is just greedy ISPs trying to carry-over the “unbundled access pricing arbitrage” over to fibre to maintain the artificial pricing advantage they have over Telstra in copper. (all of this will disappear anyhow under the future NBN whether FTTP or FTTN.)
*This is what they owe Australia for being gifted the infrastructure and a monopoly in Australia.*
subscribers to Telstra equity and debt issuance paid over $60bln for the fixed-line infrastructure assets (i.e. full value plus a USO burden slapped on top).
there is no “gift”. Telstra doesn’t “owe” Australia anything (other than USO), otherwise NBNco wouldn’t have to pay BILLIONS to access Telstra’s infrastructure and shutdown the copper network.
*This whole situation should have been handed to the NBNco from the begining and had nothing to do with Telstra.*
Telstra owns all the infrastructure in the SB exchange area. the whole situation has NOTHING to do with NBNco unless they want to fork out even more money to Telstra to acquire a brand new fibre estate.
*They are just gouging as much as they can before they hand it over to NBN. Its plainly obvious and disgusting.*
the ACCC disagrees with you.
please don’t confuse the “long-term economic interest” of Australian consumers with the “long-term financial interest” of cherry-picking ISPs.
:)
>>”please don’t confuse the “long-term economic interest” of Australian consumers with the “long-term financial interest” of cherry-picking ISPs.” … toshP300
Ha-ha ! Confused !? I’ll say you are.
This is ONLY about “…the “long-term economic interest” of Telstra.”
About half of the consumers of Australia have already made the decision that their long term economic interests are best served by dealing with anybody but Telstra.
Of the rest that haven’t made the move yet, a large number that I’ve spoken to hate that they continue to deal with them.
So when are you going to remove your Off-Net ADSL2+ plans from your plan choices?
*This is ONLY about “…the “long-term economic interest” of Telstra.”
you’re right in one strict respect — all these regulatory debates over fixed-line access pricing do revolve around the “economic interest” of Telstra. this is neither controversial nor something “nefarious”.
Telstra’s “economic interest” plays a central role since they are the only telco that builds or owns [a substantial amount] of last-mile fixed-line infrastructure that everyone else wants to access. hence, they naturally have a substantial economic stake in the issues surrounding network access.
there’s nothing evil about having an “economic interest” — if you own a house, car, lawnmover, etc, you also have an “economic interest”. i can’t imagine you’d just let anyone rent your house or car at some arbitrary rate of compensation without paying careful consideration to how it affects your financial position (e.g. house mortgage or car loan servicing costs).
*About half of the consumers of Australia have already made the decision that their long term economic interests are best served by dealing with anybody but Telstra.*
i presume you are referring to the 50% of national retail market share garnered by ISPs other than Bigpond. i can assure you that 90%+ of Australian broadband subscribers don’t even understand concepts such as “network contention” or “bandwidth leveraging”. most ADSL subscribers choose their ISP purely on the basis of plan pricing, quota generosity, personal data needs, savings on mobile/pay-TV bundling, etc.
the reason why Bigpond’s competitors have managed to grab such a large market share in terms of retail access lines is simply because of the (historically) massive pricing gap between Bigpond and other ISPs’ plans. (this has since narrowed substantially with the onset of the NBN deal.)
and the reason why the other ISPs have been able to massively undercut Bigpond is simply because the regulatory framework allows them to cherry-pick or selectively roll-out DSLAMs in band 2 ESA with dirt cheap ULL rates and avoid serving the other more expensive bands.
on the other hand, Telstra under the USO has to operate in all bands and ends up with a higher average cost structure that it has to pass onto Bigpond in terms of retail pricing.
*Of the rest that haven’t made the move yet, a large number that I’ve spoken to hate that they continue to deal with them.*
so, Telstra has over 2 million retail broadband subscribers…. and you’ve spoken to a “large number” of these 2 million customers… you must have more Facebook friends than Mark Zuckerberg ;)
But I bet they all iiNet’s resold Telstra Wholesale Plans, as much as iiNet loves selling them.
:)
oops should be:
But I bet they all love iiNet’s resold Telstra Wholesale Plans,
“Hang on, doesn’t Telstra still have the USO”
The USO refers to basic services to residential customers.
It places no obligations on anyone for wholesale rates to competitors. That falls under the regulatory framework.
Considering you don’t actually have any evidence from iinet to back up their complaints regarding Telstra pricing, and that the ACCC who traditionally have beaten Telstra down with a mailed fist on competition issues have said all is well.. could there possibly be a level of bullshit to the claims being made?
Regardless of pricing, it would seem clear that it is a fact that Telstra is not offering naked in South Brisbane. As far as ‘evidence’ about everything else goes, on this sort of thing, I am pretty inclined to trust Optus, iiNet and Internode when they are all saying the same thing.
>>” it is a fact that Telstra is not offering naked in South Brisbane.”
Not just – ‘not offering’.
They are actively removing it from the customers that already have it.
Steve,
Exactly what is ‘Naked’ under FTTH anyway, Naked DSL is a BB product derived from a competitor DSLAM combined with a product from Telstra Wholesale called ULL, usually with a non Telstra VoIP sourced voice package.
How does ‘Naked’ work under the NBN FTTH and how does that differ from the Naked product Telstra is not offering on the SB exchange?
it’s important to distinguish between product configuration at the “wholesale level” and “retail level”.
at the retail level, “broadband only” plans are available on ADSL networks. however, Telstra Wholesale has never offered “broadband only” wholesale products to resellers or access seekers.
LSS has to be bundled with line rental. when you access ULL, you’re leasing the entire copper line, i.e. you have access to both the low frequency (which carries voice) and the high frequency (which carries broadband) portions. “voice” and “broadband” are effectively bundled.
now, whether it is economical for ISPs to offer “broadband only” plans to retail customers by leasing ULL ultimately depends on the pricing gap between WLR+LSS and ULL. taking into account other installation costs, if ULL is sufficiently low relative to WLR+LSS, then ISPs are able to package a “broadband only” product which offers meaningful savings relative to a LSS (with line rental bundled) product.
conversely, if WLR+LSS and ULL are relatively similar, the savings on not providing a voice product would be meagre and the market rationale for providing “naked broadband” would no longer exist. at one point, the ACCC set ULL as low as $12.50 while WLR alone was $30.
“market innovations” such as “naked DSL” are merely the direct result of the ACCC’s artificial pricing construct which facilitates multiple ways of accessing the copper network and arbitraging Telstra’s cost structure. all fun and games at the expense of Telstra shareholders.
not surprisingly, NBNco’s integrated product suite doesn’t allow these games to be played on the NBN. (there is no separate, concessionary tariff schedule for only accessing the data port and forgoing the voice port.)
It’s been sometime since I visited Delimiter, but I note unfortunately, nothing has changed.
Same two bad Telstra trolls trying to shout down and scare off all the humans.
:-(
Wow the depth of your analysis disputing the points made is breath taking, a lot of deep thought and research went into that response, keep up the good work.
lol
awww… don’t be scared. i don’t bite.
(unless you’re fed beer and massaged 3 times daily and now draped with a nice, thick Bearnaise sauce ;))
It tends to be a bit more polite these days ;) new comments policy.
It’s also interesting to see the ‘ no comments’ policy in place in this discussion when akward questions are asked of Industry Rep’s.
what do you expect when the entire PR exercise backfires and blows up in their face.
this is not Whirlpool, after all.
the delimiter audience is much more intelligent ;)
Yes I am waiting with bated breath details of the iiNet TransACT ‘Naked’ wholesale fibre plans that blow the Telstra Sth Brisbane exchange deals out of the water and show us all how it should be done.
:)
Come on guys, get a room.
“I am pretty inclined to trust Optus, iiNet and Internode when they are all saying the same thing.”
When they all base their business model on cheap access to Telstra built infrastructure, you would expect them to all say thesame thing.
>>”Considering you don’t actually have any evidence from iinet to back up their complaints regarding Telstra pricing, ” … paul
If you take the time to read the numerous articles on this issue, you’d note that pricing is not mentioned.
What is happening is that Telstra is using its market power to remove competitive products from the market. Those customers that have chosen to shop elsewhere have been told “No you can’t.” by Telstra.
It’s not about ISPs, it’s about consumer choice. Try commenting on the subject matter instead of making up your own reality.
and I quote “ISPs were forced to resell Telstra products, forced to use Telstra’s back-haul services to provide data transit to customers, Dalby added. Prices with relation to iiNet’s FetchTV IPTv service were “prohibitive to the point that it is unsaleable”
The reality is you stated that they are charging you too much to the point of making one of your products “unsaleable”. This is the “reality”, something you said, not something from my head.
Try being a little less rude and a little more constructive and perhaps people wont think you are talking crap and just trying to get yourselves a better deal.
Just how did telstra “force” anyone to buy from them?
exactly what are all the other ISP’s doing to service their customers in South brisbane? What infrastructure are they installing?
You aren’t THE Derek Smart are you? *cough* *sough* Sorry THE Dr Derek Smart.
*forced to use Telstra’s back-haul services to provide data transit to customers…. Prices with relation to iiNet’s FetchTV IPTv service were “prohibitive to the point that it is unsaleable”*
Telstra’s financial model for recovering the capital sunk into the SB fibre network will partly be reliant on higher charges incurred by subscribers who select broadband products which allow greater monthly data usage. most of the data-intensive applications for residences will largely revolve around video entertainment.
if multicast carriage was available for third-party IPTV services such as FetchTV with (lower) concessionary charges for bandwidth consumption, from the POV of broadband subscribers, these products will effectively be “substitutes” for subscribing to higher quota broadband plans (and watching Youtube).
there’s the potential for significant revenue leakage for the network operator if FetchTV (via multicasting) cannibalises “regular” bandwidth charges with great success. in other words, most of the value from offering superfast broadband capabilities will be captured by network resellers as opposed to the actual network owner-builder.
bear in mind, commonsense dictates it’s the network owner-builder that has the greatest claim on the total value (or revenue) generated by the network because it’s the latter that has to service the massive capital costs of building a new fibre network!
hope that explains that aspect of Telstra’s SB wholesale practices.
““ISPs were forced to resell Telstra products, forced to use Telstra’s back-haul services to provide data transit to customers”
Nobody was “forced” to do anything.
Any telco in the country has been at liberty at any time to install their own infrastructure.
These ISPs CHOOSE to use Telsrta infrastructure rather than to build their own. As a consequence they have also CHOSEN to abide by the conditions that go with it.
‘What is happening is that Telstra is using its market power to remove competitive products from the market.’
As distinct from ISP’s that use their market power to remove competitor ISP’s from the market place.
I am always amazed by the “poor telstra” fanbois, the conflict that exists between the wholesale and commercial arms of Telstra is blindingly obvious, there needs to be an even playing field,
I think anyone who posts replys should state if they own shares in any of the ISP’s they are defending, that would make an interesting “filter” for their comments.
‘, the conflict that exists between the wholesale and commercial arms of Telstra is blindingly obvious, there needs to be an even playing field,’
What do you know that the ACCC does not?
[i think Telstra management try to do their best for shareholders, but given the irrational regulatory climate and misinformed incumbent-bashing populism]
i wouldn’t buy Telstra shares for my dog.
It’s not allowed anyway unless your dog is over 18.
:)
Telstra fanbois need to be locked into a cage.
Lesnar v Overeem! Dec 30!
Telstra fans remind me of bad car salesmen.
http://shop.bigpond.com/Product.asp?Action=Detail&ID=160417&cid=ZBP_SHO_LAT_1
South Brisbane is an example of what a nation-wide Telstra driven FTTH/ FTTN rollout would look like (apart from it not actually covering ninety-something percent). A deployment with more strings attached than the entire collection of marionettes from ‘Team America’.
It’s also an example of a investor-driven, profit orientated approach via an vertically integrated company that has no interest in competition. And that the ACCC has all but given up on.
I’m very pleased the NBN makes the highly vocal Telstra cheer-leader troop here somewhat uncomfortable. It means it’s at least getting something right. If they were gushing and all squealing with delight, I’m pretty sure that’d mean everyone else would be being screwed over.
‘South Brisbane is an example of what a nation-wide Telstra driven FTTH/ FTTN rollout would look like’
Well no it isn’t at all quite the opposite in fact because first of all if Telstra was rolling out a nation wide FTTH/FTTN rollout it would be a Government/private partnership and it would come under the monopoly rules control of the ACCC, just like the NBN Co FTTH comes under monopoly control from the ACCC on pricing and access.
At present the ACCC are studying the NBN SAU that has been recently submitted to them for approval from the NBN Co in the same way they would approve or not as the case may be any SAU proposals from Telstra like they have done with SAU proposals in the past such as that from the G9 consortium which the ACCC rejected in December 2007.
‘It’s also an example of a investor-driven, profit orientated approach via an vertically integrated company that has no interest in competition. And that the ACCC has all but given up on.’
What brings you to the amazing decision that the ACCC has given up on it? – please note disagreeing with the ACCC decision so far because you feel Telstra was not chastised enough to your liking because you hate Telstra with a passion is not the same as ‘given up on’
‘I’m very pleased the NBN makes the highly vocal Telstra cheer-leader troop here somewhat uncomfortable.’
It does? – I know who is feeling uncomfortable in this particular discussion and believe me it’s nothing whatever to do with the so called Telstra cheer-leaders and the NBN.
If telstra fanbois had their way we all be still paying over $150 for 256/65k 200mb and $150 pm after you reached over your limit.
Telstra fans only have one interest is self interest and how much shares they can get their dirty mitts on. They couldn’t give a stuff about progress or anyone else.
Must be a lonely life for Telstra fanbois
$150 per gb I was meaning.
The way I see it, Iinet could easily invest in deploying fibre to the consumers in the area, the same way Telstra have had to.
Telstra were forced to vacate a site, and were compensated for it, who would think they would just go ‘No worries, we’ll pack up and leave’ and not ask for compensation. Ignoring the exchange, it was still prime, inner city real estate.
They then invested that money into deploying newer, fibre services to residents in the area. Iinet, AAPT and all the others didn’t want to spend that money, but demand to piggy back on another company’s investment, how is that fair?
If the situation was reversed, and Iinet had built the fibre infrastructure, then Telstra demanded access rights, I think we all know how that argument would look.
(all comments expressed here are my own, personal opinions, and are not representative of any groups or companies I belong to)
Obviously then Jason the NBN will be charging exactly the same price as Telstra currently do in South Brisbane and if that is not true your argument is BS
I live in South Brisbane and suffer the horrendous costs of Telstra;s wholesale prices. My hatred of that company is conveyed at every opportunity to anyone who will listen. The ACC is ineffective, a mouse. Why must i pay for a phone line to obtain internet? There is no technical reason? Telstra is Sh$t and one would assume many customers in this area already know that.
Comments are closed.