Full Duplex by David Braue

A view from the trenches of Australian telecommunications. As the name implies, it’s a two-way conversation and we ask you not to pull any punches ... we won’t.

ADSL2+: A wholesale disaster for Telstra shareholders?

Posted by David Braue @ 15:53 50 comments

A guy I know runs a tiling business, which as far as I can see involves his drinking lots of coffee, making lots of phone calls, and making sure that around a dozen different tilers do the actual hard work. As long as they're busy, he's making money. If he finds enough new business to keep them all going for two weeks, he can take off for Hawaii -- and still be making money.

Anybody with half a business mind knows this kind of situation is a great way to make money. It can go horribly wrong, of course, if your team lets you down; but if you have a reliable team, and assets that the team can use to generate money, it's possible to extremely well for yourself.

I couldn't help but be reminded of this after hearing of Telstra's decision last week to finally turn on ADSL2+ services for more than two million households. It was a major turning point in the steady push of broadband towards broader usage -- and, as expected, it sent Telstra's competitors into a frenzy that makes a court challenge over ADSL2+ declaration a virtual certainty.

All this fuss over wholesaling, which is a fundamental part of everyday business all over the world.

It's ubiquitous amongst telcos, of course, but also common in industries such as financial services, construction, retail, and anywhere else where the producers of goods and services understand others may have more success selling them to customers.

The reason wholesaling is so common, dare I say, is because it works; it's a way for a company to make money off of its assets without wearing the everyday costs of expensive activities such as customer care. It's also a recognition that no company is an island, and that growth in the overall market benefits everyone.

Telstra, however, wants none of this. The company has long said it wouldn't roll out ADSL2+ unless it could be guaranteed the regulators wouldn't force it to wholesale the services. This begged the question of whether Telstra is against wholesaling it full stop, or just against being forced to wholesale it at prices it didn't set.

To clarify this point, last week I contacted one of Telstra's press frontmen, who handed my enquiry to another company spokesperson. After a week of consideration, I received his response:

In regard to your question, there is no current wholesale ADSL 2+ offer. The 8mbps wholesale service continues to be available.

We will, of course, consider all commercial approaches to wholesale these services just as we have done with ADSL. The recent announcement is about providing better services to our retail customers. Our competitors have every opportunity to match our investment by installing their own DSLAMs in these exchanges or extending their own existing networks. Sustainable competition occurs when companies try to differentiate from their competitors by installing their own facilities and developing their own service offerings. This typically noncommittal statement suggests that Telstra is open to wholesaling access, but only on its terms. In other words, it's déjà vu all over again.

I have to ask whether in all this posturing and blithering Telstra isn't forgetting one of its main constituencies: its shareholders.

While Telstra may feel Senator Conroy's letter has given it some sort of moral victory, the fact remains that the company invested millions of dollars of shareholders' money to buy assets that it installed, then let lie fallow for what will have been nearly two years.

That's two years of missed wholesale revenues, two years of depreciation that would have converted tax into shareholder dividends, and two years towards obsolescence for equipment that has so far generated absolutely nothing for Telstra's bottom line.

Is this the kind of business the shareholders bought into? I'm not a Telstra shareholder, but I'd be upset if I bought into a company that was working this way.

It's not as if suggestions that Telstra wholesale its services are coming from left field; wholesale services are a major source of revenue for Telstra. In its latest annual report, we learn that Telstra has 7.78 million direct fixed-line customers and an additional 1.98 million wholesale customers (who are serviced through Telstra's competitors). On the broadband side, Telstra has 2.4 million direct customers and an additional 1.76 million wholesale customers -- a 23.5 percent increase on the previous year, by the way.

During the past year, wholesale Internet services generated AU$231 million in revenues for Telstra; wholesale broadband services generated AU$568 million, compared with AU$1.2 billion for Telstra's retail broadband services.

In other words, Telstra's wholesale business accounts for 42 percent of its broadband customers and 32 percent of its broadband revenues. This is quite a significant business, but it's one that by Telstra's own admission has been held back -- and will continue to be -- as long as it refuses to wholesale ADSL2+.

Judging from my many discussions with carriers and ISPs over the years, it is eminently clear that Telstra is the only company that flat-out refuses to offer wholesale access to its equipment. And when it does, as ISPs learned most painfully a few years back, it is more than happy to offer pricing that is utterly, commercially, impossible to compete with -- and favours its own retail arm, as when it offered competing ISPs wholesale ADSL that cost more than its own comparable retail service.

Expect history to repeat itself as Telstra trickles wholesale ADSL2+ in areas where competitors finally manage to sneak their own gear into its exchanges -- and begin wholesaling their own services. Senator Conroy may be happy that he's convinced Telstra to bring ADSL2+ to the masses, but shareholders should wonder when Telstra is going to stop playing chicken with the government and get back to using its excellent technological capabilities to grow its business.

Advertisement

Talkback 50 comments

    ADSL2+ ; A wholesale disaster for Telstra? Anonymous -- 21/02/08

    " Expect history to repeat itself as Telstra trickles ADSL 2+ into exchanges ......"

    You are completely wrong!
    Switching on 900 + exchanges is not a trickle.
    And that is the significance of the decision made 2 weeks ago.
    They are NOW no longer waiting for a competitor to activate a ADSL 2+ before Telstra make their move.
    The results announced today suggest the wait hasnt hurt them either.
    And the year ahead should now be even better.

    ADSL 2+ on Telstra terms or not at all. (if Telstra decides it so) And any other product or service it has.
    If that goes against the national interest ,ask the Govt to buy it back from the shareholders and have it subsidise the telco industry or the country as it sees fit.
    I'm sure there are a a few people who would happily sell it for the upto $7.40 they paid for it. (plus interest and a little something for their trouble.)

    Your point about, Wholesale is good for Telsta, may or may not be correct. The point is its now upto Telstra to decide. (At least for the services not covered by the regulations policed by the ACCC.)

    But you are quite correct about the competition being in a tizz.
    About the success of Next G, it's still growing momentum, and ADSL 2+ being rolled out.
    Not available to anyone but Telstra customers, wholesale and retail on anything but Telstra terms.

    ADSL2+ ; A wholesale disaster for Telstra? Anonymous -- 22/02/08 (in reply to #320095978)

    I have to disagree with the first poster's comments. If you are were a Telstra Shareholder, and knew what Telstra is doing, you would be furious!

    Telstra makes 32% (even under a regulated regime) of it's BB revenue off wholesaling their products to competitors. Telstra refusing to allow wholesale of their ADSL2+ hardware is doing nothing more than harming their shareholders profits.

    Within business, money is money. No matter where it comes from!

    I cant belive Anonymous -- 20/03/08 (in reply to #320096024)

    Yeah this` gona be a disaster

    As a shareholder Edward -- 21/02/08

    I AM HAPPY

    You write:
    "The reason wholesaling is so common, dare I say, is because it works; it's a way for a company to make money off of its assets without wearing the everyday costs of expensive activities such as customer care. It's also a recognition that no company is an island, and that growth in the overall market benefits everyone."

    Telstra already has a huge retail customer care capability and adding 1 or 100,000 additional retail customers to support is not a major issue and would only increase costs by a fraction of having to establish a new facility from scratch.

    Companies usually choose to distribute their services via a wholesale model when they do not have an established retail distribution model or when the cost to manage 100,000 clients compared to 20 clients is exorbitant. Don't forget that all these companies that buy wholesale from Telstra simply resell a Telstra service while all ongoing maintenance and repairs still need to be handled by Telstra. If these companies are willing to hire their own technicians, pay for their own vehicles and incur all associated costs then I would agree that Telstra should encourage a wider wholesale market but when they reduce their revenue without a corresponding cost reduction your argument holds no water.

    The only other argument to wholesale is to increase your overall market share by having different avenues to market, this is fine when there are dozens of manufacturers making the same or simular products but when there is only one or two manufacturers then your market share will not really increase if you add different avenues to market.

    Spin or a Blog? Anonymous -- 22/02/08

    Why is David even allowed to write? This is probably his most balanced blog and it is still one sided (anything but Telstra).

    Because... Blah -- 22/02/08 (in reply to #320095997)

    It gets all the little Telstra fanbois worked up. See above and below.

    That's the problem blah blah -- 22/02/08 (in reply to #320096017)

    David and the likes of you will always look above, below, left, right, front and back but will never look at yourselves.

    ADSL 2+ A wholesale disater for Telstra shareholders Anthony Webster -- 22/02/08

    What nonsense.

    Did you even stop to think what background work needs to be done in order to deploy such a major upgrade across that many exchanges?

    ADSL2+ is notoriously less reliable than ADSL.

    Telstra have made sure that they did their homework before deploying, of this I am sure.

    Secondly, what incentive were they given from a business standpoint to wholesale it. None people want it at cost! Not likely.

    And I am not a Telstra Fan boy. Just someone who understands that business should not be steamrolled into delivering services at a loss or at the detriment of usability.

    Its always been and will always be about the profitability, and this can only come if you have the ability to deler what you claim to be able to do.

    what nonsense Anonymous -- 22/02/08 (in reply to #320096006)

    Anthony,
    The equipment has been in the exchanges for a fair while. So how is it that they could just sort out ADSL2 in exchanges that have competition and not the others. Was it harder for Telstra to turn on exchanges in say Alice Springs? No it wasnt they just decided not too. But really because of the way Telstra have set up RIMS all over the place ADSL2 will be a joke in Alice.

    Buk Berrrk Lord Watchdog -- 22/02/08 (in reply to #320096006)

    "ADSL2+ is notoriously less reliable than ADSL."

    Wrong. I've had ADSL2+ for three months. There was one dropout due to a power failure at the exchange, which was fixed licketty split by my ISP, which is not Bigpond I may add.

    3 Months? sajit -- 22/02/08 (in reply to #320096078)

    I have had bigpond ADSL for close to 5 years, the past 18 months with ADSL2+.

    One outage and that was because of my old netgear router, my d-link has never failed, the actual line 100% up time for 15 million seconds, not to bad from my perspective.

    It's amazing when there is a fault the isp will be quick to say it is an exchange or copper issue (Telstra responsibility) but is happy to take credit for the repair. It the power outage was in your ISP's equipment it shows how they cut costs, no redundant power supplies, no UPS, no diesel backup?

    Bully for you Lord Watchdog -- 01/03/08 (in reply to #320096081)

    "It's amazing when there is a fault the isp will be quick to say it is an exchange or copper issue (Telstra responsibility) but is happy to take credit for the repair."

    If the fault is on the exchange itself then it IS Telstra's fault because it is their equipment. I wouldn't care who took the credit for a repair, just as long as it was carried out in a timely manner.

    "It the power outage was in your ISP's equipment it shows how they cut costs, no redundant power supplies, no UPS, no diesel backup?"

    As far as I am aware, all telephone exchanges have backup power supplies. Your comment pertaining to the contrary shows your lack of technical knowledge on such matters. I have a small bank of servers in my house (2 x HP DL380s and 2 x HP DL360s) and even that setup has 6.6kVA in UPS backup and 3.6kVA in generator backup. To suggest that this sort of thing (or better) doesn't exist in exchanges is a laugh.

    I'll add that I had Bigpond ADSL from the day it was first offered up until about two years ago, along with a cable connection. Bigpond ADSL is nowhere near as reliable as what I am using now. I am glad I got rid of Bigpond, never been happier.

    your lack of technical knowledge on such matters? Hot 2 Trot -- 01/03/08 (in reply to #320096522)

    That shows your lack of technical knowledge on such matters Lord Watchdog.

    The number of ISP's who will not install equipment that does not have dual power feeds to their equipment is amazing. To save a few dollars they either do not install a second power supply into the chassis or source a chassis that do not cater for this.

    The issue is not the exchange itself and any dummy would know that Telstra manages this side, the issue is the ISP's own installed and managed hardware is more often then not chosen based on the lowest cost of ownership by these carriers to appease the consumer who only looks at the headline rate and not the detail.

    Sajit was technically wrong in his wording but the message was still correct, the industry (as well as former know it all members of the industry) use the "it wasn't me it was Telstra" excuse anytime they think it can be gotten away with, unfortunately too many people will blindly just accept this eventually becoming bitter and twisted towards Telstra when they should have researched the facts first.

    ADSL2+ is fine, yep Anonymous -- 24/02/08 (in reply to #320096078)

    Ditto. Had ADSL2+ for months, only outages have been when my retarded flatmate gets a bad ping time in his online games and decides resetting the router will fix them rather than just annoy everyone else using it.

    What logic against wholesaling? Anonymous -- 24/02/08 (in reply to #320096006)

    Why are you saying that telstra doesn't want to do wholesale deals? Sounds like you're saying it's because noone is going to want to buy something that telstra sells to another provider, and that other provider is going to have to add on their 10%, noone wants to pay that 10%. Firstly, that is not telstra's problem, thats whoever they sell to's problem. Secondly, your logic only holds water when tesltra doesn't add on their own percentage ramping the cost up above what the other provider is charging.

    The reason telstra doesn't want to wholesale is that they don't want someone else selling the product for a reasonable price in comparison to the unreasonable price telstra likes charging. Pure and simple.

    re: What logic against wholesaling? Aaron -- 24/02/08 (in reply to #320096145)

    Firstly - someone buying wholesale will typically buy at a much cheaper price then just a 10% discount.

    This meaning they could pay 15c for a 30c item, add 3c for distribution, 2c for warehousing, 3c in wages 2c for utilities and rent and still make 5c profit.

    Issue is all these resellers expect to pay 15c while still having Telstra pay for all the incidentals so they can sell it at 25c, undercut Telstra make double what they would if they had to make it themselves.

    Wholesaling works when the company wholesales the goods at a reduced price because another company incurs some of the cost burden in taking that product to market.

    From what I can gather most ISP's do not want to do anything other then take the short term profits without any of the long term costs associated.

    If a company connects their own equipment, a huge amount of costs are fixed and if they do not get enough subscribers in an area they take a long time to get a return, if any. If they simply wholesale from Telstra they have a known per unit cost and if they do not get many subscribers in one area they can simply pack up and move on leaving Telstra to continue with the long term costs.

    Logic?

    Pure and simple!!!

    Good article David! TelstraMakeMeDizzyWithAllTheirSpin -- 22/02/08

    Well done David. Telstras actions are ridiculous (yet again). Telstra need to apologise to their shareholders for withholding this revenue stream ,and also for withholding retail ADSL2 for nearly 2 years just to try and score politcal points against the previous govt. Telstras antics show they arent interested in putting shareholders first or even listening to them. Just ask Sol how he got his payrise!

    exchange access barriers Anonymous -- 22/02/08

    David,

    There are two Telstra statements in your quoted response from them that I must take issue with.

    1) "We will, of course, consider all commercial approaches to wholesale these services just as we have done with ADSL."

    This is patently false, and its an insult to see this statement being peddled by Telstra.

    Telstra are refusing to negotiate on wholesale ADSL2+ wholesale. Yes, we have tried. They don't even want to talk about it, let alone provide us with even lip service conversation about it, the answer is a flat 'No'.

    2) "Our competitors have every opportunity to match our investment by installing their own DSLAMs in these exchanges or extending their own existing networks."

    This is demonstrably false. Telstra are obstructing the access that competitors should legally be able to engage - and as a result, the extent to which competitive ADSL2+ exists in Australia is a mere shadow of what it could be - and that competitiveness is being wound back increasingly in metro areas as a result of this continued obstruction.

    I have written a letter about those obstructive practices here:

    http://web.mac.com/simon_hackett/Site/Technology/Entries/2008/2/12_Barriers_to_ADSL2%2B_infrastructure.html

    ... and a formal complaint from a number of major ISP's including Internode was filed with the ACCC about these practices last week.

    Regards,
    Simon Hackett
    MD, Internode

    you mised what he said Anonymous -- 22/02/08 (in reply to #320096029)

    Mr Hackett was indeeed talking PRECISELY about commercially negotiated agrements - Telstra refused to have said negotiations out of hand.

    correct me if im wrong here but we are talking about a service that is *not* regulated wholesale - ACCC have not declared dsl2? so i believe simon is correct, and he DOES know his business. Telstra wont even consider a conversation let alone a contract, so thats that.

    Telstra loves to complain it doesnt get to earn the money it should with DSL1 because it doesnt set the rates at which it sells regulated product. Well in this instance they HAVE the opportunity to set the rates. and they rebuffed it.

    it is more of their game playing and i have to agree with David if i was a shareholder id be a bit sick of it by now. its been installed and waiting there in exchanges 2 years now .. id like to see the business being run as a telco again not a party political.

    once again dsl2 currently *isnt* regulated like the DSL market is so the 'wholesaling doesnt work when the ACCC sticks it oar in' argument as below doesnt wash.

    when things change thats dfferent but the ACCC has staunchly reminded people again and again they see no need to change that policy. so again that sort of ACCC interference is not likely.

    so David's question is fair and valid: if you had the ability to _set rates you felt like_ and make some income on sunk capital, and you *refused* to take that opportunity in favour of playing a game with the government and competitors, is that a smart move? were i a shareholder i would say NO.

    Re you missed Anonymous -- 22/02/08 (in reply to #320096036)

    Unfortunately we can play pedantics all day, if we so choose! You missed, I missed etc.

    Correct, ADSL2+ is not declared, BUT within hours of the announcement that it would be switched on, all the leeches crawled out of the woodwork, starting with Primus and followed by.... drum roll, Internode, demanding it be declared, so...

    Under these circumstances, and dont forget too, these companies are party to the likes of CCC & TTTT, which do nothing positive for telecoms, they are purely Telstra negative organisations - so ask why would Telstra even contemplate dealing with such companies? I wouldn't want a bar of them either.

    Whether it's declared or not, the same analogy applies. Simon and the rest of the them simply head off to the ACCC, kiss Graeme Samuels butt and "demand" access! This is the source of most of the problems from my perspective.

    Although I guess it's keeping the sports car business booming. I bet Simon drives the nicest car (Telstras) money can buy - LOL!

    Wholesale thoughts from someone who does not work for an ISP sajit -- 23/02/08 (in reply to #320096051)

    my understanding is that if telstra agrees to set a wholesale price and that price is deemed uncompetitive then internode or another isp can complain about unfair pricing.

    an example telstra may retail adsl2+ for $50 per month but demand $45 for companies to obtain the service wholesale. those isp's would then run to the accc complaining about the offered price and the accc then sets the price or fines telstra.

    i would rather want to simply say no i will sell it at my price, if you are really the head of internode then why don't you waste your time trying to get free publicity and go out and connect more exchanges yourself. If not why not change your company name to INTO NONE.

    Connect with whose money Anonymous -- 24/02/08 (in reply to #320096082)

    "if you are really the head of internode then why don't you waste your time trying to get free publicity and go out and connect more exchanges yourself."

    Care to pony up some taxpayer dollars to give internode equal footing with telstra in that regard?

    Thought not.

    Connect with taxpayers and Telstras money! Anonymous -- 24/02/08 (in reply to #320096148)

    Internode like all other Telstra resellers have enjoyed subsidies at the taxpayers and Telstra's expense from day one, they are known as regulations!

    Regulations have allowed Internode to save on having to invest any large sums of money on infrastructure, technicians, vehicle fleets etc, sit back and simply resell Telstra, with Telstra being liable for the repairs and costs thereof. As a consequence, Internode have grown their business on the back of firstly the taxpayer and secondly Telstra.

    However, even though they are still trying to suckle at the teat of Telstra via ADSL2+ and unlike others, I believe Internode are starting to invest which is good to see, at last!

    hmm Anonymous -- 26/02/08 (in reply to #320096152)

    "Regulations have allowed (isp)to save on having to invest any large sums of money on infrastructure, technicians, vehicle fleets etc, sit back and simply resell Telstra, with Telstra being liable for the repairs and costs thereof. "

    firstly; no. regulations have not given isps DSLAMS, jumper runs between MDF, peering at exchanges, backhaul and (telstra certiied!) techs for free.

    if you want 'large sums of money' and you have anything over 100K customers (middling to large ISP in aussie terms) any and all of those costs listed above will amount to 'large sums of money'. its all relative.

    im afraid you seem to have fallen for the telstra line that what these isps DO piggyback (which is actually legislated access) is not adequately paid for.

    the isps concerned pay for their own tech time, the line maintenance (as a portion of end user fees) port access, backhaul and associated contracts, and occasionally have to run their own lines to exchanges and then be required to gift them to telstra, with telstra charging a maintenance fee for the line thereafter.

    using anything Telstra means telstras rates. even if its 'just' copper.

    take the 'simple' 2.50 charge for, say, LSS access as example. seems cheap. it only *sounds* cheap until you realise all that other stuff (as above) is hanging on top of that charge - a large portion of which is levied directly or indirectly by Telstra.

    "As a consequence, ,,,,,,,,,,,(isp) have grown their business on the back of firstly the taxpayer and secondly Telstra".

    when telstra charges said isps for every docketable item possible, i find it hard to believe
    said isps are getting a handout. given several of those isps were also bothered to run dsl2 before telstra was, it makes the suckle at dsl2 teat argument a little more ridiculous than it was already....

    i have to ask... asides from something like the aussie broadband guarantee - which i would hope you would agree is legitimate for an isp providing service to a remote area - what taxpayer funds are you specifically accusing internode and the like of having taken?

    Re Hmm Anonymous -- 26/02/08 (in reply to #320096246)

    Nice spiel, but after all that you simply reiterated exactly what I said. You say ~ "which is actually legislated access"! Obviously you therefore admit/agree, these competitors are simply in business and then profiting from having "regulated access to Telstras property" ~ Thank you. If it wasnt such a rosy arrangement, they wouldnt still be in business and certainly wouldnt go off sulking to the ACCC to protect this position, every time Telstra tried to do "actual" business! They are simply doing all they can to protect the current cushy situation, so...

    Sugar coat it all you like, but surely you arent saying by installing a few DSLAMs into "Telstra" exchanges and tapping into "Telstras network" that these competitors have invested in "major infrastructure" ~ LOL! Bit like claiming you deserve equal usage of dads expensive car, because you "invested in a full tank and one service"! What these competitors do, is the bare minimum required for any going concern and although they would like the ACCC to force Telstra to do that for them too, they still do have to do something, you know?

    You even say "occasionally (competitors) have to run their own lines to exchanges"! Wow, fancy them making the effort to run a line or two to actually make their own minimal equipment, in Telstra exchanges, which taps into Telstras network, operational, what great guys.

    Then you say, "take the 'simple 2.50 charge for, say, LSS access as example, seems cheap". Seems cheap because it is cheap! LSS in Spain is $5.01 and France $4.84. Now do a comparison of the populations (customer base) and land mass that Telstra has to cover/maintain (yes they receive the USO subsidy, which doesnt even cover cost ~ nice) and tell me these competitors here are hard done by?

    Finally you ask ... "asides from something like the aussie broadband guarantee - which i would hope you would agree is legitimate for an isp providing service to a remote area - what taxpayer funds are you specifically accusing internode and the like of having taken"?
    1) I do agree that the broadband guarantee is a step forward, however OPEL have shown themselves to be, at best, very slow and at worst woefully incompetent. I believe Telstra or AUSalliance would have done a much better job or would have at least done something!
    2) As for the "handouts" ~ your words not mine! If you cared to look at what I wrote you will find I mentioned subsidized. In other words, these competitors have had the luxury through regulatory relief of "not having to invest". You can say "ah but Telstra was funded by the government and didnt have to invest either"! But unlike these competitors who have received regulatory subsidies, from firstly the taxpayer and then Telstra shareholders, Telstra repaid their debt through the T1, 2 and 3, returning some $60b to the coffers, plus $bs in dividend payments and are still paying now, through being hampered by further subsidization of competitors (in my opinion). Conversely, these competitors will never return any of these, shall we agree to call them pseudo handouts, to us, the citizens/taxpayers!

    Finally let me ask you the same 4 questions I asked David and which he refused to answer! Would you invest in a business, only to have your infrastructure forcibly opened to all of your (non-investing) competitors to use? Would you like them to resell "your product" re-badged as theirs? Would you like to still be liable for the cost of repairs? And finally would you like to be forced to do all of this "and receive fees determined by bureaucrats, at below your cost (as legally stated by Telstra in their half yearly report, 21/2)"?

    Not refusing to answer David Braue -- 27/02/08 (in reply to #320096255)

    Have just had a busy week! In answer to your questions: no (because I would open it myself), yes, that's fine, and yes if that's what the law says I have to do.

    In answer to your questions, wholesaling is a normal part of all kinds of business but only seems contentious in telecomms. I don't see CGU Insurance, for example, telling ANZ Bank to go start its own insurance company; ANZ acts as an agent and resells CGU products to its customers.

    Most companies acknowledge the fact that they can't own all customers directly, and use wholesale arrangements to increase utilisation of their assets at a lower incremental cost than if they had to try to acquire those customers directly. This also results in a lower cost model for the company providing wholesale services, since the wholesale partner handles day-to-day customer support that is horrendously expensive and tends to eat up profit margins very quickly (dollars per customer call by most accounts).

    This was the problem with Telstra's wholesale pricing last time around, if you recall -- Telstra was selling wholesale ADSL to competitors at $39.95 (IIRC) per month and selling the same product to its own customers at $29.95 (IIRC) per month. Clearly, either Telstra prices were lower than that and it was setting its prices anticompetitively or it was loss leading with its ADSL in order to keep its wholesale product commercially unviable for competitors.

    Does this all sound fine? Should Telstra have free rein to act anticompetitively in a telecoms market that has been expressly engineered to prevent anticompetitive behaviour? Why should its executives expect to be allowed to conduct their business in a way that is, like it or not, basically illegal? (as determined by the government at the time) And shouldn't its investors expect more?

    More biased naivety, from David! Anonymous -- 27/02/08 (in reply to #320096345)

    Hi David, thanks for semi-answering 3 of my 4 questions. Semi answering because I asked "would you like", not if the law says! But as usual, by your tone, you have once again shown you have no impartiality whatsoever.

    You made a strange apples/oranges comparison of banking and insurance whereas we are talking telecoms/telecoms. But since you like analogies, does Coca cola make Coke to simply let Pepsi waltz in, re-badge it and sell it as Pepsi, with regulatory protection allowing Pepsi to sell rebadged Coca Cola for less than Coca Cola can? Are you so biased or have such a lack of business acumen that you cannot see how wrong this is? Wholesaling is one thing, regulated leeching is another!

    Next the old sell if for less than wholesale. Ah, the wheel has turned again. Go to whirlpool and check how many members accuse Telstra of being overpriced rip-offs. Yet like now, when convenient, you play the undercutting/predatory pricing card? So which is it? Oh I see Telstra are both too cheap and too dear!

    But, your last paragraph shows your total naivety! Should Telstra be free to act uncompetetively and illegally ~ LOL! Although some in relation to telecoms have been suckered into believing that nothing else but competition matters, firstly the whole world does not revolve around "(regulated) competition"! Competition is nothing more than a politically correct buzzword that leeching competitors totally rely on. All in the name of competition, Id love a re-badged Ferrari for $20K, should we force them to wholesale, just so I can get one? No, this is the real world, wake up! Also, although I may be mistaken, I think you will find theres nothing illegal about what Telstra are doing. The laws were there for pre-existing infrastructure and not on new investments? But if so, then surely the ACCC (and perhaps the government) would also be acting illegally too wouldnt they? By giving a non forced wholesaling undertaking (yes the one all the Hel$tra Haters have said was there all along and now ~ well what do you know ~ the vultures are demanding access, anyway). So, with non forcible wholesaling guarantees from the ACCC, both now and previous (which is surely any businesses right in the "free world") do you now condone the ACCC reneging? If the leeches are gifted wholesale, dont expect any further investment in Oz telecoms and in fact, Telstra may (like the ACCC) in turn, renege themselves and refuse to switch on ADSL2+, then what?

    Finally, no the investors dont expect more the 13% profit increase! So its not the investors but the CCC, TTTT and their obvious media liaison officer David Braue, who are whining ~ LOL! Perhaps you be more suited to reviewing Brittany Spears CDs David and leaving the Telecoms to the big boys. As such, If you want to read something from someone who actually understands both sides of telecoms and all aspects thereof, go to http://www.commsday.com/node/224

    Thanks for letting me air my frustrations, though!

    David Braue, what were you smoking? Carlos -- 27/02/08 (in reply to #320096360)

    CGU has established a commercially viable model that encourages ANZ to work in partnership to resell a product. If they didn't then ANZ would simply go to one of the other dozen or so insurers and strike a deal to compete with them.

    If you want to use an analogy then go and find a relevant one.

    CGU has invested millions in their insurance business and places massive amounts of money at risk each and every year, some years they are lucky and have no major claims while others they can lose due to one storm.

    ANZ on the other hand simply takes their product, removes the commission and passes the rest on, their only costs are for marketing, sales and collection of funds, they know they make a set amount out of every sale.

    All claims and payments end up coming out of CGU's pockets.

    If I use this example the other companies simply want to pay for access based on each subscriber they get and take their profits while leaving Telstra to plan for capacity, to maintain equipment and to maintain service availability.

    In the case of the recent Bundaberg storms, who was it that had to send technicians out to client premises to repair lines, to fix cabling in the streets etc? All those little companies who do not want to invest in their own equipment or simply want to install a few boxes in a well protected exchange did not suffer losses or increased operations costs because of it.

    If CGU and all other insurers turned around and denied ANZ access to their products I am sure they would not go crying to their mommy, if they valued that part of their business they would invest some extra money and establish their own insurance or underwriting business. Telstra is not trying to stifle competition, they are tying to get a return on their investment (yes it is their and no longer the governments as many want to believe), weed out the freeloaders and encourage investment by these so called communications companies.

    This reply is long enough so I will not make it longer by ripping appart your other comments, I am sure many other readers will do that.

    Telstra's lack of competitiveness is its problem Anonymous -- 24/02/08 (in reply to #320096051)

    If telstra is too greedy a corporate entity to be able to compete with other ISPs who are asking for access to a network built largely from taxpayers money over the years then that's telstra's problem. It is entirely within telstra's ability to cut those profit margins enough to compete and gain some customers who aren't with telstra only because they don't know much about computers/the internet and have gone with telstra because it was the easiest option.

    Taxpayer's money repaid Anonymous -- 24/02/08 (in reply to #320096147)

    Why do you constantly refer to taxpayer's money?

    This was paid back in full plus more based on every cent invested in the infrastructure and returns delivered since federation so get off you high and wooden horse and come up with a real argument instead of the tired fake and hollow one.

    Anonymous Comments Jeffrey Brenton -- 17/03/08 (in reply to #320096029)

    I note that a lot of the pro-Telstra comments come from (an) anonymous user(s). They obviously dont want to be associated with what they write, and this invalidates their comments IMHO...

    How do I hate thee ... let me count the responses ... Anna Watts -- 19/03/08 (in reply to #320097411)

    Jefferey, we could ask the same question the other way. Just go through the Telstra related posts and see how many there are that show their name. There are very few people that are willing to show their name and be ridiculed by their opponents. You may want to laugh your head off but I am happy to laugh my a** off, in all likelihood they look similar.

    Don't we have Operational Separation? Lewis Bridges -- 22/02/08

    Hi Dave,
    I was under the impression that Telstra had to operate under a charter of "operational separation".
    Why then do Teltra continually refer to "competitors" instead of customers?
    All the ISPs,including Bigpond are "customers" of Telstra Wholesale or Telstra Networks and it earns considerable money from them.
    The othjer ISPs are only competitors to Bigpond which under the charter of operational separation is just another ISP.

    For Telstra Wholesale or Networks to deny access to other ISPs, and allow it to only one customer is surely a "restriction of trade" under the Trade Paractices Act.

    wtb operational seperation Anonymous -- 24/02/08 (in reply to #320096030)

    "Hi Dave,
    I was under the impression that Telstra had to operate under a charter of "operational separation".
    Why then do Teltra continually refer to "competitors" instead of customers?
    All the ISPs,including Bigpond are "customers" of Telstra Wholesale or Telstra Networks and it earns considerable money from them.
    The othjer ISPs are only competitors to Bigpond which under the charter of operational separation is just another ISP. "

    Well...yeah....thats how it is SUPPOSED to work...

    Questions for David Anonymous -- 22/02/08

    David, as someone who one would assume is an intelligent person, your lack of understanding in relation to business astounds! I can understand the grubby competitors, all queuing up with their hands out and not understanding basic business principles, as they are only in it for any easy ride, but you?

    You say wholesaling is fundamental all over the world and it works. Not REGULATED wholesale! How convenient, you just happened to overlook the telling factor ~ regulations. Because of this, your entire spiel means absolutely nothing or conversely, you are in fact supporting exactly what Telstra has said. Theyll consider wholesaling through commercially negotiated agreements ~ thats how wholesaling is determined and why it may work ~ NOT via reguated prices. Sneaky omission!

    How can wholesaling work for the seller when they are forced to wholesale, with an access price at below cost! Yes below cost! Its official once and for all, pg 6 #11 ~Telstras half yearly results presentation pack, 21/2. "ULL and LLS priced below cost"! The graphs on p3 and 4 also clearly indicate -4.9% wholesale! No conspiracy theorists, this is not a now we are talking lie, it is part of Telstras official results to the ASX and they cannot officially claim this if it is not so!

    Ok David, since "regulated wholesaling" is so fair, answer me these four simple questions, please! Would you invest in a business, only to have your infrastructure forcibly opened to all of your (non-investing) competitors to use? Would you like them to resell "your product" re-badged as theirs? Would you like to still be liable for the cost of repairs? And finally would you like to be forced to do all of this "and receive fees determined by bureaucrats, at below your cost". Going by your article I expect you to answer yes, yes, yes and yes!

    Who said *Regulated* wholesale? Anonymous -- 23/02/08 (in reply to #320096031)

    Again, who said regulated wholesale? Seems to be your own mantra. I suggest you go off for an hour or so (skip the NWAT brainwash session), come back reread the article. Then you'll see the underlying truth in the article. That the equipment has been sitting unused in 900+ exchanges around Australia, for in some cases 3 years. If I was a business I'd want a return on my investment pronto. Sol et al, saw fit to keep these 900+ exchanges "in the dark" for political reasons, no other.

    As for your 4th paragraph, ""and receive fees determined by bureaucrats, at below your cost"". Pure Telstra spin bunckum. The ACCC's brief is for Telstra to receive, cost+reasonable ROI on declared services. Just because Telstra tries to boost ROI by inflating it's figures, then bleating on NWAT that ACCC never accepts it's costings, doesn't mean that Telstra is doing the right thing by it's customers and shareholders. You must also have to remember that Telstra's idea of a good wholesale price is at about parity with it's retail offerings (harks back to the early ADSL days, my BP plan was cheaper than other ISP's wholesale access).

    Who said regulated - not David - thats the point!, geddit? Anonymous -- 23/02/08 (in reply to #320096090)

    Dearest Anon. Im not going to get into a further protracted argument, but for all the dummies and since you have chosen to be pedantic, lets just spell it out one more time, shall we!

    ADSL2+ isn't currently regulated. Davids article referred to wholesaling, NOT regulated wholesaling, I recognize this and have done all along. In fact, since its not obvious to some, it was Davids convenient "omission" of regulated wholesaling which encouraged my comment and which I was referring to". Regardless, Telstra have said they will consider "commercially agreed wholesaling", although Internodes Simon Hackett refutes this.

    But the crux of the whole argument is imho, regardless of whether you believe commercially negotiated wholesaling to be good or bad, is that grubby competitors are again demanding regulated access via the ACCC! I believe David should have mentioned this in detail, as it is a paramount part of the wholesaling equation in regards to telecoms! David conveniently left these details out to pander to the likes of you and which you also conveniently ignore. "David didnt say that"! No, he didnt, but he should have ~ comprende?

    The fact that competitors refuse to invest and have again simply gone off to uncy Graeme to have him provide more handouts, is a blight on Oz telecoms!

    You also talk of NWAT bunkum/buncombe re: ULL/LLS. As I said in paragraph 3, its all there in Telstras half yearly report. So, if Telstra have lied, why dont you have them charged for breach of corporations law since you know better! I believe you will however find the Trade Practices Act of 1974 providing the leeches with such assurances re: wholesaling. Telstra must provide to competitors at a price with room for them to profit! If Telstra did/ do as you said and undercut, they would be in breach of the TPA of 1974 and liable for up to $3m per day in fines, so talking of bunkum!

    Anyway, whats the problem? We all want cheaper broadband/telecoms dont we/you? I suppose tomorrow youll be here whining about Telstra being "too expensive"! LOL, just cant please some!

    ADSL2+ NOT TURNED ON? Anonymous -- 24/02/08 (in reply to #320096090)

    To clarify, before Sol's announcement, the ADSL2+ equipment in 900+ exchanges had been operational but NOT at ADSL2+ speeds. Sol's "TURNED ON" announcement was the go ahead for Sales staff to sell broadband at these exchanges at ADSL2+ speeds, for techs to program the equipment at ADSL2+ speeds and for network planners to ensure that the backhaul transmission at these exchanges would meet the requirements of ADSL2+ speeds!

    Phil Burgess Stuart Goodman -- 22/02/08

    Does anyone have an email address for Phil Burgess.?

    Email Phil Anonymous -- 22/02/08 (in reply to #320096041)

    Stuart, I doubt anyone would have email addresses of the Telstra execs, but it might be worth trying the Now We Are Talking site.
    Despite some of the content (whether you like it or not), they tend to respond pretty quickly.
    I would expect that if you posted a letter there and addressed it to Mr Burgess it would be responded to in some form.
    If the letter was compelling enough, it may even get to Phil.

    Alternatively, Telstra HC is 242 Exhibition Street, Melbourne 3000. If you actually wrote a letter and sent it addressed to Mr Burgess, this is another chance of a response.

    Good Luck.

    Phil Burgess me -- 23/02/08 (in reply to #320096041)

    philburgess@home.com

    Frustrated Anonymous -- 22/02/08

    Thank you Telstra I can finally get ADSL2+ at my telephone exchange BUT at $89.95 for for 16Gig YOU CAN KEEP IT along with your compulsory Telstra landline at $19.95.

    As soon as a competitor offers ADSL2+ they'll get my business, I want sub $50 Naked ADSL2+ and let me run my own Voip setup with DID and you will receive NO revenue from me EVER

    Some thoughts.. Andrew McGlashan -- 23/02/08

    1. Whilst Telstra hasn't made use of the ADSL2+ capability of the exchanges that are capable, they have offered ADSL1 product on the exact same equipment.

    2. If Telstra had, in fact, opened up ADSL2+ sooner, then they might have had issues with lack of back haul links, ie lack of bandwidth. We all saw the result of bandwidth issues around the release of 8M plans.

    Both above points give very reasonable justification for NOT enabling ADSL2+ on a wide scale and the premium that was received by ADSL1 customers was not at risk -- sure, they may have been able to earn a little more by offering ADSL2+ on the SAME port that they offer ADSL1 on, the profit differential might have been marginal -- not with standing the fact the the actual released ADSL2+ plans are very highly priced by Telstra.

    OTOH.. it must be very true that Telstra could make a lot more profit by wholesaling product as much as possible; many people won't buy Telstra or Optus if they were offered another alternative... and the alternative need not be any better (although it would usually be much better).

    Anyone using VoIP [even with a Naked DSL product or other broadband product that doesn't need a phone line such as a wireless or mobile service)] with the allusion that Telstra will see nothing from the alternative product(s) has got to understand that to be a fallacy. Telstra make plenty on PSTN terminations that originate from VoIP services.

    Love the argument, the discussion, the bull**** Anonymous -- 23/02/08

    Why is there a number of writers in several recent posts (here and elsewhere on ZDNet) talking about equipment sitting in exchanges for 2 or 3 years wasting investor funds.

    Obviously all locations rolled out in the past few years would have ADSL2+ capable equipment installed, why would you buy an old model of hardware when a new model is available even if you may not need all of the new features on day one.

    Companies do that every day, it's called planning ahead. If they announced the roll out and said they will be replacing hardware in 900 exchanges I am sure you all still be posting complaining about them not having planned ahead.

    I do not see shareholders complaining, it is more like the anti-Telstra TTTT brigade.

    People can see straight through your comments to your true motives, to perpetuate an environment of fear, uncertain and doubt. This is a common practice used by salespeople who do not have a real or suitable solution so they try and convince (or scare) the client away from their competitors altogether.

    ADSL2+ Anonymous -- 27/02/08

    As an expat living in the UK I look on in dismay at the delays Telstra has injected into the roll out of ADSL2 to the Australian public (leaving the issue of wholesaling aside). In the two years that Telstra has sat on the technology Australian businesses have gone from competing on a level playing field with the global powerhouses of the UK & US in terms of broadband pricing, speed and availability, to having infrastructure that is inferior to places like Kenya and Sudan.

    In the past 3 years the pricing structures have not changed in Australia and there are few if any Unlimited or high volume access packages. Those that do exist are exorbitant by comparison to those provided in countries where proper monitoring, regulation and competition takes place.

    In the UK for example it is possible to get an unbundled and unlimited 24Mb ADSL connection for £17.99 per month (about $38 at the current exchange rate).

    In Australia an 80GB limit will cost you upwards of $140 (if you are happy with 512/128kbps).

    I only hope that the threat presented by a consortium of competitors will force Telstra to finally begin to compete.

    Now all that needs to happen is for the competition to take up the offer of installing their own DSLAMS in the exchanges and as is the case in the UK, prices will fall, the quality of connections will improve and Telstra will lose market share in both direct and wholesale subscribers.

    Stay there Kim -- 27/02/08 (in reply to #320096322)

    Australia has actually increased in terms of word performance in the time you have mentioned. You compare Australia with the likes of Kenya and Sudan, it would have been more believable to compare us to Venezuela and Cuba.

    I am sure if I crammed 3 times the Australian population into an area about 2.5% of the size of Australia and prices will fall, with or without competition.

    I agree that we need competition but competition where all parties bear a fair cost for the services the buy wholesale and they are also willing invest in their own infrastructure and services. This investment needs to be Australia wide and not simply focused on the higher population areas.

    Correct me if I am wrong but BT was in an identical situation 10 years ago, they lost a huge market share and then regained market share and are still the dominant carrier in the UK, I look forward to having your wonderful UK model replicated here in Australia.

    Telstra is short sighted Michael -- 12/03/08

    The overal result of this is that all the competing ISP's will be forced to install their own DSLAMs. Once this is done they will sell to customers and cut Telstra out of the revenue stream as much as they can.
    If Telstra played ball then the other ISP's would not have to install DSLAMs and Telstra could take a cut of the pie from every ISP.
    They think they are protecting their monopoly but they are in reality placing it at serious risk.

    Better vision then you think Sara -- 13/03/08 (in reply to #320097127)

    By not reselling a product that everyone wants this is causing several things to happen:

    Force the market to invest cold hard cash into infrastructure, this will force companies to raise prices as the real cost of delivering the services is more then when they resell Telstra thus closeing the cost gap between companies.

    Greater competition will blunt many of the ACCC related issues. The ACCC will be forced to reduce regulation in certain areas.

    Telstra will initially lose more market share when other companies install their own infrastructure but when the issues people have can no longer be blamed on Telstra they will realise that the company is not all that bad and are actually worth the cost differential.

    The CEO is not just looking at what Telstra will be like in 2008, he is focusing on ensuring the company has a growth plan for the longer term.

    re Art Zala -- 10/09/08

    My favorite megaupload search engine is megauploadfiles.com it�s the most powerful an easy to use. megauploadfiles.com has incredible speed of searching rapidshare links in the internet.

    how to be a good droppshipper? sera -- 25/10/08

    i want to be a droppshipper, but now the financial reccession influnces on our life.
    i don't know whether reliable the website chingrabber.com and izmograbber.com

Add your opinion

David Braue

David Braue

Journalist

[+] Read bio

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Tags

Back to top

Featured