Blackmailing NBN Co works best through the media

155

opinion Over the past week a rather pathetic little game of bluster, bluff and ultimately light blackmail has played itself out in Australia’s telco sector as a handful of Australia’s major ISPs have done everything in their power to demonstrate just how self-interested they can be when it comes to exploiting the National Broadband Network.

This game — let’s call it Quigley’s Hold’em, or perhaps Dalby’s Five DSLAM Draw — probably kicked off, as most such shady efforts do, late in the week, perhaps as the shadows of last Friday night were drawing near and the weekend, with all its inherent vices, began to beckon the players away from the clear sunlight of honest dealing.

At the time, the head negotiators from most of Australia’s major ISPs — at least including iiNet and Internode, but likely Telstra and Optus as well — informed the National Broadband Network Company that they were not planning to sign the comprehensive wholesale agreement which it had labored with them for some 15 months to develop.

Despite the fact that the document had already been through five draft iterations and hundreds of hours of consultations, the ISPs told NBN Co, it had still not addressed some of their key concerns; namely, the ability of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to oversee the relationship, the liability in the case of problems, and equivalence issues with all ISPs signing the same document.

Now, normally this kind of issue would be part of the normal cut and thrust of negotiation between the ISPs and NBN Co — fair points to raise. But, to add a little punch to their demands, at the last moment, the ISPs played two hidden trumps: Timing, and the media.

Unlike the ISPs, NBN Co has been on a clock in the negotiations. The existing trial agreement between the two sides, which has allowed some 4,000 customers to be signed up to NBN Co’s infrastructure nationally, expired today. This isn’t a problem for the ISPs. After all, they need be in no rush to move their existing customers onto the NBN’s infrastructure. Either way — if the customers stay or go — the ISPs get paid.

But it is a vast problem for NBN Co.

The ridiculous furore that erupted when NBN Co released its current customer sign-up numbers just after New Year’s Eve should go some way to illustrating the fact that the company is currently fighting for its own survival. If NBN Co can roll out enough infrastructure and sign up enough customers over the next year, it faces a chance of continued existence under a Coalition Government; if its effort stall, it will fall victim to Tony Abbott’s oft-repeated promise to shut the project down.

The ISPs know this. And so, when faced with NBN Co’s intransigence in modifying the terms of its wholesale contract, at the eleventh hour, they bent the company over a barrel and reached for one of the easiest and most manipulable weapons available to anyone in Australian society: The media.

NBN Co to bar defiant telcos,” screamed the Financial Review’s article on Monday morning, which painted NBN Co as a draconian monopoly, “threatening” to “ban” ISPs from signing up new customers. And the rest of the media swung into line, with more headlines: ‘NBN Co pressures telcos on access agreements’; ‘NBN Co stands firm on wholesale contract’; ‘Under 50% of ISPs sign onto NBN contract’; ‘Tension as NBN trial agreement ends’; the headlines went on forever.

On Monday, NBN Co was standing fairly firm, soberly highlighting its extensive 18 month consultation efforts and the lengths to which it had gone to meet the ISPs’ demands. But it only took two days for the company — flailing under a fictional ‘pressure’ entirely created by the ISPs and a media ravenous for fresh meat in the slow news days of the new year — to buckle. NBN Co’s bluff had been called as the ISPs refused to give ground.

This morning, it was again the Financial Review which brought us the new developments. “NBN backs down on agreement,” the newspaper reported. And “sources close to negotiations” — read: the ISPs — noted that NBN Co had retreated in precisely the areas the ISPs were complaining about.

Game over. Quelle surprise!

Now, I don’t want to go too far in alleging improper behaviour on the part of the ISPs. Solid journalistic efforts by the AFR’s reporter on this issue, David Ramli, did faithfully bring this important issue to light. And, of course, the fact that we know about all of this is itself a positive thing: Transparency in the NBN process is only to be lauded. Then, too, it is common commercial practice for companies of any stripe to use any legal tool at their disposal to bring negotiations to a successful close. Nothing illegal has been done here, and probably even nothing unusual for the private sector.

However, there are several disturbing aspects to what happened this week which I think bear further rumination.

The first is the adoption by several major ISPs of the sorts of language during this NBN process which we are more accustomed to hearing from the Daily Telegraph. Internode carrier relations manager John Lindsay, for example, raised a rather unusual scenario when speaking to the AFR about the liability issue. “You don’t want to be in a position where NBN Co’s installers have wrecked your customer’s house or have no incentive to do connections in a timely fashion, with you getting the blame,” he said.

Really? Painting NBN Co as house wreckers? I would have thought that below Lindsay.

Then there was this curious statement on the part of iiNet regulatory chief Steve Dalby, again on the liability issue: “It means that if customers are affected by outages they can sue us, but we can’t pass that liability through to the cause, which would be NBN Co, and that just doesn’t make any sense.” Really? It’s extremely rare — in fact, almost unheard of — for a customer to sue an ISP about their connection going down. I can’t imagine this will be a regular event under the far more reliable fibre future NBN Co has planned for us. NBN Co ‘wreckers’, customer lawsuits? Is the iiNode which we know and trust? It doesn’t seem like it to me.

Then there was the nature of the negotiations themselves.

Wikipedia defines a cartel as being a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms, which Australia’s ISPs most certainly are. It then goes on to explain that cartels usually occur in oligopolistic industries, where there are a small number of sellers, usually selling homogeneous products. The aim of cartels, it adds, is to increase the profits of individual members by reducing competition.

Maybe I’m taking this argument a bit far, but when most of Australia’s ISPs gang up together on the same issues and force a major wholesale service provider like NBN Co to back down, by exerting pressure through the media, that sounds a great deal like a cartel to me. There’s no competition here; there’s no fair play; there’s only a gang of what — five or six ISPs, representing overwhelming market share — effectively publicly blackmailing a joint supplier.

Then there’s the political angle.

The whole reason why the ISPs are able to exert pressure on NBN Co is because the company has aims that are not commercial. NBN Co’s mission is to roll out telecommunications infrastructure around Australia and then sign customers to use it, through utilising relationships with retail ISPs. This isn’t a commercial business proposition — it’s a mandated government policy. And so while it doesn’t really have to ‘sell’ its products and services to ISPs as such, as they will be forced to use them eventually anyway (when other broadband networks are shut down), neither do ISPs have to buy them, until that shutdown date comes.

The difficulty is, however, is that while NBN Co is locked into its course of action and cannot deviate from its mission, the ISPs are not, and they all have varying degrees of cooperation with the NBN policy. Some, such as Internode (or should I say, iiNet?), are pretty much wholly on board, while others such as TPG are so far ignoring the whole thing altogether. This gives the ISPs an extraordinary degree of non-commercial negotiating power.

This week, the ISPs flexed that muscle. “Back down on your commercial contracts,” they told NBN Co, “or else we’ll make the NBN project look like it’s stalling, and your political masters very unhappy.” The pathetic statements they issued this afternoon, seeking the validation of the public and the media for signing contracts with NBN Co — whose public credibility they flirted with wrecking through their game — only makes blisteringly obvious their belief in the usefulness of the press in the negotiating process.

As a believer in free markets and the value of competition, all of this makes me very, very uncomfortable. We have collusive action by Australia’s telecommunications giants, leveraging political angles and the threat of the media. We have bluster from formerly honourable ISPs painting an important national project as “wrecking” people’s homes. And we have an 18 month NBN negotiation process undercut at the very last minute. Who knows what the long-term implications will be.

If I were the ACCC, I would be looking very, very carefully at the events of this week, as I’m sure Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other elements of the Coalition are. How far can we trust the major players in Australia’s telecommunications sector? At this point, I am far from sure.

155 COMMENTS

  1. What a biased article.

    If the author had taken the trouble to read the media reports, and comment from the ISPs concerned he would have quickly learned that it was the NBNCo’s insistance of wanting exemptions from ACCC surveillance and controls that was the sticking point.

    • Actually NBN Co will be very far from exempt from the ACCC’s surveillance … with its Special Access Undertaking document (which again, the ISPs have been extensively consulted on) being the primary vehicle for that.

      The ACCC is hardly uninvolved in this process.

    • Well since it’s opinion time…

      You write opinion pieces and some people miss this. Perhaps it would be easier to just say to someone “hey, it’s an opinion piece” rather than send them reading some drivel that makes out anyone questioning the author’s opinion as a moronic imbecile:

      Your journalism (and that on Gizmodo) is known as “advocacy journalism”. It is usually biased (non-objective). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism

      Traditional journalism is non-biased (objective). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

      Suggesting to read someone else’s diatribe about biased journalism is pretty ordinary when that article is designed to denigrate the intended audience of the article.

      Some selected quotes from the Gizmodo article:

      “Third of all, f&ck you.”
      “To be fair, you are very stupid.”
      “…most of the people attempting to define and discard our opinions have the media comprehension ability of an especially contemplative elk.”
      “You’re a weird geek.”
      “if you’re a twerpy little internet chump trying to decide whether to get into a dick slapping contest on Gizmodo or jerk off to Reddit Gone Wild, you haven’t exactly earned the right to ask others to watch you jerk off about the travails of modern media”
      “I do have anger issues, you dumb, cruel,, entitled, tunneled vision sh1t eaters.”
      “most of the time—we’re just talking”

      • I don’t even know how to respond to this. But I’ll try ;)

        Re the reader and the Gizmodo article, if you’re going to come on Delimiter and hurl abuse at me and another authors, I’m going to reserve the right to troll you back. Quite a few of my more regular readers tell me they have been very amused to see me do that.

        Re: advocacy journalism: No, I don’t write advocacy journalism. I have no bias towards certain individuals or companies in the industry. If you hang around Delimiter long enough, you’ll see that I criticise and praise just about everyone at various points.

        What I aim to do with Delimiter is two things. Firstly, where there is important information, to provide it objectively, for the purposes of informing, educating and entertaining. Secondly, I want the site to act as a focal point for debate, with a view to stimulating positive change in the industry and forward thinking. This isn’t biased … as I don’t define in which direction society needs to move — only that we get better and stronger as a society.

        If you don’t agree I’m doing all this, then please feel free to comment or drop me a line. I respond to all my email :)

        • Renai LeMay – “Also, I agree, the article is highly biased”

          Renai LeMay – “This isn’t biased … as I don’t define in which direction society needs to move — only that we get better and stronger as a society”

          Which is it then?

          Hint: you end this article with a suggestion for a particular action (an aspect of advocacy journalism) and suggest some of the telecom industry are not trustworthy (another aspect of advocacy journalism).

          Renai LeMay – “If I were the ACCC, I would be looking very, very carefully at the events of this week, as I’m sure Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other elements of the Coalition are. How far can we trust the major players in Australia’s telecommunications sector? At this point, I am far from sure.”

          Note 1: I don’t have a problem with advocacy journalism or your writing style in general. You argue a position in your articles and there is nothing wrong with that.

          Note 2: “if you’re going to come on Delimiter and hurl abuse at me” – I didn’t. Just to be clear, you should have written “if people are going to come on Delimiter….”

          • “Also, I agree, the article is highly biased” was sarcastic, hence the link to the article he gave. How you missed that I’ll never know.

            Also I dont think he said that some of the ISPs are untrustworthy, but he trusted NBNCo more then other ISPs because NBNCo has been open about everything and earned that trust. How “I trust these guys” translates to “Those other guys are untrustworthy” I’ll never know.

          • ““Also, I agree, the article is highly biased” was sarcastic, hence the link to the article he gave. How you missed that I’ll never know.”

            For it to be sarcastic there needs to be sarcasm. If you can read sarcasm into that simple statement then I’d be amazed. The link certainly does not make it sarcastic. The link has an admission from a Gizmodo writer/editor that most of their work is simple opinion (an aspect of advocacy journalism). Quote “most of the time—we’re just talking” or “”Bias” Is a Spectrum and We’re All On It”. So an admission by Renai of the article being biased in this case is just that – a truthful admission of the article being biased.

            The linked Gizmodo article is squarely aimed at a small group of readers who seem to have personally attacked the author (most will agree that that is crossing the line). It’s only partially a general commentary. Mostly it is the author venting his (mainly justified) anger. Pointing other readers to it to take the point is pretty inappropriate because of the personal nature of it and the anger involved. Not au fait.

            “Also I dont think he said that some of the ISPs are untrustworthy, but he trusted NBNCo more then other ISPs because NBNCo has been open about everything and earned that trust. How “I trust these guys” translates to “Those other guys are untrustworthy” I’ll never know.”

            I said he “suggests” they are untrustworthy. Perhaps “implies” would have been a better word. And it’s based on the sentence I quoted which does not say anywhere “I trust these guys” in relation to the NBN.

            The sentence in question “How far can we trust the major players in Australia’s telecommunications sector? At this point, I am far from sure.”.

            It’s OK to write opinion – it just needs to be clear. Major outlets usually label their pieces as such to distinguish them from simple reporting of events (which should contain zero opinion).

          • You dont see a post from the writer of the article to himself saying “Also, I agree, the article is highly biased; you can read more about this here:” and then linking to an article named “you write bias journalism and i read derp” as sarcasm or a joke? Really?

            Come now…

          • “You dont see a post from the writer of the article to himself saying “Also, I agree, the article is highly biased; you can read more about this here:” and then linking to an article named “you write bias journalism and i read derp” as sarcasm or a joke? Really?”

            That is correct, it doesn’t read as sarcastic because it’s not. I already clearly explained it. I also showed that the content of the linked article supports me. I assume you read the whole article and not just the banal title.

            The reality is, even if it was sarcastic it wouldn’t change the fact that this is an opinionated article. Opinion articles are advocacy journalism (they promote the author’s agenda, whatever that may be). I’ve repeatedly said that there is nothing wrong with this. There isn’t a stigma attached to it. It is de rigueur for modern journalism.

      • “You write opinion pieces and some people miss this. Perhaps it would be easier to just say to someone “hey, it’s an opinion piece” rather than send them reading some drivel that makes out anyone questioning the author’s opinion as a moronic imbecile”

        The very first word in the article is the word “Opinion” in bold. If someone misses that maybe the moronic imbecile title fits somewhat.

        In the end, people use the term “bias article” when they should say “I disagree with this article but I don’t have the intellectual capacity to rebut it with a logical argument”

        • +1

          It seems some are simply trying to ensure Renai doesn’t “do it again”.

          One might say they’re trying to (add b buzzword here) him ;-)

          Keep saying it as it is Renai, because looking at this forum, as well as legitimates you have a lot of extremes. Being so, you will never keep everyone happy, just those who genuinely do not have an agenda.

        • You mean “opinion” in bold. In the same font as the following text. So yes, easy to miss for a lot of people. Major publications usually pronounce it in the title in a different typeface with a font size 3 or 4 times larger than the text of the article. You have to stuff it down people’s throats. Subtle does not work.

          Denigrating people for missing it doesn’t work either (as you are doing by suggesting they should probably accept the title of moronic imbecile). Be nice. Politely point out their error. Ad nauseum. If this doesn’t work then you ignore them.

  2. I’ve seen quite a few threads on whirlpool where users are having trouble with their modems/routers and getting angry with their ISPs for not fixing them or replacing them quickly enough. The equivalent piece of equipment on the NBN (afaik) is the NTU. If that fails it’s the NBNCo’s problem and the NBNCo that has to fix it. As far as I can tell the ISPs just want to be able to pass the buck to where it belongs.

    If there can be ACCC oversight of the SAU then why can’t there be ACCC oversight of the WBA?

    From Steve Dalby’s comments on your article earlier this week it seems these issues were raised through the consultation process but were not addressed by the NBNCo. I have no way of knowing if that’s true, do you? Without knowing the truth or otherwise of that point you should not be apportioning blame to either side.

    This sort of one-sided rant is out of character. Have you eaten something that didn’t agree with you, Renai? :)

    • People will be able to plug their devices straight into the NTU and have access to the NBN on that device – but then that doesn’t let them share the connection with other devices.

      In almost all instances, routers will still be almost universally used.

      • Yep. I was just looking for a potential point of failure that could concern the ISPs and be the responsibility of the NBNCo. The NTU sprang to mind as the only bit of NBNCo active equipment close to the end customer.

        If the router fails that’s still a problem for the ISP or the customer.

        There must be something the ISPs have in mind. I’m just guessing.

        • In infrastructure terms, NBN Co are responsible for connectivity between a premise (starting at the NTU), and its corresponding point of interconnect. Nothing more, nothing less.

          The point of these last minute changes are who is responsible if someone puts a big hole in the wall accidentally while installing the NTU, who is to blame when connectivity failures occur, etc, etc.

          Much like is the case now between Telstra, DSLAM providers, backhaul providers, and end customers.

          Customers OFTEN blame the ISP when their ADSL modem dies. However, this is the end users responsibility.

          The ISPs are looking to precisely define where all these boundaries lie in an NBN world, which is a valuable outcome.

          The point of the article, the way I read it, is that the ISPs have heavily leveraged the media to get their way.

          Who’s to blame for the problems arising? Well, we could argue that till the cows come home.

          • No argument from me. I don’t have any information to apportion blame. I don’t see the point in blaming anyone. My issue with the article is that it solely blames the ISPs without saying why it’s their fault.

          • The problem though is the NBN Co NTU which is the responsibility of the NBN Co, it is never owned by the customer sits inside the residence hooked up to whatever router and or VoIP mix the residence uses.

            At present the in terms of fault diagnosis a Telstra line fault in most instances does not require the tech to go inside the house, because there is no such thing as a PSTN box with a UPS hung off it, the UPS function is provided from the exchange, also most problems are outside in the pit/pillar exchange links.

            A little known fact but important one that is also going to be confusing from the customer point of view is that the NBN Co NTU UPS only provides back-up power for the UNI-V port not the UNI-D port, so therefore if the power goes off to a residence the connected handset off the UNI-V port using a NBN voice service is the only device that remains working.

            If you want backup power of the NTU to provide UNI-D (internet BB) protection as well you have to provide your own UPS connected to the NTU.

          • Just as you need one now to backup your ADSL modem if you wanted continuity. If you don’t want people in your house, specify the external version of the NTU.

          • “so therefore if the power goes off to a residence the connected handset off the UNI-V port using a NBN voice service is the only device that remains working.”

            Are you suggesting that a 100/40mbps connection is just as important as a voice service?

          • Of course both of you as manic NBN apologists let go through to the keeper the ludicrous situation that the NTU has a UPS but only for the UNI-V port, those using the NBN for BB and VoIP will wonder why the NTU has a UPS at all and why they have to maintain the NTU battery and at the same time buy and maintain their own UPS for the UNI-D port!

          • So you expect the government to not only provide you with a free FTTH connection courtesy of the “sucker taxpayer” but you also want a government funded UPS program to power 100/40mbps internet connections that are not needed in the first place? Sounds quite extravagant and a waste. What apps require a UPS powered 100/40mbps connection to be active 24/7 btw?

          • First of all it’s not a free FTTH connection unless the tech doing the job is giving his time voluntarily, doubt it don’t you? and secondly it’s all about confusion at the residents end, currently the the resident does’t have to worry about PSTN UPS it’s all done outside the premises just like FTTN is.

            The assumption is if I had a UPS unit connected to my router and my PC I know those devices hung off the UPS is protected, there is a UPS for the NBN Co box but it does’t back up all the ports on the NBN Co box.

          • “First of all it’s not a free FTTH connection”

            Great. Customer pays for the service. Glad we got that sorted…

            “and secondly it’s all about confusion at the residents end”

            You are the only “resident” that seems to be confused…

            “it’s all done outside the premises just like FTTN is.”

            This is exactly the sort of answer I would expect from a Turnbull/patchwork apologist. Still pushing your anything but fibre agenda it seems. So how about those poor sods in Greenfields? What is the solution for them? You got one?

            “there is a UPS for the NBN Co box but it doesn’t back up all the ports on the NBN Co box.”

            More news at 11 material I’m sure. Let’s see so you say the UPS backs up the NBN box but only the voice port, so in a emergency a customer can ring up their ISP to ask “Hey iiDudes why isn’t my internets working? I need to make an emergency VOIP call because I’m stupid”???

            btw what apps require a UPS powered 100/40mbps connection to be active 24/7? Just answer the question without the furious diversionary tap dancing please.

          • As a “manic NBN detractor”, you’ve managed to try and completely obscure the point – as usual.

            Firstly, the UPS only backs up the UNI-V ports, as only those ports are required to maintain USO obligations.

            Secondly, having the UPS back up both UNI-V and all four UNI-D ports in the would reduce the amount of time the UPS will be effective for, potentially having to power three times as many ports.

            Thirdly, if the power is out and the UPS comes into play, since the mains power is out, I’m quite sure none of your computers would be working – (since they require electricity and all) – so why exactly would you NEED your UNI-D ports operational?

            If operation of your gear is so damn important in a blackout, you’d buy a UPS to run your gear. You could even plug your NTU into it so the UNI-D ports stay up.

            Of course 99.9999% of people in residential premises aren’t so impatient for the power to come back up.

            The other 0.0001% have their own backup power.

          • Explain how if I want to back up my UNI-D ports because I already have a UPS for my PC and router many residents do, do I just plug the NTU into my UPS and disconnect the NTU UPS, how does the NTU know that the UPS connected to it is for backing up ALL ports not just UNI-V?

            How does the back time vary depending on the capacity of my UPS, how do I know if I have enough capacity to keep the UNI-D ports AND all my own gear running during a power outage?

          • “how do I know if I have enough capacity to keep the UNI-D ports AND all my own gear running during a power outage?”

            Your average UPS isn’t going to last very long with all “your own gear” running to begin with, whatever the NTU is pulling from one is inconsequential. So now you should tell us that the batteries NBN supply for the NTU should not only provide power for the voice ports and the data ports but it also should have enough power for all “your own gear” too… and the fridge and the TV and the lights.

          • You’re either dumb as a post, or just being deliberately argumentative.

            If your NTU is plugged into your own UPS – (you do keep pointing out elsewhere that it runs off the mains) – it won’t realise the mains have gone down, and keeping running.

          • As for how long it will run – how big is your UPS?

            I’ve seen UPS systems that keep entire server rooms running for hours. People implementing UPS systems – (in the real world, as opposed to any imaginary one) – calculate their power usage, how long they want things to stay up, and then implement a UPS with enough capacity.

            You want it to run for 2 hours? Work out how much power your gear is using, and buy a UPS with enough reserve battery power to last that long with that amount of power required.

            It’s not hard. But you know that.

          • Yes I know it’s not hard, but where is the information from the NBN Co stating the UPS is ONLY for the voice port and giving residences helpful information by specifying the power requirements of the UNI-D ports so a residence can make a informed decision on the UPS power rating required?

          • If these are the questions we can expect from an “average consumer” when it comes to the backup solutions provided by the NBN then god help us all.

            There is a reason UPSes are considered specialist equipment. The working out the expected average load of any given system, ensuring every single mission critical device in said system will receive power in the event of failure, and determining which parts of the systems are mission critical is not a trivial exercise, not to mention ensuring you get enough uptime to do what you need to do.

            Anyone who has a system at home they consider critical enough to require it to operate in the event of the power failure will understand this, or at least hire someone who does. The least you can expect of one of the systems is for the user to actually test it. You never set a UPS up, and then wait for an actual power failure to see if it works.

            There are whole different classes as UPS as well, from clean-shutdown UPSes, which provide just enough power for the system to enter a zero-power state, to full “this system must never go down under any circumstances”, usually with diesel generators, solutions.

            If you anything that needs the Internet to still be operating in the event of a power failure then you will damn well be able to do a simple Google search or make a phone call, or expect the providers of this uninterruptable service to do this to get the information you require to set-up your UPS.

            So, alain, I have attempted to deal with you countless times, in regards to multiple subjects, but seriously, for the love of god: stop asking stupid questions, or questions that no one can possible have an answer to. You achieve nothing but make yourself look like an idiot.

          • Oh FFS – how many residences are going to be doing this? Near zero.

            Anyone who is – (and who has a brain) – will just say – “well, it’s not going to be using 200W of power, so lets budget for that”.

            Seriously – you’re turning a complete non-issue into a major knicker twisting exercise.

            Grow up.

          • “Seriously – you’re turning a complete non-issue into a major knicker twisting exercise.”

            Remember when a voice only service was the most important thing. Now it’s the data service. MUST. BE. ON. 24/7!

          • I must have hit a nerve, the resident Delimiter NBN apologists have come out with the usual personal jibes, ‘grow up’ ‘an idiot, ‘anyone who has a brain’ ‘either dumb’ – all impressive stuff.

            None of which answers the question I asked, where does the NBN Co provide this information to the residence, where does the NBN Co say the UNI-V port is the only port backed up by the supplied NBN Co UPS, where do they state if you want the UNI-D ports backed up which you would if you have gone to the trouble to back up your VoIP/ATA/router and/or your PC with your own UPS residents need that information, that is ‘to plug the NTU into your UPS if you want data and VoIP backup’.

            MW you mentioned you can ask for a external NTU where is the info on this? is it a extra cost over the internal unit? How does the lead-in to inside the house work? I assume the external NTU is in a weatherproof case, which in turn requires a weatherproof external power supply for the NTU UPS to be in place before the installation tech arrives, where is the residence information about all this?

            How do you UPS back up the UNI-D ports on a external unit?

            Please try and answer without the unnecessary personal jibes this time, and glibly dismissing it as a ‘non-issue’ just because the questions are awkward, also if you don’t know the answers just say ‘I don’t know’ and leave it that.

          • You plug it into the UPS! It has a standard plug on it for christ’s sake!

            Clearly, you just ignored the statement: “if operation of your gear is so damn important in a blackout, you’d buy a UPS to run your gear. You could even plug your NTU into it so the UNI-D ports stay up.“.

            This is nothing to do with “raw nerves”, just idiotic comments.

          • hey Alain,

            I’ve read through quite a few of your recent comments, and while they are not precisely impolite, it’s clear that they are not useful or productive for the furtherance of intelligent discussion on Delimiter. I’m putting you in the sin-bin for a week in the hope that things will change positively.

            Cheers,

            Renai

      • Internode is dead due to Internode being Internode, nothing to do with NBNCo.

        Semantics != FACTS.

        • hmm? a misunderstanding.

          i was merely referring to delimiter’s habit of viewing everything through the simplistic lenses of Good vs Evil via arbitrary characterisation without substantive reference to actual facts and contorting the interpretation of events to fit this storyline.

          Internode = Simon Hackett = Good

          TPG = David Teoh = Evil

          with the appearance of NBNco on the telco scene, the latest “hero” of the day is:

          NBNco = Mike Quigley = Good

          ISPs who dare criticise NBNco = Evil

    • Regarding the NTU etc, I don’t really see that as the focus of the negotiations this week. Something like that is fairly basic and would have been covered by the WBA pretty clearly already, I’m betting.

      As for “issued addressed by NBN Co” and the ISPs raising them … this isn’t a negotiation where the ISPs can simply raise an issue and NBN Co necessarily *has* to do something about it. It’s a commercial negotiation, there are pushes and pulls on both sides. It’s not NBN Co’s job to just do whatever the ISPs want.

      • ‘It’s not NBN Co’s job to just do whatever the ISPs want.’

        Yes but so far the NBN Co has in the end done whatever the ISP’s want, the ISP’s know a political football when they see one, and this one is a beauty, I expect this just to be the tip of the iceberg of ISP complaints between now and region Telstra copper and HFC shutdown days.

  3. Actually I agree with the first post, that your article is extremely biased. I form that view not because I disagree with your opinions, but the facts speak for themselves.

    You have frequently claimed that NBNco has extensive industry consultation and the ISPs have had every opportunity to make changes.The fact the NBNco consults with industry does not mean they agree to the changes requested by the industry. In many cases NBNco has stood its ground and/or completely ignored many of the recommendations by the industry across a broad number of subjects. Its only when media attention is brought to bare – because after all NBNco is a big political issue – that NBNco backs down or Conroy steps in to force NBNco to back down.

    I always thought Journalism was supposed to be about reporting the facts – isn’t that why the Government has called an enquiry? But then I just noticed your `article’ starts off with “opinion”. Thus is not a peice of journalism, instead its just an opinion of individual claiming to be a journalist.

      • But you claim it an article here.

        “Also, I agree, the article is highly biased; you can read more about this here:”

        And you make reference to an article about bias journalism here

        “http://gizmodo.com/5687692/you-write-bias-journalism-and-i-read-derp”

        If I recall correctly I think you have made a statement in the past about being a journalist. Isn’t it nice to have it both ways when you like it.

        • There is also his reference to “Ex-ZDNet editor launches Australian technology news service” and “Will Renai LeMay’s new media business model work” and that he publishes a NEWSletter and the big one.

          “January 2010 by well-known Australian journalist and writer Renai LeMay” from his own About us page.

          • Look guys … I never said this was a news piece or “journalism”. It’s my analysis of this week’s events and my opinion about it. I don’t really know what journalism is anymore … the definition keeps changing. My main aim with Delimiter is to let people know what’s going on in the world, help to get them thinking about the issues, and entertain a little along the way. If that’s journalism, that’s great. If not, I don’t really care ;)

          • in any case the op ed is something that has always inhabited a slice of many many papers (for many many years) and surprisingly enough is considered a form of journalism. as far as the form itself is concerned it works for me (i am entertained and understand Renais writing is geared to provocate thinking (and consequently commentary. i think its his sly troll plan for page hits)).

            but the old line is truest about op eds – you know whats coming and you arent obliged to read em if you dont like it, or more often, the writer. tho in this case im not seeing what the ruckus is about.

        • The very first word in the article is Opinion and it’s in bold. News pieces are similarly labelled ‘news’ also in bold. Personally I don’t think it’s too hard to work out which is which :-).

      • My best John MacEnroe impression “YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS”…………..btw I miss the like button,gave room to support an opinion without posting.Problem?

    • The issue is when opinion gets passed off as “unbiased journalism”. Where parliamentary privilege means “journalist” are repeating whatever random politician says as news without even bothering to fact check. Heck we even have advertising passing for “news” these days.

  4. when most of Australia’s ISPs gang up together on the same issues and force a major wholesale service provider like NBN Co to back down

    Imagine the shit fight if this was only a few years ago, and that line actually read:

    when most of Australia’s ISPs gang up together on the same issues and force a major wholesale service provider like Telstra Wholesale to back down

        • under the copper regime, how can the major ISPs force Telstra Wholesale to “back down” unless the coalition of ISPs includes Bigpond?

          you completely missed the point of the article which is that the only way the wholesale-only NBNco can remain “operational” is if the major ISPs are willing to play ball.

          Telstra, in a “similar situation”, would merely divert all its business to Bigpond (something which NBNco obviously cannot do).

          get it, now? or do i have to draw a pretty picture?

          • Exactly where does it say “major” ISPs?

            I merely changed “NBN Co”, to “Telstra Wholesale”.

            It is you who have missed the point – which was that under the “copper regime”, the ISPs had little or no chance of changing anything Telstra Wholesale wanted to do.

            Just ask Simon Hackett.

            Get it now? Or do I have to dump your pretty picture in a enzyme based recycling system so it comes out looking like excrement?

          • ‘Imagine the shit fight if this was only a few years ago, and that line actually read:

            “when most of Australia’s ISPs gang up together on the same issues and force a major wholesale service provider like Telstra Wholesale to back down“’

            Well that has actually happened as you well know, ISP’s complaints in the form of submissions to the ACCC have have actually forced Telstra Wholesale to back down.

            This time around the ISP’s are getting in early by dealing with the NBN Co direct, and because they know the NBN rollout is a political imperative that cannot be seen to fail it is a ideal time leading into the 2013 election to get whatever they want.

          • But, when these ISP’s (or rather leeching cherry pickers, I believe they were referred to as) did that to “poor Telstra” you yelled “not fair”. Now they do the same to “Labor’s NBN”, you applaud.

            Same scenario, but totally opposite opinion.

            As US political commentator Keith Olbermann once said – “I guess the painkillers wipe out memory along with ethics”.

          • ‘But, when these ISP’s (or rather leeching cherry pickers, I believe they were referred to as) did that to “poor Telstra” you yelled “not fair”’

            No I didn’t.

            ‘. Now they do the same to “Labor’s NBN”, you applaud.’

            No I didn’t.

          • In that case my apology, I have obviously mistaken you for another Delimiter alain, who clearly did.

    • Not really sure where you’re going with this, Michael, but it’s not a fair comparison.

      NBN Co is not a vertically integrated monopoly, and in fact it was set up from the start with much, much more constriction and regulation on its operations than Telstra. It is designed to be a wholesaler, and it needs to deal with everyone equally, which Telstra doesn’t. The comparison is not apt.

      • Firstly, distinguish “Telstra” as a whole, and “Telstra Wholesale”.

        Where I’m going is under the “copper regime” ISPs in general would have had a lot harder time getting TW to bend so much under any public pressure they tried to put onto them.

        In NBN land, it’s proven to be achievable, relatively easily.

  5. i like the deliberately cagey start to win the trust of the reader:

    Now, I don’t want to go too far in alleging improper behaviour on the part of the ISPs.

    and then, the bottom hatches are gradually released…

    first bomb…

    effectively publicly blackmailing a joint supplier

    although it’s not clear what secret, damaging information the major ISPs are threatening to release. if NBNco cannot weather mild polemical attacks by a bunch of ragtag ISPs over obscure clauses in the WBA, you have to wonder how fragile NBNco’s position (and, more generally, the whole NBN project) is to begin with…

    second bomb…

    We have collusive action by Australia’s telecommunications giants

    if a majority of ISPs find a clause in the WBA offensive and refuse to bend over for a government monopoly, they are immediately guilty of “colluding”…

    third bomb…

    If I were the ACCC, I would be looking very, very carefully at the events of this week

    not only have the ISPs allegedly engaged in improper behaviour, it may apparently be serious enough to warrant criminal sanctions or regulatory intervention.

    and the final insinuation to cap it all off:

    How far can we trust the major players in Australia’s telecommunications sector? At this point, I am far from sure.

    message to reader: don’t worry about substance and actual facts. you can trust NBNco because it is a government operation working for the good of the nation; but you cannot trust the dirty capitalist ISPs.

    • OK, I’ll bite.

      The ISPs effectively blackmailed NBN Co by not signing the agreement and then confirming that fact and their reasons why to the press. Normally this wouldn’t be an issue, but the fact that they did it just before the trial agreement ended, meaning new customers wouldn’t be able to be signed up to the NBN, forced NBN Co’s hand. NBN Co could not allow a situation to continue where new customers were not being signed up.
      That’s the damaging information (and actions) the ISPs were directing towards NBN Co.

      “refuse to bend over for a government monopoly”

      I don’t think this is an accurate depiction of the situation. NBN Co’s not being draconian here; they worked on this deal for 15 months with all the ISPs. They’ve been the definition of collaborative, transparent, open and cooperative.

      Yes, I do believe the ACCC should keep an eye on this situation. We need to make sure Australia’s ISPs do not form a collusive group in order to continually force better outcomes from NBN Co. The same would be true if it were happening in any industry, say manufacturing, or mining.

      As far as trust goes, yes, I do trust NBN Co more than I trust the retail ISPs right now. NBN Co has earned that trust by continually dealing with me openly and honestly over the past several years. The ISPs, while they have been generally good, have not demonstrated the same commitment to the public good that NBN Co has.

      I’m making a value call here. And I’m betting that I have dealt a *heck of a lot more* with all of the players, including personally with the CEOs, than any Delimiter reader or commenter has. That’s why you come to this site — to find out what these guys are thinking and what I think about it. And I’m telling you — I trust NBN Co quite a lot at the moment. It’s earned a great deal of trust.

      • According to other journalists headlines, you got it dead right Renai and this isn’t the first time NBNCo has had to bend.

        http://www.afr.com/p/national/nbn_backs_down_on_agreement_LjzKOvN4ybp9jnrBt2lvzI

        http://technologyspectator.com.au/industry/telecommunications/nbn-co-backs-down-telstra-wireless-clause

        http://personalinvestor.com.au/p/business/companies/nbn_co_backs_down_on_price_rises_XaoJT4GUvDKbNWS7O4K1FN

        Perhaps they should do as per the opposition’s policy and just hand it all over to Telstra (sorry Network Co) then we’ll see the feathers fly ;-)

          • Q. do you know anything but kowtowing to the conservatives and Telstra?

            A. No

            Coalition’s Plan for Brownfields

            HFC 25 % (Privately owned by Network Co)
            ADSL 28% (Privately owned by Network Co)
            FTTN 40% (Publicly and privately owned by Network Co)

            Tell us who this Network Co is, who the Coalition propose will have around a 73% stake?

          • I can now see a typical response arguing over the word “all vs. 73%”.

            Odds anyone?

          • ‘I should note that while I have assumed in the previous discussion that the private sector entity which would undertake this upgrade would be the Network Co separated from Telstra – but just as has been the case elsewhere, any other capable company should be able to participate.’

            http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/uncategorized/address-to-the-national-press-club-australia/

            The Coalition are not locked into it being ONLY the structurally separated Telstra company, oops stuffed up yet again RS?

          • So NEVER AGAIN alain (Naa, how apt). Malcolm has said (or assumed) it would be Telstra….

            Say no more.

            (But then, Mal and Naa enter silly after thought)

            But of course it could be someone else!

            Someone else… who can supply us with a complete PSTN for our 40% FTTN to patch into and also supply us with completely operational HFC and ADSL networks, for the remainder of our Brownfield plan.

            Any takers, I know one! Begins with T and ends with elstra.

            ROFL at the desperation and stupidity.

          • Yes got all of that furious diversionary tap dancing, the simple fact is that Coalition policy is not all about Telstra being the ‘Network Co’, as you were supposedly quoting Coalition policy you simply got it wrong.

          • Q. Name another company who in Australia, own and can supply the opposition with all of the following, which they need for their broadband policy. PSTN for their FTTN, HFC network(s) and ADSL network(s)?

            A.??????

            We know it’s impossible for you to ever admit you err, or for you to ever provide a legitimate, logical answer to any question. But we see your incorrectness regularly (and the associated comedy routine excuses which follow – tap dancing, detour sign, banned guy, exit strategy (addd newy … here)

            Or if it easier, just repeat this

            http://delimiter.com.au/2012/01/12/blackmailing-nbn-co-works-best-through-the-media/#comment-304615

          • “The opposition policy is not about ‘handing it all over to Telstra’,”

            The opposition policy is fuck up as much as they can in the shortest time frame possible.

      • — The ISPs effectively blackmailed NBN Co by not signing the agreement —

        i strongly disagree with your misuse of the term “blackmail”.

        normally, a situation of “blackmail” arises between two independent parties, where the aggressor party is attempting to forcibly initiate a malevolent relationship and extract some form of undeserved benefit by threatening adverse consequences on the aggressed party if compliance is not forthcoming.

        the reverse is true of the “dispute” between NBNco and the ISPs.

        first of all, the ISPs have absolutely no obligation whatsoever (in law or otherwise) to engage in a commercial relationship with NBNco (i.e. to proceed further from the current trial). the fact that this has damaging consequences for NBNco is no-one’s problem other than NBNco and the Federal Government. we live in a free society and you cannot force people or entities to enter into new contracts or commercial relationships.

        secondly, the ISPs are not unjustly extracting some form of undeserved windfall benefit (like blackmailers do) by refusing to sign the WBAs. instead, they are attempting to avoid economic harm to themselves by entering into a commercial relationship under coercion which carries risks that they do not wish or have the capacity to bear.

        hence, the situation or disagreement that exists (or existed) between NBNco and the ISPs bears no resemblance whatsoever to a “blackmail”. calling it “blackmail”, at best, is completely inaccurate, and, at worst, is just emotive trolling.

        — Yes, I do believe the ACCC should keep an eye on this situation. We need to make sure Australia’s ISPs do not form a collusive group in order to continually force better outcomes from NBN Co. The same would be true if it were happening in any industry, say manufacturing, or mining. —

        the only reason that ISPs currently have any leverage over NBNco at all is because Telstra’s copper network is still operational and has not yet been forcibly shutdown. once that happens, the balance of power will tip entirely to NBNco because there will be many buyers (ISPs) facing just one seller of fixed-line services (NBNco). this is as opposed to the current situation where you have many buyers facing two sellers.

        trying to instead spotlight the alleged “dangers of collusion” on the part of the ISPs in a politically-divined future where Telstra is contractually obligated to shutdown its copper network and forcibly migrate all its wholesale customers over to the monopolistic NBN is completely delusional.

  6. Grats on a good article. Well argued. (And I support your integrity in differentiating between News and Opinion)

    It strikes me that this may well be the last time that such tactics can be used effectively. As the reliance on the NBN infrastructure increases, for the RSPs to simply refuse to sign the wholesale agreement would be to commit commercial suicide. Therefore it is important that measures are in place to avoid NBNCo being able to dictate unfair terms and conditions on it’s customers. If the revisions insisted upon by the RSPs go some way to ensuring the existence of these safeguards then all well and good.

    • “It strikes me that this may well be the last time that such tactics can be used effectively.”

      This is very true, because one of the clauses in the agreement prevents public criticism of NBNco or laying blame on NBNco – bit like Stalinist Russia i suppose.

      So I agree with you Tailgator that it will be the last time its used, because once they sign they cannot take such approachs in future.

    • As far as I can tell this 1 year WBA is a stop gap to keep the business going whilst the SAU is being processed by the ACCC. With the SAU the ACCC will be running the process and they will have to give final approval. The ISPs and NBNCo can put their case to the ACCC. We’ll have an independent arbiter. Once the SAU is approved I think that defines the WBA the ISPs sign from then on.

      • yea, but, tactically, why should the ISPs agree (under coercion) to an outcome in the WBA that they desperately wish to avoid in the SAU?

        it doesn’t make sense. putting your signature on a formal contract is not a matter to be taken lightly regardless of the duration of the contract.

        the fact is the SAU is an ongoing process that has not been finalised. there is no guarantee that a SAU which is satisfactory to the ACCC will necessarily be satisfactory to the ISPs. for example, look at the complaints over Telstra’s SSU undertaking.

        the final determination of the SAU is not a mechanical process of ticking the boxes. if the ISPs were to willy-nilly sign-off on anything in the WBA, this document could subsequently be used against them in subsequent negotiations over the SAU.

      • “As far as I can tell this 1 year WBA is a stop gap to keep the business going whilst the SAU is being processed by the ACCC. With the SAU the ACCC will be running the process and they will have to give final approval. The ISPs and NBNCo can put their case to the ACCC. We’ll have an independent arbiter. Once the SAU is approved I think that defines the WBA the ISPs sign from then on.”

        Yes, this is accurate.

    • Cheers, much appreciated!

      I do agree that it is very important to differentiate between news and opinion. Every publication has its slant, but I think as writers we need to become more transparent about that.

      As far as the ISPs using these tactics goes, I think it is only going to become more prevalent. Optus, iiNet, Internode, Macquarie Telecom, Primus and some of the other non-Telstra ISPs have been collaborating against Telstra for years. It is only natural that this same structure will be applied towards dealings with NBN Co … what worries me, however, is the potential for Telstra to join forces with the other telcos in doing so.

      We cannot afford a cartel/collusion situation from Australian ISPs in dealing with NBN Co. It will make NBN Co’s position impossible.

      • What we cannot afford is for the NBNCo to be seen to throw a Qantas style hissy fit.

  7. I can’t believe some of the half baked comments been left. Not even worth replying too.
    I also think this was a well written article and highlights how the NBN Co is getting heat from every Tom, Dick and Harry.

    • Cheers, much appreciated! While I remain ambivalent towards the NBN policy as a whole, I am personally very tired of the unjustified mud-slinging which NBN Co cops continually for no reason.

  8. The RSPs have considerable unpleasant experience dealing with Telstra as a monopoly provider.

    When comparing the NBNCo and Telstra from a glass half empty perspective:
    * Both are monopolies
    * Both are huge bureaucracies.
    * Both don’t price at cost + small margin but have complex pricing schemes that disassociate costs with charges
    * Both work hard to protect their monopolies from competition
    * Both don’t have goals that match what we as consumers want
    * NBNCo won’t have a retail arm, but I’m not sure how much difference that makes
    * NBNCo are paying salaries at 30-50% above the Industry standard (hardly a positive)

  9. > The ridiculous furore that erupted when NBN Co released its current customer sign-up numbers just after New Year’s Eve should go some way to illustrating the fact that the company is currently fighting for its own survival. If NBN Co can roll out enough infrastructure and sign up enough customers over the next year, it faces a chance of continued existence under a Coalition Government; if its effort stall, it will fall victim to Tony Abbott’s oft-repeated promise to shut the project down.

    It is not just the number of connections that NBNCo need to be worried about. They also need to be worried about the average speed of those connections. Currently the NBNCo Corporate Plan predicts that 50% of customers on fibre will connect at 12/1Mbps barely faster than the average ADSL2+ speed!

  10. Putting aside all the detail, it is clear that this government is a soft touch when it comes to executing a project. Some companies didn’t get away with the rorting of the Insulation Scheme, Renewable energy and the Schools Program but most did. The ISPs are just jumping on the bandwagon and squeezing the government for as much as they can get. Never give a sucker an even break is a very succesful business policy. Our current government have shown their ineptitude in handling projects so any business dealing with them would be fools not to take advantage of that.

    • I agree Grahame, the NBN has to succeed, it is a Labor political baby that the Labor Party cannot afford to let to fail, there is too many political ego’s riding on it, including a few Independents , let’s face if push came to shove the ISP’s could virtually demand a 50% cut in wholesale rates before they sell it and the chances are high it would succeed.

      The NBN Co (answerable to Conroy) is not pushing for a commercial success with the same motivation to ensure shareholders get a return like a Telstra or SingTel funded project would, the taxpayers are the shareholders which means who cares if they get a return, you think ISP’s give a stuff taxpayers will all take a bath with this multi billion dollar turkey?

      • Of course they want it to succeed alain.

        But regardless of the fact you obviously do not support the NBN, do ‘you’ actually want it see it fail?

        • @alain, I asked a serious but simple question, which still remains unanswered.

          Yet since then, where I haven’t asked you anything, in fact you weren’t involved in the correspondences at all (for once), you felt compelled to involve yourself and troll.

          Just once, please try to provide an answer and (I know this is asking a lot on top) an adult answer, to this question…

          “Regardless of the fact you obviously do not support the NBN, do ‘you’ actually want it see it fail”?

          I’m sure with you being Delimiter’s #1 (in quantity only) poster, people would be intrigued to know.

          • Well there is no debating that Abbott and his zoo crew chums want to see the NBN fail WC, you have to realise that there are too many political ego’s riding on it (the biggest one is from Abbott himself). Abbott has wanted to “demolish” the NBN ever since his humiliating defeat at the last election and the only way this dopey dora can ever be satisfied is by cancelling the thing that lost it for him and pissing off voters in the process… this would also apply to the Turnbulll/Patchwork apologists as well, they don’t even know why they are against the NBN anymore it seems and as you know they have turned irrationally into an artform.

            btw it’s been a year since the Queensland floods and we’ve heard nothing from them regarding the money they plan to spend on their substandard patchwork going towards that cause. I wonder why.

          • No it’s not a simple question it is a stupid question and has no relevance in the context of the discussion at all, it will remain unanswered.

  11. Wow a cartel of market based ISP’s effectively screwed a corrupt government monopoly, sorry mate but hooray for the people of Australia. The NBN is failing joke with next no public support entirely reliant on the taxpayer and the legislature for it’s existence. No scrutiny, no business model and totally naive leadership with links to criminal practises attempting to put together the worlds most out of date communications system. Let’s be really honest say their staff recruitment program is a retirement fund for failed politicians, unionists and barely capable shady engineers. It’s sad that at this late stage it still has people spitefully unscrupulous enough to publicly endorse inflicting it on the Australian public. It’s no longer a matter of will it work, it doesn’t, it’s failed at every benchmark to achieve anything even remotely desirable for any of the stakeholders including that imbecile Conroy. It’s a brainf@rt blowing away in the wind, don’t sully your reputation any further by such blatantly partisan support and loaded writing.

    • LOL – the paid liberal comment machine has dipped its toes in this thread. Its amazing how much of this uninformed repeated BS you see on comments on articles around the country. Would love to see the IP addresses on these and trace them back to Lib party hacks.

      • Right you are Kevin, why just a few days ago we had a “few” of these shills over at ZDnet. I use the word “few” loosely as it was clear it was the same one just using different names.

    • Simon. Guess we should continue with the conservative Liberal Model. The one that post WW2 when we were at the forefront of technology, CSIRO had built CSIRAC, the most advanced computer at the time, we were leaders in pure research. The Libs institututed a “Productivity Commission” which determined there was no value in pure science or technology research and we should focus on the classical colonial agricultural and resource sector with support manufacturing, so cut funding and shut down those areas of research and development. Then in the 60’s the CSIRO and Aust universities pleaded with the Lib Government for funding to build a semiconductor research and manufacturing facility focussing on integrated circuits, processors etc. You guessed it, No as no forseeable value, no business case. Our manufacturing in all areas suffered as a result as electronics and control equipment are essentials and we had no patents and had become effectively just assemblers of imported technology. Deja Vu

  12. Ha-Ha!
    Blackmail, collusion, corruption, vice, shady characters, ticking clocks threatening to set off the time-bomb ! !

    Day-time TV? Another in the ‘underbelly’ series ?

    Nope – just Renai after too many red-bulls.

    Keep it up mate. Great reading – I almost wish it were that exciting.

    • Coming soon:

      Underbelly 4: the NBN Standover

      Brief synopsis:

      NBNco boss to ISP syndicate: “it’s your signature on the contract or no more new fibre connections”.

      Mike Quigley wakes up in the middle of the night, finds a folder full of unsigned contracts under his bedsheets and shrieks in horror.

    • hey Steve,

      thanks for your comment.

      I agree that sometimes my writing is a bit overblown sometimes (actually, often).

      However, this doesn’t change the fact that there is a lot unexplained about events this week. I’d be interested to hear more from iiNet about how the WBA bargaining process progressed over the past 15 months, and why the ISPs felt it necessary to go public at the last minute as the trial agreement was ending this week.

      In particular, I invited you earlier this week to outline to Delimiter readers iiNet’s complaints with the WBA in more detail. So far we’ve only gotten a high-level overview — would you be interested in providing specifics about what iiNet’s issues were?

      My door is always open :) And you know I don’t play favourites — I will criticise every side when it is needed. I actually should do more to praise when people have done a good job, for balance.

      Cheers,

      Renai

      • >> would you be interested in providing specifics about what iiNet’s issues were?

        No mate, too boring for a story this good.
        You need to make up your mind about the role you’re playing, Renai.

        Sensationalism doesn’t need facts and details – just hints and innuendo and I think you have that sorted.
        You don’t need me to confuse things by providing information after publication – I’m not correcting your assignments after you’ve got an ‘F’.

        As a well blackened-pot calling out the kettle, you employ this form of speculative low-info blogging to ‘blackmail’ the participants out of information, after the event.

        You make some pretty outrageous claims about our companies using the mainstream media as weapons, using an apocryphal style for your own amusement.

        I am called on a regular basis by journos that have done a lot of leg-work, have the story well and truly developed and ask me about specific details. They don’t publish rubbish and hope I’ll correct them.

  13. The ACCC SHOULD take a long hard look at these events but they won’t, because they’re a toothless Tiger that has quite frankly become a bitch for the major telcos.

    • My view is that since the current NBN policy was put in place, the ACCC has stepped back dramatically from its previously high level of intervention in the telco sector. It’s because they see the NBN policy as having the long-term potential to solve many of the sector’s issues, and want to give it a chance to work.

  14. Sadly you have missed the core issue: that a binding commercial agreement was unacceptable to some well advised customers of a monopoly service provider who had indicated it would refuse to accept new orders if a new agreement was not signed.

    Our lawyers advised that we should not sign the contract because it exposed us to uninsurable risk.

    If it were your employer stating that you wouldn’t get a raise unless you signed a new contract that stated that you would personally carry the total cost of any damage associated with you (liability) during your employment, even if you didn’t directly cause it, a damaged car or van for instance, you would naturally consider your options. You might think “I need this job so badly I will risk it” or you might think “Sod this, I’m not signing and will look for a new job with an employer who isn’t a prick”.

    I’m a bit tired of being kicked around on this blog. My example of a damaged home was of a gas pipe being cut while drilling through a wall to bring the NBN fibre into a house.

    I used the example because I was on holidays doing some renovation work when David called me and had cut through a water pipe with a quick-cut saw during the project. At the time I thought that I was lucky it wasn’t gas and that the power tool was petrol powered.

    jsl

    • hey John,

      thanks for your comment!

      I’m curious to know … I can see your point re the liability issue, but how early on in the consultation process did you flag this with NBN Co? And what was their response at that time? It seems rather weird to me that these sorts of issues only came up at the last minute, after five drafts of the contract. My experience with NBN Co has been that they are pretty common sense people — I haven’t seen any examples so far where they have been deliberately obstinate.

      Was there nothing that could be done about this issue, without having it kicked around in the media so extensively … potentially damaging NBN Co’s reputation?

      I’d ask the same question about the ACCC issue.

      I guess what we’re seeing here, from the public’s viewpoint, is that NBN Co is being painted as a draconian monopolist. However, we don’t really have a complete view of what happened during the negotiation process. From my point of view, NBN Co has spoken very conservatively about the issue, while the ISPs’ statements have been quite inflammatory.

      I’m sorry if you feel we’ve been kicking you around ;) I assure you that many people have felt that way about Delimiter over time … Telstra, Optus, Senator Conroy, Malcolm Turnbull, and more ;)

      Cheers,

      Renai

      • RSPs expected the SAU to be completed before the WBA was to be executed so the ACCC oversight became as issue when that didn’t happen. The one year term came about because a five year term under current legislation meant the SAU had no value to RSPs who had already signed anyway.

        The liability issue has been a problem since it first appeared.

        We’re damned if we talk in public about these issues and damned if we don’t.

        We’re satisfied with the result and can return to getting on with making the NBN work for those lucky enough to have it.

        jsl

        • No worries, thanks again for your response.

          In respect to the liability issue, what has NBN Co’s answer been about the issue over time? I will also ask this question of them tomorrow — I know it’s not your place to make their view, but still keen to hear about it from your side etc. If this has been an issue for the past 15 months, I would be very interested to know why NBN Co and the ISPs have been at an impasse there for that long.

          I see what you’re saying about the SAU … but given that the initial wholesale broadband agreement started consultation in October 2010, while the first SAU draft was not issued until July 2011, the timing for that assumption seems a little strange. Plus, anything with the ACCC involved takes an age to negotiate.

          However, with respect to that issue, in fairness, NBN Co did try to address it — through making outcomes of the SAU applicable to the wholesale agreement retrospectively.

          With respect to discussing the issue in public with the media, to be honest, I don’t think there’s a lot of the general public which is interested in this issue, as it’s mainly finicky contractual negotiations. However, when the process breaks down to the point that people stop being connected to the NBN, the public sits up and starts to pay attention.

          My concern here is that the ISPs used that timing as a negotiating tactic … which is a tactic I would not have expected from you guys.

          Cheers,

          Renai

          • Is there a reason why you are giving NBNCo constantly the benefit of the doubt Relai?

            I think it is pretty damn obvious that this claim of blackmail was just used to fill the void of facts that were not available to you, and is now apparent there was no such blackmail or extortion

            What happened is that while there were 5 drafts, there were obviously issues that were not solved in any of those drafts, and as John Lindsay has stated, certain ISP’s were not going to sign up to a contract that exposed them to such risk

            Just because NBNCo did 5 drafts, did not mean they solved the most glaring issues in those 5 revisions, thats an assumption you made, and from the looks of it a pretty incorrect one

  15. Speaking of blackmail, I hope that Senator Conroy does not resort to blackmail with his sale of spectrum to the industry. We all know that Julia Gillard is desperate for billions to return the budget to surplus but to bludgeon the industry to death to get it would be beyond acceptable. Lets hope those involved (Telstra Optus Virgin Vodafone etc) draw the line, join together to demand a realistic and fair payment for this spectrum or stand together and fight united for the often quoted Aussie “fair go”.

  16. So from what I gather, this is an opinion piece written up without actually knowing the full story… Even some ISP employees are bagging it and telling us it is wrong.

    If you don’t know 100% of the facts, or were in the negotiations yourself, why bother writing an opinion piece?? This is how misinformation starts… You blame the ISPs for using the Media to badmouth NBN Co… but you’re now using a media stream to bad mouth the ISPs…

    • “You blame the ISPs for using the Media to badmouth NBN Co… but you’re now using a media stream to bad mouth the ISPs…”

      I would think the key difference here would be the Renai isn’t part of NBNCo or the ISPs, he’s a third party writing what he thinks on his own website.

      Where as what he is talking about is ISPs not signing this contract thing and then telling the press why, trying to badmouth NBNCo or put them in a bind.

      Thats just what I gathered though.

  17. Bias, schmias, it’s an opinion piece people.
    However Renai, I can’t believe that you honestly think any organisation would sign a contract where they have to carry the liability for events that are outside of their control.
    Your argument seems to be “there is not much chance of any damage to a house, so just sign the contracts and get on with it”. Are you serious with that, or just trolling for hits?
    Sod, that, no lawyer or CEO would allow that to be signed, and it appears as though that has been a sticking point since day one from what I understand.

    • >> it’s an opinion piece people.

      Not really.

      It’s a bit of fiction, then a bit of speculation, then criticism of the fictional scenario, then a little salting with real characters then a bit of mock outrage.

      He just labels it as ‘Opinion’.

      • Don’t get me wrong, I don’t disagree with you that the whole piece is really a bit silly.

        Renai, there is always plenty of other interesting stuff happening in Australian IT (although admittedly this is a slow time of year, perhaps explains why ppl have so much time to post comments!).

        What happened to your weekly friday piece on a person of interest in Australian IT? Friday Five was it?

        From a reader who genuinely likes your serious stuff, enough already with the NBN baiting…please…

      • It would have taken almost no time at all to give some details but you refused and still refuse to give any details.

        Why is that?

      • ah so its ok for you to give bugger all details and use the media to coerce your goals but dare someone criticise your tactics its deplorable(especially funny considering Renai has rather liberal leanings if anyone has read most of his postings).

        ye right.

  18. The whole process so far smacks of organised chaos, in reality the NBN SAU sitting at the ACCC and being dissected by the ACCC which takes time as they already in the midst of reviewing the Telstra SS undertaking should have been finished and done and dusted before the ISP WBA’s negotiations even started.

    So you have the situation where WBS’s are being signed off, the NBN SAU may require revision which could impact on WBS agreement content anyway and ISP’s merrily going off signing up punters based on that WBS agreement.

    I have one key question here, why has the ACCC nothing whatever to do with approving the content of the WBS’s which must overlap with the NBN SAU content they are in the process of approving, and then beyond that overseeing all NBN wholesale pricing and access conditions like they do with Telstra today?

  19. Renai,

    i think you are spot on in your analysis of ‘whinging ISPs’. they will continue to do that even if NBN Co agreed to all their terms and offer NBN free for their use. they want more.

    I think govt should sell NBN to telstra, take away ACCC monitoring and allow Telstra to self-regulate (with big thumb) etc. that way these ‘whinging ISPs’ will be put in their place.

    after 18 months of negotiations, they still do this because they know NBN is still politically sensitive and they want to wreck this nation building initiative. lets their response in the next few years when FTTN is the new reality and telstra is their wholesaler.

    they are much better off working with NBN than telstra. well, sometimes, they have to learn it the hardway. its only the customers who suffer because of these whingers.

    great peice of analysis. keep it up.

    PS: i don’t think you are biased towards any company/issue. this is my opinion based on reading a number of articles here.

  20. The biggest problem with this article is not necessarily that this is sensationalist dribble (although that is a pretty major problem), the problem is that jumped on the bandwagon prematurely and gave NBNCo the benefit of the doubt while putting all the blame on the ISP’s. Which honestly makes this article as sad/bad as the ones that are normally complained about on Australian/Telegraph or whatever

    I mean you could have done it the other way around, but I guess your gut feeling slanted this way.

    You can have an opinion, but if you don’t want to be biased, than don’t give any side the benefit of the doubt, especially (as it has been made clear), you don’t know the facts (whether this is intentional or not is irrelevant)

    I would have loved to give a comment regarding some of the points raised, but since this is also tabloid driven hype there is no point

    • Incorrect.

      The Tele is portraying their lies (and that is fact as borne out by the recent Press Council rap on the knuckles for telling lies) as being factual.

      Once again for the umpteenth time (as pointed out above) ‘refer to the very first word’ where Renai clearly said this is an opinion.

      There is no point, if you haven’t got it by now.

      • Almost all of the articles that people complain about in the tele or Australian are in the opinion section, the only exception was that one article from tele recently, which could have been argued either way

  21. Incorrect again.

    There were 3 articles in question in relation to the Tele and their lies, with the headlines-

    1. “Australian taxpayers’ latest NBN horror show”
    2. “Join the NBN or you’ll be digging deep”
    3. “Low interest in high speed internet”

    Not one of them were (like Renai’s here) “clearly labelled opinion” and were in fact contained within the “news” tab.

    Please put your own obvious allegiances and agendas to one side and stop trying to defend the proven, indefensible.

    • All of those articles are much more factual than this one, considering they actually provide figures to substantiate their claims (and none of what they said was really incorrect)

      So there isn’t anything wrong with that, if you don’t have the facts to back up your claims (whether substantial or not), than you put it into the opinion section

      For example on #1, even other ISP’s commented on the incredibly high wages of NBN, its a well known fact

  22. Yes but HELLO…

    Again, this is AN OPINION, whereas those are supposed to be factual news stories and they are not. That’s why the Press Council took them to task.

    Which part of this is so hard to understand and how many times must you be told?

    I note too, you simply ignored that there were 3 stories found to be biased when you claimed 1 and you even said that one was arguable each way? Well, again, they were biased according to the Print mediator which is all that matters, even if you don’t and of course wouldn’t, agree.

    Oddly (or not so oddly really) however, I didn’t see you whinge Renai bias when he agreed with this.

    http://delimiter.com.au/2012/01/12/blackmailing-nbn-co-works-best-through-the-media/#comment-303705

    Paints a clear agenda picture.

Comments are closed.