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.

Telstra's BT coat doesn't fit

Posted by David Braue @ 13:22 84 comments

Much has been said about BT, the largest carrier so far to undergo operational separation, and its relevance to the current debate about the potential separation of Telstra.

Yet with the national broadband network (NBN) deadline set, and an increasingly petulant Telstra now saying it is "100 per cent clear" the company will not build the NBN "if further separation is required", I couldn't help but feel a bit embarrassed for us all while listening to a BT executive speaking at the recent Genesys G-Force conference in Melbourne.

Mark Baines, head of converged communications infrastructure with BT Design, is one of the key figures behind the construction of BT's multi-billion-dollar 21st Century Network (21CN) project, a £10 billion overhaul of Britain's telecommunications infrastructure paralleling BT's recent structural separation.

If we believe Telstra's rhetoric, separation is tantamount to simply shutting off the local copper loop and reverting to using smoke signals to communicate. "Overseas experience has already proven that separation does not work," new Telstra mouthpiece David Quilty was quoted as saying. "It increases costs, reduces efficiencies, limits future innovation and, most importantly, kills off investment."

Not in BT's case, it hasn't. Indeed, the vision of the future Baines portrayed is so far removed from what Quilty describes that I wonder if we're talking about the same UK.

Now, mind you, Baines didn't say BT was totally happy about UK regulator Ofcom's decision to open BT's infrastructure to competitors. "The UK has quite a strong regulatory environment, and we've basically had to give about 4.5 million unbundled lines to our competitors," Baines said in a tone that showed that the change had not been exactly a walk in the park.

However, he was quite positive about the changes that separation has forced upon BT: namely, to get its act together and modernise its infrastructure. The 21CN will be entirely IP-based and that (combined with a strong commitment to SIP, or session initiation protocol, a universal way of connecting VoIP and video calls) means home phone services will never be the same again.

"Innovation really means IP," Baines said, "and our core network is going to be SIP. By 2011, in the UK, the traditional home phone in your home will no longer exist. You will be on broadband by default, and you'll have to write to BT to ask to opt out."

Think about this for a moment. Just three years from now, Baines is saying, IP telephony will form the basis of a completely new phone system. Instead of paying for a vestigial PSTN line just so they can get broadband, consumers, mum-and-pop businesses, and everybody else will get broadband as their basic communications service. IP phones will become standard equipment, carrying voice, video, and other services into customers' homes over the 21CN's fast data connections.

By 2011, in the UK, the traditional home phone in your home will no longer exist.

BT's Mark Baines

This is Quilty's idea of how separation "limits future innovation"?

BT expects the 21CN to deliver annual savings of £1 billion from total costs of around £10 billion. But Quilty says separation "increases costs" and "kills off investment". Huh?

Here's one benefit of separation Quilty hasn't yet weighed in on: to deal with ever more-demanding customers, Baines is helping BT completely re-architect its contact centre, which will use SIP on top of the 21CN to help BT's 30,000 customer support staff work together all over the world.

This will significantly cut the cost of the 400 million customer calls BT handles every year, as well as enabling the customer staff to field support requests lodged via the Web, instant messenger, video-conferencing and other methods.

"We're losing significant margin in wholesale services," Baines said, "and get increased demand from our customers to speak to us on whatever channel they want to speak to us on. Voice is no longer the main channel."

There you have it: BT's own account of some of the changes separation has wrought. As far as I could tell, the worst thing separation has done to BT is to force it to shake off decades of legacy technology, stop trying to milk the PSTN to within an inch of its life, and get on with the business of building a better, bigger, faster, modern and global telco that provides exceptional customer service.

No wonder Telstra is running away from this stuff as quickly as it can. Our own largest carrier has been on a years-long effort of cost-cutting and lay-offs, is stonewalling against the same unions whose support it will need to build the NBN, and even went so far as to brag in its latest annual figures that it had slowed down the trend of people abandoning their fixed lines.

That's right: Telstra slowed PSTN's decline to just 3.2 per cent, with the number of retail access lines increasing by 87,000 during 2007-2008 compared with a 5,000-line decline in 2006-2007. "We continued to add retail customers, defying the trends of our global peers," the CEO's report proudly says.

David Quilty
(Credit: Telstra)

Were it not for full disclosure rules, Telstra would probably have neglected to concede that it lost 572,000 fixed-line customers during the year as they rushed to ULL-based services.

Telstra turned a record $3.7 billion profit last year, but it wasn't by charting a conciliatory and realistic path to the future; it was by fighting change, baring its teeth at competitors and regulators, and stripping back in customer service and every other area it could get away with.

Just consider those fixed-line customers Telstra signed up, 600,000 of them, according to the report, who are now locked into contracts that left them little recourse when Telstra raised line rental rates yet again last month.

BT is talking about delivering VoIP to an entire nation, but Telstra is so eager to protect its fixed-line cash cow that it has yet to offer VoIP services to its customers: defying both international trends and the inevitable weight of progress.

Indeed, we have heard very little about Telstra's long-term vision, apart from rhetorical threats to walk away from the NBN if it doesn't get its way.

Telstra loves to argue that separation has stymied investment in the UK, but Baines' story suggests that separation has in fact motivated BT to pour billions of dollars into a network that will keep it at the forefront of the world's telecommunications providers.

And, he pointed out later in his speech, this network has been designed from the ground up to facilitate interconnectivity with competitors: an important capability in any open market.

Separation behind it, BT seems to be looking towards a bright future. Can Telstra say the same?

Advertisement

Talkback 84 comments

    Wow! Anonymous -- 04/09/08

    Can we get BT to build the FTTN network here in Australia, or maybe something even better (FTTH), because they seem to know what they're doing, unlike some...

    Yeah but whats the alternative? Anonymous -- 04/09/08

    Great point, BUT, what’s the alternative, the coalition of the unwilling? - the amateurs that make up Terria. It has to be Telstra, they just need the government to pay for it all (indirectly) by making the process as drawn out and painful as possible. I just hope that the mobile networks out perform the NBN rollout (in terms of speed and coverage) so that consumers will have an alternative to the new incumbent that is created.

    Amateurs? Terry -- 05/09/08 (in reply to #320111271)

    The companies that make up Terria may be young by comparison to Telstra, but amateurs? No. Telstra have made redundant a lot of highly skilled (no doubt some even trained by Telstra themselves) telecommunications workers over the years, and who do you think a lot of those people work for now?

    More like "Tierra" ? Anonymous -- 05/09/08 (in reply to #320111353)

    More like this definition is heh heh...

    Tierra is a frequently cited example of an artificial life model; in the metaphor of the Tierra, the evolvable computer programs can be considered as digital organisms which compete for energy (CPU time) and resources (main memory).

    Like David Quilty said..an $8 shelf company...lol

    Terry Terry -- 05/09/08 (in reply to #320111358)

    So your response is to say Terria is bad by misspelling it to spell a different word and then using the definition of that word? Seriously that is one of the worst efforts I've seen in a long time.

    "Tierra" Anonymous -- 05/09/08 (in reply to #320111365)

    oh...I missesd this....

    "Tierra are evolvable and can mutate, self-replicate and recombine..."

    G9...G8...Terria...what next....???

    re Yeah but whats the alternative? Anonymous -- 06/09/08 (in reply to #320111271)

    what a load of - these are the same companies that together have poured hundreds of millions into dslams, forced telstra to finally actually use their adsl2 capabilities, upgrade the 1.5M adsl1 speeds to 8M - all this with a vicious competitor not above directly fiddling the rules, introducing artifical delays and generally refusing to acknowledge they've lost their government imposed monopoly. You now want to give them a further gift of billions of our taxpayers funding to add to the core telstra network after shortchanging the copper network for decades - what a hide

    big puddle customer by lack of any alternative due to bad copper

    "Monopoly Myth" Anonymous -- 07/09/08 (in reply to #320111421)

    The Monopoly you guys cling to is a myth...something you trot out to win some favour with ACCC you all love so dearly!!!

    Lets hope Conroy does not fall for this again!!!

    Copper Monopoly Terry -- 09/09/08 (in reply to #320111461)

    The point being made was Telstra do have a monopoly on the last mile copper delivery.

    An independent company contracting Telstra to build the FTTx Anonymous -- 04/09/08

    Great article.

    I think that separating the last mile network from the rest of Telstra would be amazingly beneficial. Not just for other telcos, but it would force the bulk of Telstra to focus on providing interesting technologies & solutions, which they are actually very good at doing.

    Telstra could be structurally separated (so it still owns the network), or Terria could have its way, or we could even separate the last-mile network from Telstra and ask the Terria players to buy into it.

    No more arguing between Telcos about the last mile network, we need it open & non-competitive - but we also should be using Telstra to build it.

    Wow, what meaningless propaganda. Anonymous -- 04/09/08

    David, you have asked no punch's to be pulled, so here goes.
    Your article is full of scewed Terria propaganda . The UK' s benefits of running fibre is not in question or a surprise.
    But running fibre is NOT a function of seperation.
    Which is the point your trying to make.

    Remember Telstra's been calling for FTTN for 3 yrs. It's the other Telco's who dont want it , as it threatens them.
    So as a consolation they reluctantly will wear it, if they break Telstra up.
    So the question of Seperation is a question of what price the Telstra shareholder's will pay if Telstra is seperated.
    Theirfore for your article to be the least bit relevant it should have explored BT's value before and after seperation. But you conveniently neglected to mention the least bit of financial cost or gain to BT shareholders!

    By the way as Telstra will not do FTTN if it is to be seperated. I hope Terria wins and gets the poison chalice that will be FTTN for anyone other than Telstra. As Telstra has a mother of a plan B.

    Meaningless? Anonymous -- 04/09/08 (in reply to #320111276)

    No, I think David has addressed most of the concerns that Telstra keep trundling out as reasons why it should be retained as a monopoly provider of a vertically integrated retail/wholesale network. It's the people that refuse to look over the top of the trenchs and see that it's not all doom and gloom despite what NWAT says that are meaningless in this debate.

    What EVERY other Telco in Australia wants is an open access network with transparent pricing, regardless of who provides it. Something that Telstra is going to great lengths to deny to them.

    Structural Seperation Anonymous -- 05/09/08 (in reply to #320111276)

    Typical Telstra scare-mongering. Running fibre as an outcome of structural separation is not what the article states.

    The article states that Telstra's argument that structural separation will stifle investment, has more holes in it than a teabag. And Telstra's use of BT as its evidence of this phenomenon is completely unfounded. That’s the point of the article, fibre is not the outcome of structural separation, it’s the outcome of BT’s investment in its own infrastructure after structural separation.

    As BT have experienced, your infrastructure investment must increase in order to compete. If you stand still in a competitive market you will get left behind. Telstra haven’t just been standing in one spot, they've been running backwards.

    Understand, operational and structural separation = big difference. yorrick hunt -- 06/09/08 (in reply to #320111336)

    Perhaps you need to get a few facts straight.

    BT were *operationally seperated*, which in it's simplest form means BT's departments do business separately. BT have not been *structurally separated*, which means the one company is broken up into many smaller companies.

    In fact whilst recently heralding operational separation, BT CEO (Livingstone?) said "structural separation" is NOT the answer!

    Telstra currently have operational separation of sorts. But really, would we like Telstra structurally broken up into small chunks, primed for possible take over by large multi-nationals?

    Due to foreign ownership laws this probably isn't an issue as yet. But like separation wasn't an issue when floated, things change!

    Separation Simon -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111407)

    "separation wasn't an issue when floated" - yes it was! There was plenty of input regarding structural separation before T1 but the advice was ignored. Sadly, the current state was also predicted before T1 stupidity.

    Telstra is NOT public property Anonymous -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111655)

    Who cares now is my point!! Get over it!!

    As Dr Phil rightly says Telstra has been sold to 1.4 million shareholders & people like yourself still think its public property so you can "milk" it like you have been milking it for the last decade under the Liberal Government!!

    All changed when Labor was voted into office!!

    30% Anonymous -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111662)

    The largest shareholder is still the public. The govt can easily nationalise the infrastructure or change the rules just by voting.

    @30% wtf Anonymous -- 15/09/08 (in reply to #320111721)

    WRONG.

    even if it was 30%, which it isn't, it's now 16.56% following the final tranche, regardless since when does 30% beat 70% anyway? rotfl.

    seems wishful thinking beats reality in the land of stupidity. a land more commonly known as terria.

    with brilliance like that, you must be the mayor of terria.

    Telstra Should Still Be Public Property if it was not for a liberal government ! david -- 14/09/08 (in reply to #320111662)

    What's this S*@T telstra was sold under a liberal government NOT A labor government so how did things change ? This is what you get when a government (LIBERAL) sells off a company (TELSTRA) that ALL australians use to own (ONCE) ! well done John howard For F*@#ing up Australia's Chance To have a world beating telecommunications network ! (Thanks so much) austaralia would off been better off if we still owned telecommunications network as our new (still to be bult) FTTN / FTTP would be in safer hands than it is today !

    Unsurprising Anonymous -- 04/09/08

    Telstra's FUD trolls are out in full force as usual. Where's Sydney Lawrence today?

    Lets split Telstra up for good and get this over with. They're holding Australia back.

    Won't happen Anonymous -- 04/09/08 (in reply to #320111278)

    Will not happen...If the oppositions record is anything to go by. Rudd was elected as a breath of fresh air to the Telco sector to break the "deadlock" to further investment..then again why would OPTUS invest if you are getting afree ride off Telstra.

    However there is hope they have more commonsense then the liberals by recinding the OPELess handout. Lets support an Australian company like Telstra!!

    A BT Exec saying bad things about what BT are doing Anonymous -- 04/09/08

    LMFAO!

    What can we expect, they fought even harder then Telstra to avoid structural separation, now they are forced to do it they have no choice but to say it is the best thing they could have done.

    Telstra is going all IP, they are implementing Alcatel VoIP / SIP gateways in every state, it is planned for completion by 2010. They already have a SIP enabled IP core.

    BT is not ahead of the game, it's just that Dumb Dumb David is so out of touch with reality that he will never say a single word or analyse another person's words that could be construed as fair or reasonable when it comes to Telstra.

    Telstra all IP Anonymous -- 05/09/08 (in reply to #320111301)

    and they ate doing it without intervention from the government or because of separation. They will make one huge announcements when the time is right, just like building the next g network and not milking the publicity for all it was worth by switching it on one bit at a time (a.k.a. Optus' 50 announcements about getting to 98% by 2009/2010/2099). Telstra's marketing may 5uck but their engineering is world class.

    Appreciation? Anonymous -- 06/09/08 (in reply to #320111319)

    At least Optus gives us a sneak peek at what they're doing. If Telstra doesn't want to be specific about their projects and plans, then they probably don't respect their customers.

    Sydney - where are you? Anonymous -- 05/09/08

    Great article. I totally agree with the fact that a lack of separation has lead to a lack of innovation on Telstra's part. BT may have fought against separation, but the fact that it went ahead anyway and has brought about innovation shows what could be in this country. I am intrigued to hear what Telstra's Mother of all Plan B's is. It is clearly some great overseas investments (BT did the same and got burnt horribly) in the same vein as their CLS and Soufun investments!!! I am glad I am not a Telstra shareholder as Telstra is bound to fail overseas.

    Mother of all Plan B's SkyKing20 -- 05/09/08 (in reply to #320111320)

    I think Telstra mentioned somewhere that they will roll out their cable network more to all the capital cities (forgets about regional centres of course) to compete against the NBN if they lose the right to build it.

    Which 'MIGHT" be good for consumers in the capital cities as Telstra would have to lower it's cable broadband plan prices/up data quotas etc to compete against the NBN.

    overseas davo -- 05/09/08 (in reply to #320111320)

    I pity the shareholders if the plan B involves moving offshore. History shows Telstra simply burns money whenever it pokes its head into other markets, (eg Hong Kong) with NZ perhaps the only example of some limited success and that took years of burning cash to achieve. Also funny how separation of TNZ has been to Tesltras benefit.

    Sydney Lawrence - Anonymous?? Affle -- 05/09/08 (in reply to #320111320)

    I think Sydney has already posted - only I don't think he used his name this time! 4th post down, titled 'wow, what meaningless propaganda' - sounds very typically Sydney!

    Sydney's taking a break? RL -- 07/09/08 (in reply to #320111332)

    Actually I believe Sydney is on holidays actually:

    http://www.itwire.com/content/view/20318/1154/

    In this article, Sydney Lawrence claims that he was planning an overseas cruise. The comment was dated September 2. I wonder how Sydney managed to earn enough money for this? Six months worth of comments on NWAT I suppose?

    Telstra don't build their networks anyway Anonymous -- 05/09/08

    Telstra say they are best placed to build the NBN. They say what a great job they did building their 3G network in record time. But it was the Vendor that built it and Telstra shafted them in the process.

    Telstra don't build anything that just contract it out.

    Independent voice? Anonymous -- 05/09/08

    There seems to be a lot of mention about David Quilty and his comments of "separation does not work - I've seen it", but one important thing to remember is he is employed by Telstra! Telstra is in a unique position; part government owned, part shareholder owned with a strangle-hold grip on the AusTel market. All the while these arguments about whether or not to separate Telstra go on, the more they benefit. The argument is not just about the NBN or FttN, but about the industry structure as a whole and if it is not rectified now, we will have the same arguments in ten years time with the next innovation is proposed. Face it, to promote competition, reduce costs and encourage R&D, separation is a necessity! I lived in the UK until 2001 and remember the initial BT de-regulation with new carriers laying lines and the whole host of new services that came with it. It wasn't a smooth transition, but the benefits that followed were huge! If a decision on the future is not made soon, then Australia will slip further behind in the technology stakes and businesses simply cannot afford that, especially in a geographically wide-spread country like ours!

    Impartiality Robert Davis -- 05/09/08

    'Struth, David, I really want to take an interest in what you write, but your long record of bias against Telstra has killed off your credibility in my eyes. You just keep on calling "Wolf!" and trotting out the same old tired complaints under a different heading. This is not reporting, this is opinion - and certainly one that is far from impartial.

    Separation IS Needed Graeme Harrison -- 05/09/08

    I was an Independent Expert in a major telco legal dispute. I believe that separation IS needed to get a plethora of innovative services up and running. Most large encumbents only have an eye for milking cash cows, and are historically slow to bring new services to market. Besides, we need a rational way to set interconnect wholesale rates, as Telstra has proven with wholesale rates higher than retail rates, than the market alone will not deliver rational results in this area. We don't expect a new freight company to build its own Hume Highway, so why not agree BEFORE any new network, how the wholesale rates will be charged. That inevitably results in setting a target ROI. And once you've done that, you may as well allow every telco to take up an equity interest proportionate to their market share. Let the regulator be the deadlock-unlocking determiner of which technology in which locations, which contractor to give the build contract to, etc, if the shareholders cannot reach a clear 75% majority decision.
    As to the related public debate over which technology, I think it silly to think of a single approach, beyond the nodes (ie to premises). Some of Australia is so remote that ONLY satellite is cost-justified for broadband, whereas the denser parts could all be fibre to the dwelling or node, depending upon maximum run-lengths. In other words, the houses 2+km from a country town with good working PSTN should not be dug up and replaced, just because of a 'concept'. Saner to gradually replace low-density elements when they are up for replacement due to age/breakdown.
    Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)

    I can't believe I'm saying this... Stuart French -- 05/09/08

    While I normally am right beside you throwing pies at Telstra's face, in this case I have to submit to my personal experiences in the UK.

    Youare quoting the successful cries of one Telco (BT) against the negative ones of another (Telstra).

    As rosy as things sound in the UK, trust me it still takes 45-120 minutes on the phone with BT to get anything done. Their installations can take 8-16 weeks depending on where you are and there is nothing that can be done about the queues. If you are a business willing to pay $2000 to speed up the factory broadband installation and Granny Winchester put her application in 3 minutes before you then she comes first.

    And of course my favourite response not too long ago "ADSL? If you want a business service should you be using ISDN?".

    Don't get me started on support....

    BT might be ahead at the government ownership level, but I'll take Telstra support over them any day.

    Customer level support Terry -- 06/09/08 (in reply to #320111351)

    No matter who gets the NBN deal though the general public will not deal with them directly for support, they will still deal with the same customer service groups they are dealing with now. Whoever gets the NBN deal won't be a service provider themselves and will only be dealing with customers who wholesale off them.

    What a load of rubbish Anonymous -- 06/09/08

    To compare a UK telecom with an Australian one David Brauer should realise the difference in land area, geography and population of the 2 countries makes such comparisons meaningless.

    only a blog Anonymous -- 07/09/08 (in reply to #320111423)

    Lets bag Telstra & hide behind the blog excuse again!!

    More responsibe journalism is needed!!

    Doesn't matter whether or not it's a blog Anonymous -- 07/09/08 (in reply to #320111462)

    How is bagging Telstra not responsible journalism? Afterall it's the truth!

    Blah, blah, blah Anonymous -- 07/09/08 (in reply to #320111423)

    I believe David Brauer has discussed BT, because Telstra love to use it as an example where separation supposedly hasn't worked.. (even though it actually has)

    Blah Blah Blah BLAH!! Anonymous -- 07/09/08 (in reply to #320111467)

    To the contrary, if you do your homework all the Telco's in Europe are actually consolidating. Its amteaurs like yourself that like to propgate the Myth!!

    Such as Anonymous -- 08/09/08 (in reply to #320111470)

    Telcos such as..?

    That is exactly why I made the comparison David Braue -- 08/09/08 (in reply to #320111467)

    Telstra has weighed in many times on BT's separation and tried to paint it as a bad thing that should therefore stain the arguments to separate Telstra -- but even BT has come out to distance itself from Telstra's arguments.

    That's because the story from BT is much different, based on things like what I was hearing at the conference and even what BT itself is saying. See http://www.itwire.com/content/view/19261/127/ for example, but a quick Google will show many other instances where BT contradicts what Telstra is saying about it. I am not saying BT is perfect, just that it has approached the whole separation thing with a much more open mind than Telstra has.

    It is perhaps worth noting that Telstra also presented at the same conference -- but instead of focusing on how they're using their new infrastructure to improve overall service delivery, their presentation was about the market-based management strategies they are using to maximise upselling and cross-selling to their customers, and minimise customer churn. "Losing a customer is a capital crime in an NBN focus" was the money quotation.

    Terria are stageringly hypocritical. Anonymous -- 09/09/08 (in reply to #320111503)

    Hi david, Plan B man here again.
    You talk about Telstra not having an mind, but tell me this. What would be the result of Terria winning the FTTN with the condition they absolutely want and need (that Telstra has'nt asked for),is no other new infrastructure to compete against them for 15 yrs!

    This is absurd and cannot possibly be entertained in the slightest by the govt or the ACCC.

    As surely it means that Telstra as well as other company's who currently run out fibre infrastructure will be reduced to reseller's. e.g. Pipe networks, Nextgen, Uecomm, Silk, Soul/TPG, Amcom etc etc!

    And what about the vendor's? And also other technology's like Wimax with Unwired and Austar?

    In other words Terria are the ones categorically trying to kill off all Telco infrastructure, innovation and investment !!

    David if you are not complicit It appears you may be being used.

    Terria is so scared of any FTTN they are actually guilty already as they are openly proposing to become what they accuse Telstra will become if it gets the FTTN. Without Telstra in the slightest requesting the absurd conditions that Terria has asked for !!

    In fact Telstra has explicity said the ACCC will oversee the FTTN access. And no exclusivity is sought by Telstra.

    the difference is.. Simon -- 09/09/08 (in reply to #320111546)

    PlanB man, the difference is that Terria will be an NBN wholesaler and not a retailer. That is the extennt of the issue many have with the current Telstra arrangement, wholesale and retail managed by the same people.
    A structurally separate Telstra would not present this conflict of interest and re-establish trust and certainty for Australian retailers, something that has been missing for over a decade now.
    What I don't understand is why Telstra fears structural separation?

    The difference isnt real Anonymous -- 09/09/08 (in reply to #320111560)

    Simon - "What I don't understand is why Telstra fears structural separation? "

    It's shareholder value destroying.

    Consumer national interest or Industry support is the roll of Govt not shareholder funds.

    And as amply demonstrated Terria's plan does not achieve that either, in fact it is designed to kill Telco infrastructure, investment growth and innovation.

    Feel free to get Terria or the Govt to buy it back at the $7.40 people paid and then you can give away connections with a free set of steak knives if you wish. Shareholders are already paying dearly.

    While your at it feel free to get the govt to buy Ferrari and Porsche, so Dodo can rebadge and resell the cars at Trabant prices! (and you still get screwed in the end)

    Its obscene what a 911 Turbo goes for. Although if you have driven let alone lived with a Trabant and a 911 you might conclude the 911 was extremely good value for money.

    It's very real James Bell -- 09/09/08 (in reply to #320111566)

    "It's shareholder value destroying."

    Let's see.. 1.6 million mum & dad shareholders, the most of which would own a negligible volume of shares (and those who do own any substantial amount are privileged enough just to be in a position to actually own shares) vs the wellbeing of the nation's 22 odd million people and hundreds of thousands of businesses. I know what I care more about.

    "And as amply demonstrated Terria's plan does not achieve that either, in fact it is designed to kill Telco infrastructure, investment growth and innovation."

    How is spending billions on a network to provide a minimum 12MB symmetrical bandwidth, with affordable wholesale pricing and no conflict of interest to 98% of the population killing investment or doing anything else you have just said?

    "Its obscene what a 911 Turbo goes for. Although if you have driven let alone lived with a Trabant and a 911 you might conclude the 911 was extremely good value for money."

    But then you could always go the new Nissan GTR which is proven to be superior in almost all aspects to the 911 for around half the price.

    Terria (& supporters) arent monopolist's, ther're Communist' !! Reality Check -- 09/09/08 (in reply to #320111590)

    I have to agree with you champ . . . The R35 is the right choice.

    But as your willing to have a company's value transfered from its shareholders to others without paying for it.

    I'll be around to "share" your GTR (if you get one) whether you like it or not.
    But be comforted by the fact I'll eventually return it from time to time with at least some fuel in it ;-)

    Not Communist's just common CROOKS. Reality Check -- 09/09/08 (in reply to #320111600)

    Actually they are'nt communist's just criminals.

    As when you sell something to someone then at a latter date you return to steal it back . . . you a pathetic litle thief .

    Whether you get away with it or not. . . . And don't kid youself you dont stand a chance.

    @its very real Anonymous -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111590)

    who says the well being of 22 million aussies is best served by a terria monoploy. certainly not me and i am not a telstra shareholder.

    this terria monopoly of no *competition* is how it kills of investment! do you not want competition or not? apparently not and don't pull the old 8 companies, they are a consortium of ONE.

    if you weren't so aligned with these companies in whatever grubby little way you are, you'd at least acknowledge this, but no.

    so i care about more than just telstra shareholders too, but i care even less about you and your terria subsidised porsche and stupid, always one sided comments.

    you do realise that you make sydney look like a fence sitter, don't you!

    Investment vs Competition Terry -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111628)

    "this terria monopoly of no *competition* is how it kills of investment! do you not want competition or not? apparently not and don't pull the old 8 companies, they are a consortium of ONE. "

    I believe Terria is asking that should they get the bid no other carrier build a redundant network to what the layout of the NBN will be, and I think you'll find most bidders would have clauses to the same effect anyway. There is little point in the government investing $4.7B if someone else is just going to come along in 6 months and spend $'s laying another fibre right next door that gains no extra benefit.

    Remember the winning bidder would be acting purely as a wholesaler and not a retailer. The only infrastructure investment Terria is referring to is one the backend side of the network. There would be no restriction on carriers putting there own devices over the NBN for their own end customer access, in fact you'd find it would be encouraged as that would bring about competition and ultimately lower prices.

    @You James Bell -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111628)

    Congratulations. You successfully wasted 5 minutes of my life. At least have the decency to post something of substance next time.

    "this terria monopoly of no *competition* is how it kills of investment!"

    And how exactly did you come to that conclusion? Let me guess you source most of your information from Rod Bruem and David Quilty at NWAT don't you? In case you didn't know Telstra also wants a monopoly (Pot calling the kettle black anyone?), only the monopoly they seek is vastly different to what Terria are proposing. Telstra want to retain the vertical integration they currently enjoy today. They want this with less regulation (preferably no regulation) and if they could have their way they wouldn't even be offering wholesale access (as per their previous proposals). Terria on the other hand while they are 8 companies, have welcomed Telstra and other participants to join their consortium. The network will be run by a separate company with no Terria member holding a controlling stake and they will also welcome members of the government onto its board as equity owners. They have even publically stated (which Telstra love to deliberately misquote) that if another bidder were to win they would still be satisfied provided the successful bid provides the competitive environment they seek.

    Terria want provisions in place to prevent the construction of a competing fixed line network because there is a serious risk of Telstra doing exactly what they did in the 90's with the HFC debacle which left millions of people with nothing, and others with duplicate overpriced networks. Telstra is prepared to write off billions if it means minimising its market share losses and damaging competition. History has proved this.

    "you do realise that you make sydney look like a fence sitter, don't you!"

    You do realise that comments such as this make you look like an imbecile, don't you? I have not publically supported any company in ANY of my previous posts, yet you imprudently imply I'm somehow even more biased than Sydney who's very well known as a devoted Telstra supporter. I've even gone as far to state that although I'm not terribly optimistic about Telstra winning the NBN, if they genuinely put in the best bid and it's going to provide a competitive environment which consumers will benefit from then I'd support it. Given their track record and the fact that they have an undisputed financial motivation to retain their monopoly, the prospect of Telstra lodging a competitive bid however is very slim. Now run along back to your friends at NWAT to work on your retort.

    @you Anonymous -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111647)

    a few more porsche dollars from the boss, you are pathetic.

    once again for all those who just don't quite geddit. again *i am not a telstra shareholder or employee, or whatever*, so enough of your usual stupid, standard, nwat lines.

    understand, not eveyone is taken in by (or paid by) terria and can see what's going on. initially i supported them, but as time has gone on, i have come to realise that they are unprofessional regarding comms but most professional at stalling and rhetoric.

    terria laughed when telstra said the nbn would be $15 billion, but are now saying the same? thru internode, they said cutover wasn't required, but have again now done a turnaround. seems when it looks like telstra are in the box seat they are most demanding and expect this or that to apply. but since they have gained ground they are now changing their tune accordingly.

    no wonder you love them so much, they are unfortunately, becoming just as desperate and pathetic as you!

    Shareholder value Simon -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111566)

    Anon, there are several ways to structurally separate Telstra without impacting sharholder value. The easiest is to split sharholdings across the two new entities. The Govt could also buy back with it's remaining shareholding and use future income streams to invest for the public service superannuation funds.

    The interesting thing would be to value the pstn infrastruture - Telstra Board has placed it at zero value and failed to generate any interest in a management buyout last year (even at zero value) So according to Telstra Board, the Govt need only pay the legal "peppercorn" to buy the pstn infrastruture.

    Once again for all the dummies. Yes that includes you David yorrick hunt -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111503)

    From above.

    Perhaps you need to get a few facts straight.

    BT were *operationally seperated*, which in it's simplest form means BT's departments do business separately. BT have not been *structurally separated*, which means the one company is broken up into many smaller companies.

    In fact whilst recently heralding operational separation, BT CEO (Livingstone?) said "structural separation" is NOT the answer!

    Telstra currently have operational separation of sorts. But really, would we like Telstra structurally broken up into small chunks, primed for possible take over by large multi-nationals?

    Due to foreign ownership laws this probably isn't an issue as yet. But like separation wasn't an issue when floated, things change!

    And for Yorrick James Bell -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111626)

    Many would classify BT's separation as a form of Functional Separation (or a much stronger Operational Separation). This differs significantly from the Operational Sepration currently imposed on Telstra.

    While BT still technically owns its network infrastructure its Network Division (Openreach) operates at arms length from the rest of BT, providing equal access to all access seekers and transparent accounting to the regulator. If this setup fails BT knows that Structural Separation is the next action the regulator will pursue.

    Telstra is against any additional separation, whether it be functional or structural.

    BT saying Seperation is good Paul -- 03/10/08 (in reply to #320111503)

    Read "Protecting their share price", take with a grain of salt, and throw in toilet.

    The costs of the NBN Terry -- 10/09/08

    After reading David's blog above and the comments below I am really beginning to wonder whether or not the whole NBN bid thing is going to provide any true real benefit long term.

    Sure ultimately fibre will be laid out everywhere and people will have fast speeds, etc, but whoever doesn't get the bid will suddenly be at a massive disadvantage to whoever did get the bid. There are 1000's upon 1000's of people working in the telecoms industry, and whoever doesn't get the bid will be faced with the very real impact of cost cutting to stay afloat (especially the larger players like Telstra and Optus).

    Sure some of those people will ultimately migrate to whoever wins the bid, but, what about all those who don't. The industry is already developing on it's own, albeit slowly, is the NBN and the massive push for fibre rollout really worth the negative industry impact it will most likely ultimately cause? especially when the speeds they are talking about are already being achieved in most metro areas already anyway.

    GAME OVER TERRIA Anonymous -- 10/09/08

    Terria - " We dont particularly care who builds the NBN . . . . . "

    Terria - "The first thing I'll do if we win is call Telstra to offer the most significant equity stake in Terria" !!!!

    Terria - "Our NBN proposal is based on us getting a complete monopoly"

    Terria - Our proposal is based on Telstra forced to put approx. $7 billion dollars p.a. worth of fixed wire traffic across the NBN.

    The knievity, The absurdity, Who are these morons!
    If the aim was to delay Telstra building FTTN Then they have succeded.

    But as graphically demonstrated by OPEL fumbling $946 mill worth of FREE Govt money.

    They have no chance of doing the NBN.

    The Govt's $4.7 bill is not a grant, it is either debt or equity. And will still require Terria to find between $10 to $15 BILLION DOLLARS.

    Maybe Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns or Fannie and Freddie will lend it to them !! Macquarie wont (not that it could if it wanted to either!) perhaps Babcock is a option . . nope thats no good either.

    Oh and just in case the 1 in a trillion chance happens and the Govt award Terria the poison chalice, they'ed better borrow an extra few hundred million to pay the lawyers.

    Game Over Anonymous Terry -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111667)

    "But as graphically demonstrated by OPEL fumbling $946 mill worth of FREE Govt money."

    The Opel project was already under construction prior to the money being transferred, there was no fumbling of government money because it never reached Opel prior to the contract being canned.

    "The Govt's $4.7 bill is not a grant, it is either debt or equity. And will still require Terria to find between $10 to $15 BILLION DOLLARS."

    It is? Well according to the news reports I've read Telstra are putting it down as a grant, meanwhile Terria has been requesting it be an equity investment in the network. Of course I might be wrong here and Telstra might have changed face.

    "Maybe Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns or Fannie and Freddie will lend it to them !! Macquarie wont (not that it could if it wanted to either!) perhaps Babcock is a option . . nope thats no good either."

    I don't think Terria are going to have any issue getting funding, that will be all covered in their tender, as it will be for all the other bidders.

    As I've said here before I'm not really for Telstra or Terria getting the NBN, I'd much rather it go to another entity that will concentrate wholly and solely on the backend network.

    It's a good thing you're posting as anonymous, ignorance is bliss so at least it's blissful being ignorant of whatever else it is you've posted :-)

    Terria - Delusion's are clouding my halucination ! Reality Check -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111668)

    "The Opel project was already under construction prior to the money being transferred, there was no fumbling of government money because it never reached Opel prior to the contract being canned."

    What an outrage the "crop circle" wimax on public spectrum plan was deemed not adequate. And the contract was ripped up by the Govt.

    "I don't think Terria are going to have any issue getting funding, that will be all covered in their tender, as it will be for all the other bidders."

    Yep, Im sure in the tender they'll mention that they know that banks give out money and if they win they will use the phone and try a couple!

    And the 1 or 2 banks left with any money will happily find $15 Bill. for the consortium of **** ants & 1 medium company who have budgeted this little endeavour on a return thats basically equal to the cost of money !!!

    And they will just put it to the side and mind it for Terria while they spend the next few years in court fighting Telstra for its asset's and forced custom .

    If in ignorance is bliss, you along with a few others must be state of mind exponentially higher than swami guru that ever existed.

    You guy's crack me up.

    What is wrong with you? James Bell -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111684)

    "Yep, Im sure in the tender they'll mention that they know that banks give out money and if they win they will use the phone and try a couple!"

    Why do you even give a toss about where they're getting the money from can I ask? Clearly in order for Terria to win the tender they'll need to prove they have access to the necessary capital, and this shouldn't even matter to you.. unless of course there's a financial motivation behind the outcome? I know Sol certainly stands to get a nice, fat bonus if Telstra win and he made very similar comments to yours today.

    @what is wrong with you? Anonymous -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111689)

    why do you give a toss either way too mr. bell?

    why two dozen comments everyday meaninglessly attacking anyone who says telstra and not tel$tra?

    oh thats right, its finanancially beneficial for you and your terria subsidised porsche(s) to keep up this ridiculous facade, how silly of me.

    @You again James Bell -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111712)

    "why do you give a toss either way too mr. bell? "

    That's the point.. I don't!

    "oh thats right, its finanancially beneficial for you and your terria subsidised porsche(s) to keep up this ridiculous facade, how silly of me."

    Two dozen comments every day? I think you have me confused with yourself. The only thing I stand to financially benefit from is an outcome where I'm not going to be financially burdened to receive services I'm already receiving today. You see unlike you I don't particularly care who the winner is, I just care about the outcome. An outcome where I and other Australians can access a fast internet connection; where we have a choice of providers offering different services at affordable rates with generous (if not unlimited) download allowances. Isn't it ironic how anyone who dares to criticise your beloved Telstra you immediately accuse them of being on the competitors payroll? This is despite the only logical explanation for you to be so supportive of one monopolistic, and extremely profitable corporation is for that very reason!

    @you Anonymous -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111723)

    hahahahahaha. you don't care who wins (drum roll)...................

    as long as it's not ......(and quote form you) the *monopolistic* telstra. yes comments like that certainly show your obvious impartiality.

    also since you obviously can't read (from above), AGAIN, i am not a shareholder, employee and they are not my beloved telstra. it is you professor of stupidity, who has to attack ANYONE who says anything about your beloved paymasters terria.

    after being a g9 advocate, i'm now just sick of all the crap in regards to the nbn, due to terria's blatant unprofessionalism. i have now awoken to terria's games. Unlike you, who is either still in denial and/or paid to continue the folly, I realise that telstra really is the best option.

    as for assuming you are on the payroll, i thought it was common knowledge?

    Oh dear James Bell -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111728)

    "as long as it's not ......(and quote form you) the *monopolistic* telstra. yes comments like that certainly show your obvious impartiality."

    There's a difference here between being impartial and factual. Telstra being a monoply is simply a fact. They abuse our legal system by taking the ACCC to court knowing they're not going to win, but still do it to delay the inevitable outcomes to maintain their monopoly. They try every trick in the book to prevent competitors from having access to declared infrastructure and they'll rip off every day Australians whenever the opportunity prevents itself. This is why I'm not super excited about Telstra winning the NBN because it will hold this nation back for another 20 years.

    The best outcome in my view is for a structurally separate entity to own the infrastructure and only operate as a wholesale provider. This will remove all conflicts of interest, but unfortunately I'm not going to hold my breath about this happening.

    @ oh dear -------------- more impartiality, haha Anonymous -- 15/09/08 (in reply to #320111754)

    thank you, you, like clockwork, just proved my point, impartiality and mr. bell are not on the same page. not even in the same book. no, not even in the same library, haha. at least have the guts to admit it because we all know, its zd's worst kept secret.

    that's right you as an average citizen, simply want affordable broadband and that's why you forever feel the need to aimlessly comment and bend the truth (lie is such a harsh word), omit pertinent points and in general, do your cause no good, because everyone knows why you actually comment. $$$$$$$$$. thing is, i was on your side up until only a few weeks ago, although not rewraded for my comments, but enough is enough.

    so back to your fleet of performance sports cars you were telling us you own, which of course all of us *average citizens* who want affordable broadband all have to, haha.

    the biggest question is how did you ever get a license, when you only have *one eye* hehe.

    Whatever you're on pass some to me Terry -- 10/09/08 (in reply to #320111684)

    "What an outrage the "crop circle" wimax on public spectrum plan was deemed not adequate. And the contract was ripped up by the Govt."

    The contract was never ripped over due to the delivery method, it was ripped up because the new to power Labor Government determined it didn't reach a large enough population base. And from what I understand there is still disputes going on to cover the cost of the rollout already been completed, with Opel's argument being that various independent sources confirmed it met the criteria, and the government won't release how it did it's calculations that said it didn't.

    But let's stop for a second and look at the Opel arrangement anyway, no one can argue that is the ultimate solution (because it wasn't), but what it was was a quick, efficient and much cheaper (when compared to the cost of the NBN) way to provide regional Australia with fast broadband connectivity, as well as providing a building block for future development.

    '"Yep, Im sure in the tender they'll mention that they know that banks give out money and if they win they will use the phone and try a couple!"

    I suggest you read up on how a tender process works, you don't just have to say "I can't do it", you have to be able to show how you can do it. ie. all tenders would have to provide evidence that any funding requirements have been covered.

    "And the 1 or 2 banks left with any money will happily find $15 Bill. for the consortium of **** ants & 1 medium company who have budgeted this little endeavour on a return thats basically equal to the cost of money !!!"

    Without even looking at the smaller companies involved in Terria Optus themselves have over 10,000 employees and revenues that go into the billions, I'd hardly call them a medium sized company.

    "And they will just put it to the side and mind it for Terria while they spend the next few years in court fighting Telstra for its asset's and forced custom ."

    Why would Terria be fighting for control of Telstra's assets?

    "If in ignorance is bliss, you along with a few others must be state of mind exponentially higher than swami guru that ever existed."

    Just because I don't have my bilnders on and galloping straight at the big T doesn't mean I'm ignorant. The tender process should look for the best solution long term, whether it be Telstra, Terria, or whoever else, as I said in a post above this rollout could have a much far reaching negative impact on the industry and all options should be considered with full merit.

    The stuff your on is way more potent . . . and toxic ;-) Reality Check -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111690)

    "The tender process should look for the best solution long term, whether it be Telstra, Terria, or whoever else."

    Yep thats what Terria said.

    The guy's who said they do, I mean don't , I mean do, I mean don't want to build the NBN. !!

    The guy's that have invited and reinvited and reinvited and if they win, will reinvite Telstra again to please, pretty please join us!

    Like I said I cant wait for you guy's to see Plan B
    Lets face it when Telstra terms wer'nt accepted by the ACCC a couple of years ago, Plan B became Plan A !

    And finally that share price may start recovering, it may even go high enough to cover my interest bill.
    I know, now that's really wishful thinking.

    i certainly don't want what your on terry Anonymous -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111690)

    nice blurb terry - NOT.

    very amusing in its naivety. you have actually taken the terria propaganda hook, line and sinker, whilst simultaneously believing all the telstra negative rhetoric. speaking of ignorance and bliss, hehe.

    so which company, obviously not telstra, do you work for/have shares in?

    Why is everyone anonymous? Terry -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111714)

    "very amusing in its naivety. you have actually taken the terria propaganda hook, line and sinker, whilst simultaneously believing all the telstra negative rhetoric. speaking of ignorance and bliss, hehe."

    Naive in what way? If you're going to say I'm naive at least have the balls to back yourself upself and put an argument forward and not just name call.

    "so which company, obviously not telstra, do you work for/have shares in?"

    Who do I work for? None of your business. What shares do I own? None. Not that any of that is in any way shape or form relevent to the discussion anyway.

    to the naive, shareless, optus employee Anonymous -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111725)

    dear terry anonymous or is that terry terria?

    from the balls file. news flash, terria is a sham. a child can see it and no argument or further description should be necessary, for anyone (like me) who doesn't have a vested interest either way!

    if you can't see this by now or are duped by the likes of professional comments by james bell, there is only one word for it. NAIVETY!

    as for relevance of equity holdings, employment etc, i have seen your mates attack sydney lawrences comments as being biased because he has telstra shares. ironically, sydney has said many times he doesn't! so which is it, relevant or not?

    seems youy guys suffer from terriaitis, you change the rules and opinions mid stream to suit the days agenda/propaganda. pitiful.

    Reading helps Terry -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111729)

    "as for relevance of equity holdings, employment etc, i have seen your mates attack sydney lawrences comments as being biased because he has telstra shares. ironically, sydney has said many times he doesn't! so which is it, relevant or not?"

    Ironically enough if you'd read my posts you'd also see I'm not entirely confident in Telstra OR Terria getting the bid, I think it should go to a company that will operate solely as a wholesale company with no focus on the retail side.

    Your spin is that Telstra should get it, which is fair enough, but don't assume that just because I'm not 100% means that I'm 100% behind Terria, because that is completely and utterly false.

    typo.. Terry -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111730)

    typo, that last sentence should read .. don't assume that just because I'm not 100% behind Telstra means that I'm 100% behind Terria, because that is completely and utterly false.

    @reading Anonymous -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111730)

    i am reading mate.

    you clearly say you support a company who will operate soley as a wholesaler. which means not telstra. so it clearly makes you 100% against telstra, in my book. Interpretation anomalies perhaps?

    Certainly is Terry -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111732)

    "you clearly say you support a company who will operate soley as a wholesaler. which means not telstra. so it clearly makes you 100% against telstra, in my book. Interpretation anomalies perhaps?"

    Correct, which leads us right back to David's blog above on the benefits of splitting Telstra into smaller fractions, and have it operating wholesale and retail units seperately. If that happened then it would be on the verge of being an acceptable solution.

    Structural separation? yorrick hunt -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111733)

    Terry may I cut in please?

    Like both yourself and anon, I do not own telco shares. So if you really aren't against Telstra, as i said yesterday and on the 6th, top of page -

    Would we really like Telstra structurally broken up into small chunks, primed for possible take over by large multi-nationals?

    Due to foreign ownership laws this probably isn't an issue as yet. But like separation wasn't an issue when floated, things change.

    Structural Separation - 2 Reality Check -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111738)

    Yorrick you make a valid point. But either still dont get it or are a part of Terria.

    If people kept the following in mind there would be no further mention of Separation as it is a complete waste of everybody's time.

    1/ Terria are the only party calling for separation.

    2/ Telstra would walk away from NBN if the possibilty of separation was mentioned by the Govt.

    3/ The Govt has not mentioned separation.

    4/ The Govt will not and can not impose seperation, As it would be a gross breach of the T3 prospectus which is still quite fresh.

    5/ Calling for the Separation must by its very nature explore shareholder returns.

    6/ Only some fools in the media are still repeating Terria's separation line. And they miss completely all the implications of that misguided objective.

    But for the record, I would suggest no shareholder would give a xxxx about separation if they were duly compensated for it.

    So if any one wants to keep talking about separation I suggest they open the discussion with a very large dollar figure. Otherwise continue to just wank off

    More on Separation James Bell -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111748)

    Reality Check,

    "1/ Terria are the only party calling for separation."

    The only people NOT calling for Structural Separation, or at the very minimum a stronger form of Functional Separation is Telstra and a few of their paid lobbyists. An overwhelming majority of submissions made on the issues surrounding the proposed new national broadband network called for stronger regulation and/or separation from Telstra. In fact the only submissions that appeared to be Pro Telstra or anti separation (and there were very few) were either from Telstra themselves of groups known to be on the Telstra payroll such as Ovum.

    http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/funding_programs__and__support/request_for_submissions_on_regulatory_issues/submissions

    "2/ Telstra would walk away from NBN if the possibilty of separation was mentioned by the Govt."

    That's hardly a surprise given Telstra obviously do not want to be in a position which would place their 90%+ fixed line market monopoly at risk, but we need to place the benefits of this nation ahead of a single company's unprecedented profit margins

    3/ The Govt has not mentioned separation.
    On the contrary the government has made no comment despite Telstra demanding them to dismiss separation as a possibility. Conroy has also promised tougher separation measures for Telstra in the last 12 months.

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Labor-promises-tougher-Telstra-split/0,130061791,339283757,00.htm?feed=pt_conroy

    4/ The Govt will not and can not impose seperation, As it would be a gross breach of the T3 prospectus which is still quite fresh.

    Does the prospectus explicitly state that Telstra cannot undergo stronger separation including structural separation? Some analysts including JP Morgan even believe a separation of Telstra's assets would in fact be beneficial to shareholders.

    6/ Only some fools in the media are still repeating Terria's separation line. And they miss completely all the implications of that misguided objective.

    I suppose virtually every state government, Google, FairFax, The Internet Industry Association, The Internet Society of Australia, The Farmers Federation, various other groups and individuals and most importantly every service provider in this country must be fools then.

    Check Mate Anonymous -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111753)

    Following your logic, sounds like its certain that

    1/ The govt will call for Telstra to be separated.

    2/ Telstra will walk away. And go with Plan B

    3/ Terria will win.

    3a/ Without the monopoly cond. - Terria declines
    No NBN (as we know it)

    3b/ With monopoly cond. - Telstra & others get
    around it.

    4/ Terria try's to get Telstra traffic but gets a little
    or none.

    5/ Terria goes broke.

    6/ Telstra share price triples.

    Part of TERRIA??? How so? yorrick hunt -- 15/09/08 (in reply to #320111748)

    Dear reality check. I normally don't respond after making a comment as it's normally a waste of time dealing with the ridiculous personal attacks, but I certainly do get it and in fact the more I look into it, the more I tend to agree with you.

    I can't see how you could even consider that I am with TERRIA in anyway. I am advocating no structural separation because breaking Telstra up will encourage the vultures to pick them to pieces, regardless of who wins the nbn.

    Seperation Terry -- 11/09/08 (in reply to #320111738)

    "Would we really like Telstra structurally broken up into small chunks, primed for possible take over by large multi-nationals?"

    Even without the foreign ownership laws you wouldn't see someone like Optus be able to do that as they would suddenly have too large an ownership. Another smaller player coming in and buying a section of Telstra would be different though, but there are positive and negative aspects to that.

    "4/ The Govt will not and can not impose seperation, As it would be a gross breach of the T3 prospectus which is still quite fresh."

    You're right in that the government can't force Telstra into seperation, but it can stipulate as part of the NBN bid that the company structure must operate the wholesale (NBN) portion of the company as a seperate entity to the retail arm.

    If Telstra lost their grip... Anonymous -- 01/11/08

    If Telstra lost their stranglehold over Australian Internet, things would go much worse for them. If they lost their stranglehold over phone services, they'd probably go bankrupt.

    When we detected a ridiculous jump in our download quota, the person I was talking to was just trying to get me to renew my contract so I could get new hardware, because he reckoned that it was just a piggybacker. He also told us to buy the Telstra Security Bundle, $100, which would secure our network with a four digit code. We already protected ours with a thirteen digit one. SO much more secure eh? Then I finally got through to a tech person, and I went through all the possibilities: Windows Updates (checked the log), large downloads, torrenting and pretty much everything else. Nothing fit. So the upshot was that I said to him, 'So we pretty much just had our download quota go up 15% (when the next closest day was 8%), for no apparent reason.'. And he told me that was right. 'For the second month in a row?' And once again, that was right. Apparently no customers are really happy with the new download meter (around for about a year or so), but the bigwigs at Telstra are quite happy with it. Blow them.

    THEN: my mother received her phone bill which was quite a bit up from normal. She put that down to a BIG event she was helping to run. Then the next month: it was just as high, AND THERE WAS NO EQUIVALENT EVENT! She rang them up and apparently 'There was a small mistake', and she was owed over $50 back over those two bills. I'm pretty damn sure that mistake would have never been corrected if she hadn't been looking. Funny, this happened after Telstra's new, non-itemized bills!

    And the last straw: my father just got his bill, which my phone-that-was still is on. Now, this phone has been lost/stolen or something for probably about six months, it is not connected, the phone is locked down, and it has been out of battery since I lost it. Now, my father got charged almost $8 of calls/texts one month and $5 another. All from a phone that can't call any more. How bloody convenient.

    Telstra are lying, cheating scum, and I wish they didn't have such a stranglehold on communications. They're holding back our future for their gains. We must be one of very few, indeed could be the only country, to have DOWNLOAD LIMITS. How pathetic do you get? Telstra, move over, your days are done.

    Want to hear another pathetic thing, back from when Telstra was government owned: a friend of mine had a father who had a friend who worked in Telstra, and he could prove that they charged extra to people's phone bills, but when someone took them to court, and had that person as a witness, they invoked the official secrets act, so the witness couldn't speak of it. Then the case got thrown out. Way to go Telstra!

    LMAO Anonymous -- 01/11/08 (in reply to #320115342)

    Love it, best bit of comedy since watching those 9/11 conspiracy movies, especially the last bit about "official secrets act". Where do you come up with the material? You should be a writer, I think you could out sell The Da Vinci Code and there are enough gullible people out there that would also think this is real.

    its actually a computer glitch dave -- 03/11/08 (in reply to #320115346)

    when a modify order goes in to modify an existing service 9 times out of 10 it will duplicate the charges made during the change over period... this is pretty common, and most the times mod orders are made without customers ever knowing, as for your mobile phone anon, the number was probably modded to release the number, hence the change over period the guy with the new number racked up some charges...

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