ACCC denies Telstra request to limit Optus

Australia's competition regulator late yesterday denied an application by Telstra to stop supplying Optus fixed line services within the SingTel subsidiary's cable network footprint.

(Credit: Telstra)

Telstra had applied for an exemption in December last year about its obligation to supply Optus with fixed line services in areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane where Optus has deployed its HFC network which provides voice, broadband and pay TV services to end users.

Telstra said at the time that if the exemption were granted it would encourage Optus to invest in its existing HFC network within its existing geographic footprint.

However, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said in a draft decision that creating such an exemption for one carrier alone would be a disincentive to infrastructure-based competition because it would lead to a telco having a "reasonable expectation that making investments in infrastructure will lead to it and it alone being denied access".

"The ACCC's concern is that that could lead to a significant chilling effect on investment generally," the ACCC decision said.

The regulator was also concerned about Telstra's Foxtel stake, which would mean competitive benefits would not be realised. "In particular, the high content costs faced by Optus are a significant barrier to expansion that limits Optus' ability to achieve potential economies of scope on its HFC network and to recover the costs of expanding or in-filling the network," the decision said.

Apart from those reasons, it seemed to be against the ACCC's notion of fair play. "The ACCC is concerned that this exemption application from Telstra focuses too much on one competitor, rather than benefiting consumers and competition generally," ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said in a statement.

Telstra was, however, granted an exemption from its obligations to supply declared domestic transmission capacity service on some routes, because the ACCC no longer considered them to be a bottleneck due to alternate fibre networks.

LSS pricing determinations held up in court
Also yesterday, the ACCC celebrated the Federal Court upholding the legal processes the regulator underwent to reach final determinations on access to line sharing services used to supply wholesale broadband services.

Of 10 objections raised by Telstra on the legalities of the determinations, the court found that the ACCC had been correct in all but one case.

The line sharing service pricing disputes which sparked the legal proceedings had been brought to the Commission by Primus Telecommunications, Chime Communications (iiNet), and Request Broadband (AAPT) in December 2004, November 2005 and April 2006 respectively, with final determinations made in 2007.

However, despite the court publishing a decision yesterday, orders from the decision will not be made until October.

"This decision affirms the ACCC's approach to the arbitration of disputes between telecommunications providers," Samuel said.

Telstra was unable to reply to requests for comment in time for this publication.

Advertisement

Talkback 64 comments

    . Anonymous -- 23/09/08

    Why should Telstra continue to let Optus leech from them?

    . Curtis Bayne -- 23/09/08 (in reply to #320112530)

    Exactly. Optus have the ability to supply fixed-line services over their existing HFC infastructure. I am sick of every other telco getting a free ride at Telstra's expense, especially service providers that have enough off-shore backing to support subtaintial independant rollouts, yet continue to choose to make minimal investments to what is a rapidly deteriorating network.

    Optus' outage in Queensland, coupled with their ailing 3G network is a perfect example of the impact that Optus' minimal-investment, maximum-overselling strategy is having on the quality of service that it offers.

    I refuse to purchase any telecommunications services from Optus, or any telecommunications service delivered using Optus carriage - the few services I do have fitting this description lay unused until my contracts expire.

    I'll Tell You Why James Bell -- 23/09/08 (in reply to #320112530)

    "Why should Telstra continue to let Optus leech from them?"

    Probably because Optus share exactly the same right to access it as Telstra do? The CAN is a declared asset afterall and just because Telstra own the right to manage and maintain it, it does not give them permission to decide who should have access.

    Both Telstra's and Optus' HFC networks are incapable of providing business grade services due to their inability to offer guaranteed symmetric capacity which is what businesses demand. In addition to this providing HFC connections to multi-dwelling units is cost prohibitive. I believe you'll find in just about every other circumstance Optus use their HFC network in preference to the CAN whenever possible. I also believe you'll find Telstra have very similar business rules to Optus' in relation to connecting Businesses and MDU's using their HFC network for the same reasons.

    Blind as a Bat Bell Craig -- 23/09/08 (in reply to #320112553)

    At what stage did anyone talk about business grade services?

    What they are talking about is fixed line services a.k.a. PSTN lines. The issue here is not to deliver business grade services across a HFC network that passes homes but to deliver PSTN equivalence across a network that is already running past these properties and owned by that company.

    It just goes to show that it really is cheaper to wholesale from Telstra then build your own infrastructure.

    BTW ... How's it going at TTTT?

    No I just do research James Bell -- 24/09/08 (in reply to #320112568)

    "At what stage did anyone talk about business grade services?"

    I suggest you go and actually have a look at Telstra's submission to the ACCC before trying to sound smart again. Optus' response is also a good read.

    I'll even include a link to all relevant documentation for you since you obviously haven't bothered:
    http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/806382

    @research Anonymous -- 24/09/08 (in reply to #320112574)

    perhaps then, you need to start researching outside your tttt and accc base. obviously you and the chums down at tttt are chuffed at having the accc promote no further investment.

    @i'll tell you Anonymous -- 24/09/08 (in reply to #320112553)

    declared or not, why shouldn't optus use their own, when it's already there?

    they invested but now find it too expensive to maintain and really just too much work in comparison to leaching off telstra, so they have changed their minds and now want out. this way of thinking and the accc ruling is not only stopping progress but *making us go backwards*. the last ruling made, the accc said that optus should still be allowed to use telstras, because telstras was superior. how sad for australia.

    obviously james, you and the rest of the tttt promote no further investment or even a reversal of progress because no one will build when they can pocket the profits, not invest and just continue to use telstra's lines, declared or not. particularly when you consider the nbn is still years away. or if ever, if you and the tttt get your way.

    if you cant see or wont recognise this decision is a not only *not progressing but regressing*, well you are simply a sorry and bitter individual.

    but that's tttt progress for you. mission accomplished.

    I'll Tell You Again James Bell -- 24/09/08 (in reply to #320112595)

    "declared or not, why shouldn't optus use their own, when it's already there?"

    That's the whole point Tony; they do! Optus only use the CAN (i.e. the low tech copper wire from a customer's premises to the exchange) for Business customers and MDU's within their HFC footprint.

    "they invested but now find it too expensive to maintain and really just too much work in comparison to leaching off telstra, so they have changed their minds and now want out."

    They invested due to a compelling business case initially making the whole venture worthwhile. When Telstra decided to build their own HFC network overlapping the Optus network street for street it severely damaged this business case resulting in both companies writing down billions in their respective network's values. Nevertheless as previously stated Optus will use HFC whenever the option is available, but if the costs to connect a customer do not stack up such as in the case of an MDU then they will use the low-tech copper which is already connected to the customer's premises and pay Telstra a wholesale ULL rental fee to access it.

    "this way of thinking and the accc ruling is not only stopping progress but *making us go backwards*. the last ruling made, the accc said that optus should still be allowed to use telstras, because telstras was superior. how sad for australia."

    Wrong again. The High Court of Australia has determined that Optus, as with all other competitors are entitled to access to the CAN. This was also a condition placed on the sale of Telstra. The ACCC's determination has nothing to do with the network being "superior", but as previously stated HFC does not offer symmetrical capacity guarantees which is what many businesses require. In addition to this the costs of connecting cables to MDU's is prohibitively expensive, requires signed authorisation from the body corporate and just to recoup the connection costs would require the customer(s) to retain their service for an extended period of time. Given MDU's also have a higher proportion of renters they're obviously going to be less inclined to sign up for 24 month contracts, which is why using the CAN (which already has the necessary cabling into the premises) is more commercially viable.

    "obviously james, you and the rest of the tttt promote no further investment or even a reversal of progress because no one will build when they can pocket the profits, not invest and just continue to use telstra's lines, declared or not."

    My tip for you is to stop sourcing all of your information from the propaganda machine over at NWAT and do some research.

    "They only use the CAN for business customers or MDU's" Anonymous -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112662)

    Hi James, I can personally say thats utter crap. Optus technicians went down my own street, removing all the Optus boxes. For your information the house I live in was fully optus cable equipped. When calling to see if I could have an Optus cable connection i was told that "Im sorry, we dont service your area with cable, you'll either have to take a landline with ADSL or a wireless connection instead" So don't tell me they actively use their network instead of using Telstras. Not only do they use Telstras network as a preference, but they also have been REMOVING access that was previously there to the cable network. This was in doveton, vic. Ask your bosses back at optus about why we had a mass derollout via their technicians about 3 - 4 months ago.

    @james Anonymous -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112686)

    quick james, a call to tttt hq to get a low life response, to the truth about optus's *regression*. funny this mans actual experience is the complete opposite to what you keep saying? obviously he must be a nwat stooge, liar that's it. haha

    Didn't happen to me Mike -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112686)

    The opposite happened to me. I asked to be connected to ADSL 2+ because I already had an exepensive ADSL Router, but they refused and would only allow me me connect to Cable.

    It sounds like your street doesn't even have cable or if it did at some point it doesn't any more.

    "True Competition" Anonymous -- 23/09/08

    What this country needs is "True Competition" no the over regulated stuff OPTUS loves!!

    Deregulation James Bell -- 23/09/08 (in reply to #320112532)

    If you want to see what happens when you remove regulation just have a look at the US economy.

    What else can we expect from Bell? Craig -- 23/09/08 (in reply to #320112556)

    Great line, how about blaming the price of oil or the food crisis in the 3rd world on deregulation!!

    @deregulation Anonymous -- 24/09/08 (in reply to #320112556)

    which economy is that, the largest economy in the world, which is simply in a cyclical economic downturn at the moment, haha, what a clown.

    Tag teamed by Rhodes Scholars James Bell -- 24/09/08 (in reply to #320112593)

    The point is that one of the primary reasons for America's economic woes is due the regulation (or lack thereof) in the financial sector. Lenders were providing mortgage finance to unemployed, bankrupt hillbillies and now everyone over there is paying the price.

    @tag Anonymous -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112664)

    if only zd and the others could use regulations to stop paid comments and stop the james' from spreading their lies, then regulations would be great, haha

    Finance to hillbillies Anonymous -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112664)

    Let's just hope the Rudd listens to you and doesn't give $4.7B to the hillbillies called "Hys-terria".

    boo ya! james -- 26/09/08 (in reply to #320112764)

    aha! i was waiting for this! i just got accused of been a lackey! sorry bout the what might seem rudeness, but ever since i started reading these forums i was hoping that 1 day my solutions to the NBN problem might become profficeint enough and hence not telstra friendly, that the only applicable rebuke is to jump up and down screaming he works for them he works for them! I am yet to see a telstra supporter put forth a workable NBN proposition that would serve the people of australia, not the australian shareholders, and i dont care if optus gets or internode, i personally think a new corporation should be set up by the gov to deal with wholesaling the service... so stick that in your foreign ownership pipe and smoke it

    "True Competition" Anonymous -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320112556)

    What this country needs is "true competition" not the over regulated stuff OPTUS/SINGTEL have come to know and love under the HOWARD/COOONAN years!!

    Only then will Australia get the NBN for ALL Australians.

    Get That Up You Anonymous -- 23/09/08

    You like that Telstra? Consumer choice is such a PITA.

    @get that up you Anonymous -- 24/09/08 (in reply to #320112555)

    yes very smart, you can choose either telstra or telstra via someone else. either way telstra get money. with optus using their own hfc network this would exclude telstra and give real choice. but optus are too lazy.

    isn't this a non issue? Anonymous -- 23/09/08

    Didn't Optus stop providing new services via Telstra's WLR product earlier this year?

    I know they only offer ADSL where they have their own hardware, and obviously cable where it's available.

    @isnt this Anonymous -- 24/09/08 (in reply to #320112560)

    yes, apparently they did. but they must be finding it more expensive with all the maintenance, and now seem to have now reverted. which obviously just means [obvious to anyone who isn't paid to say otherwise] no progress, just the same old story, due to these types of accc rulings.

    When? Anonymous -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112592)

    When did Optus "revert"? The article is about an ACCC ruling, not an Optus decision.
    It was only a few weeks ago I last heard someone saying they asked Optus to move their lines to a new location and were rejected.

    @when Anonymous -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112704)

    good point - obviously if they didn't revert, they must never have stopped using telstra, even when they had their own. otherwise this decision wouldn't have been made or needed would it?

    Optus is not utilising it's HFC Anonymous -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112714)

    I worked for Optus for some time until recently, there are actually many MDU's out there that are cabled, Optus installed HFC into 'some' MDU's when they first rolled out HFC. Here is an example of what Optus do, if you had an Optus service (supplied on the HFC network) in your �house� then moved to a �unit� that was cable ready, we had to refuse connecting a service there, even if a tenant only moved out 2 weeks earlier and had one of the HFC products active, go figure!

    optus kicks **** james -- 25/09/08

    so, I'm with optus for my internet and phone, and my service isnt wholesale... its all optus all the way, (and I've checked on Telstra's Systems) and before the telstra monkeys start jumping up and down, flinging handfuls of miscellanous brown stuff, the CAN is a declared network, placed in telstras stewardship, not ownership, they legally have to let others use it, its been that way since the post master generals office, so why the hell do they suddenly get dibs on it now? if they build a fibre optic cable, all on their own, no input from anyone else its theirs, the ACCC wouldn't dispute it, (take NextG for example)... but if the government paid for it in the beginning and then sold it with the condition they play nice and share it, then shut up telstra shareholders, you signed up with the conditions, dont try and change it now

    @optus kicks Anonymous -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112724)

    please remind me NEVER to name my first born son James. Sorry to any decent ones, but all of them here are ***kheads.

    Since the PMG Anonymous -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112735)

    The CAN is called that because it is the Copper Access Network. How has the ACCC and the James' of this world converted this into hardware installed at exchanges (ADSL has only been around since after the T2 float), fibre backhaul and others. The pain truth is that the over regulation has discouraged any real investment in this country in the past decade. You raise the Next G network as an example, in the one area where there is almost no regulation there is a massive amount of investment and advances, if they simply allowed the same to occur in the fixed network space we would see the same advances.

    The line of government paid for is like saying the house I live in was built by someone 30 years ago who has since sold it, gotten their money and moved on. Why can't you wake up to the fact the network was sold to private investors at an acceptable price and it is time to and move on.

    Duplicate NBN's will never happen James Bell -- 25/09/08 (in reply to #320112765)

    For heavens sake will people stop trying to compare the infrastructure competition that exists in mobiles with fixed? This country as with just about every 1st world country in the world does not require multiple CAN's or NBN's, nor would it ever be able to support them. Having two or more national fixed line networks would be a horrendous waste of capital and benefit nobody. Do we need two or three sets of electricity cables, gas pipes, water pipes etc. going down our street? Of course not and the same applies with an NBN.

    We only need one network, but it needs to be built to service as many Australians as possible in an environment where the operator is only able to provide wholesale services to remove the conflicts of interest that exist today.

    "Why can't you wake up to the fact the network was sold to private investors at an acceptable price and it is time to and move on."

    Why can't you wake up to the fact that the network was sold to investors with specific conditions in place ensuring all competitors would have access to it? It's not us, but Telstra and its supporters who seem to be having difficulties moving on. Just this year Telstra was challenging this in the High Court. They lost of course, just as they do with the majority of other disputes they take through our legal system.

    re Duplicate NBN's RL -- 26/09/08 (in reply to #320112769)

    I agree with you, James, but I think you're wasting your time here. These idiots will never listen. They'll stick to their insane belief that multiple NBNs or CANs = "true competition"!

    A country as large as Australia cannot afford "true competition"! Australia can only afford one network, so let's make this one network completely open and structurally separated to ensure competition at the ISP/retail level!

    This comes from the same people Anonymous -- 26/09/08 (in reply to #320112776)

    that compare Australian Teco with the US and blames their economic problems on it but can not use an actual working and real life situation in Australia as a comparison.

    One second you talk about free and fair competition, next is we can only sustain one network. When you are supporting the Optus arm of your employer you complain about not enough regulations around freeing up competition at a wholesale level but when you are supporting your NBN focused employer you want more rules around limiting the competition at a wholesale level.

    Now time to go and bank your paycheck.

    1 NBN = :) james -- 26/09/08 (in reply to #320112799)

    1 NBN = smiles all around, i mean come on, each company having to build an NBN, might work in say, new york or london, but when you got a whopping big desert in between major pop centres, then each company building and maintaing their own fibre links each will only serve to make internet more expensive to serve, 1 NBN, run by a wholesale provider which has the hell regulated out of it (to stop monopoly abuse) would be much cheaper and effiecient

    @duplicate Anonymous -- 26/09/08 (in reply to #320112769)

    to ask a typical james bell question. why do you care? if telstra, optus, vodafone or whoever all spent $10billion on fixed competitng networks, why do you care? isn't that competition. a waste perhaps, but not your or my waste, so again why do you care? seems its simply another vain excuse from vain and lame spoilers such as yourself.

    also and as you know and conveniently dont mention, yes telstra was sold - although your namesake says it wasn't sold and that telstra are just the stewards, haha - with conditions but those conditions or regulations are now being eliminated and telstra exempted from them, where there are 3 or more competing networks. perhaps this is why optus are now using telstra's again. more regression, but keep trying to tell us otherwise. even the accc has now recognised the folly of the *conditions* you continue to promote, time to wake up.

    Wholesale competition Harry -- 26/09/08 (in reply to #320112841)

    You are forgetting that retail competition is burilt around wholesale prices, have competition at a wholesale level and you will get better retail pricing regardless of duplication.

    @wholesale Anonymous -- 26/09/08 (in reply to #320112847)

    maybe so, which regardless still means it isnt important which business model is utilised. integrated or structurally separated, as long as there is open access to all wholesalers.

    but more duplication plus the ensuing extra wholesaling and price cutting, surely equals better prices again.

    A real comparison James Bell -- 26/09/08 (in reply to #320112841)

    "that compare Australian Teco with the US and blames their economic problems on it but can not use an actual working and real life situation in Australia as a comparison."

    If you really want to go down the road of comparing mobile infrastructure competition with fixed then at least do it properly. Let's first compare the costs. Telstra allegedly spent $1 Billion constructing it's NextG network which provides coverage to 98-99% of the Australian Population. Being a wireless technology it does not require a technician to go out to an individual's premises to connect the service, nor does it require a tech for general maintenance or faults. Also due to the nature of wireless networks (i.e. being wireless) they also require far less network staff and techs to maintain it, and faults are less likely to occur in general.

    Now let's look at a fixed FTTN network. Telstra have publically stated the construction of the NBN is likely to exceed $20 Billion, and this is building over the existing CAN, utilising the ducts and various other infrastructure in place. Some analysts estimate to build a new National Fibre Network completely from scratch would cost in the vicinity of $60 Billion. This is purely the CAPEX cost (capital) to actually build it and excludes the significantly higher OPEX (ongoing operational costs) of maintaining it when compared to a wireless network.

    So far we're comparing a wireless network which cost a bit over $1 Billion to roll out vs a network which will cost $15-20 Billion if it builds over the existing CAN and possibly as much as $60 Billion if it's built from scratch.

    Then we need to look at the returns on those investments. If we use Optus' original business Case when they rolled out their HFC network (prior to Telstra deciding to duplicate the rollout) they assumed a take up rate of approximately 25% of the premises it passed. Add a duplicate network and your take up rate is cut in half. Remember what happened when Telstra decided to duplicate the Optus HFC footprint? Optus eventually announced they would stop their rollout before it was complete because they knew the rate of return would never allow them to turn a profit. Within weeks Telstra made the same announcement. The end result was duplicate networks for some while millions of Australians missed out, and neither company ever turned a profit on their investment. This wasn't even good for the customers who were covered by two networks because the profit margins on both were so low competition effectively did not exist.

    So to answer your "typical James Bell question" this is why we care.. idiot!

    monkey boy Anonymous -- 27/09/08 (in reply to #320112860)

    idiot!

    this one basic word of yours, describes your bought and paid for *unbiased* - hehe cra*, perfectly.

    you are simply the tttt's organ grinders monkey, fool!

    James Again? Anonymous -- 27/09/08 (in reply to #320112860)

    Nobody can work so hard to try and twist peoples words and distort obvious facts without having a personal or professional agenda.

    Conspiracy Theories James Bell -- 28/09/08 (in reply to #320112885)

    "this one basic word of yours, describes your bought and paid for *unbiased* - hehe cra*, perfectly."

    "Nobody can work so hard to try and twist peoples words and distort obvious facts without having a personal or professional agenda."

    Come on guys. Is this seriously the best you can come up with? When you can't back up your own pathetic arguments, and evidently NWAT has run out of rubbish to reference from, you resort to conspiracy theories. Nice one!

    Best rebuttal ever!! James -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320112929)

    If you have a reasonable argument, or know you lost the fight just pretend you won, say it often enough people may believe you.

    That's what James Bell thinks anyway.

    correction James -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320112951)

    If you don't have a reasonable argument, or know you lost the fight just pretend you won, say it often enough people may believe you.

    That's what James Bell thinks anyway.

    An even better rebuttal James Bell -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320112952)

    Otherwise James you could be just like the other NWAT fan club members who don't even have an argument to begin with.

    The suggestion that there should/could be competing fixed NBN's at an infrastructure level is preposterous.

    @reBUTTal Anonymous -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320112980)

    haha, james bell, when all else fails you resort to claims of NWAT. so again, you are nothing more than the tttts organ grinders monkey.

    James "SingTel Optus rings my" Bell Anonymous -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320112980)

    Well, I just had to find out for myself who is this person who hates people accusing him of working for Sintel, but loves pushing the same rhetoric all the time, I thought I might just jump over to Now We Are Talking and yep, there he is again, believe it or not, pushing the same barrow, but I do note he is not as aggressive over there as the editor usually professionaly and politely put's him back in his box.

    Grow up

    What are you trying to achieve? Renegade -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320113006)

    You anonymous posters really are morons. None of you appear to be able to justify any of your arguments yet when someone such as James Bell comes with simple facts, not only do you fail to actually respond with anything of substance but you accuse him of working for Telstra's competitors.

    Even if he did work for one of these companieswho cares? At least he can put up legitimate arguments which the majority of you seem to lack the ability to do.

    Everyone with half an iota of knowledge on this topic knows that a) Competition at the infrastructure level (i.e. competiting networks) is never going to happen as it is not sustainable and b) Telstra winning the NBN tender without tougher regulatory conditions will not be good news for Australian's

    Pull your heads out of your a**es folks!

    Renegade or Anonymous Anonymous -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320113008)

    Renegade, great name for Anonymous yourself.

    You may be correct, James Bell may make some simple facts, but it gets lost in the constant barrage of vile that he tends to pass off as constructive comments, if he was so concerned about fair comment, then why would he need to start comments with "....perhaps think about the Australian people and not your Telstra shares when you talk about important issues such as infrastructure..." hence himself bashing anybody who would care to offer a differing opinion to himself.

    It's at that stage now when why bother reading any of his posts when he has shot himself in the foot so often by attacking anybody who wishes to join in discussions ?

    Shooting myself in the foot? James Bell -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320113012)

    Anonymous antagonist,

    Rather than researching through various forums where "James Bell" has appeared, including NWAT where I admit I've posted in the past but became fed up with their moderation which essentially involves changing/deleting anything which discredits their agenda, why not actually attempt to respond to my arguments with a genuine rebuttal if you disagree?

    You see the stark difference between myself and the anonymous poster(s) who claim to have no financial incentives are that they are supporting one of the largest, wealthiest corporations on this continent without providing any logical explanation whereas I am simply interested in the best outcome. You will not see me spruiking any particular company without legitimate reasons, and as you probably saw in many of the posts you researched I have also publically stated even a Telstra win for the NBN (under the right terms) will not necessarily be a bad thing... suffice to say I am not optimistic about that occuring

    @shooting Anonymous -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320113025)

    haha, nice one james.

    if telstra win under the right circumstances. structural separation.

    bit like saying im not biased and dont care who wins the us elections, under the right circumstances. just as long as it isnt a black [or maybe white] man. take your pick.

    @trying to achieve Anonymous -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320113008)

    renegade, if you cared to pull your own head out of james bells **se you would note that the discussion was going along ok until mrs bell decided to call me an idiot. check @a real comparison. after that the discussion went downhill and he only got back what he started. it seems mrs bell is ok with dishing it out but cant handle taking it.

    this is why people just disregard him even if by rare chance he actually says something worthwhile.

    if he chooses to live by the sword.

    Get back on the phones Tony's TL -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320113026)

    Tony this is your Team Leader. Get back on the phones.. there's Telstra customers waiting in the queue

    get back in your tttt kennel tttt mongrel trainer -- 29/09/08 (in reply to #320113029)

    oh no, my secret identity has been compromised, what ever will i do now, haha.

    back to the tttt kennel with you now and only come back out when james says you can. alright.

    Open competition for all. Sydney Lawrence -- 27/09/08

    Easy and simple solution to the NBN argument. Cancel the $4.7 billion. Award TERRiA the NBN build and let Telstra compete as they wish.

    simple economics james -- 27/09/08 (in reply to #320112882)

    lets assume whoever gets the NBN will lay a good amount of fibre in their cross country links, you know, basically enough link capactiy to do a ridicouous amount of traffic, now, whats cheaper to run, 3 of these links,, (wholesale competition) or 1 of them? now i agree if 3 greedy corporations owned a fibrelink they'd keep each other in check... but do you see internode, westnet or anyone else been able to get the 60 billion to compete? the only hope for australia in its current telco state is a single NBN, that has the hell regulated out of it to stop them gouging for profit, so running 1 link = cheaper maintance costs, less capital costs, = dont have to charge as much to turn a profit

    Makes a lot of sensejames - NOT! John -- 28/09/08 (in reply to #320112893)

    Now they should do that with automotive factories, wireless network providers, airlines, merge private & public schools, clothing companies, mining companies and while we are at it create a single level of government.

    For centuries people thought the earth was the center of the universe until a number intelligent people had the courage and foresight to questing public opinion and the self proclaimed authorities to state their opinions and those people were proven right. You seem to think that you can apply one level of logic when it suits you although it is contrary to empirical evidence.

    airlines? what like airports? james -- 30/09/08 (in reply to #320112914)

    yeah it would be ridicolous for airlines not to own the infrastruct... oh wait, they dont, and auto factories, if they were all making the same kind of car then yeah economies of scale would say yes,, what im saying is that if many different companies are providing the exact same service (in this case electrical/light pulses representing 0's and 1's) then yes it makes sense to not duplicate infrastructure,

    I guess im 1 of those intelligent people questioning your opinion?

    simle or intelligent? John -- 01/10/08 (in reply to #320113158)

    If it were that simple then why are there so many companies competing for the high profit Bris-Syd-Mel bandwidth but no one wants to go beyond the main routes. There is way too much profit to be made by buying at regulated rates from the main companies (company??). That is duplication of infrastructure and the information is identical so how does that make sense... it must have been a typo, are you sure you didn't mean cents?

    As soon as one company stands up and is permitted to build something and not get forced to wholesale at rates that discourage investment then you will find other companies build their own.

    Just look at the mobiles space (and yes it is a different technology and has other cost factors) as soon as Telstra switched off CDMA and other companies were not allowed to roam onto Next G what happened? They announced plans to inject millions into expanding their own networks. If the right regulations were in place I am sure Optus would have increased their own coverage instead of reselling Telstra's network for years.

    @airlines Anonymous -- 01/10/08 (in reply to #320113158)

    point is mr intelligent [gotta love modesty and comedy] not so long ago you clowns were all calling for increased competition, now the exact opposite. you cant have it both ways, complaining about a so called monopoly but then supporting no competition. regardless of the detail, don't you see the irony?

    whereas as competition was all that mattered before, you now categorise competition into nice little areas to suit your ridiculous bias, like duplication being overkill.

    but just read paul o'sullivans initial optus/terria speech, in which he says the word competition about 2 dozen times and claims competition the main factor that the government needs to understand. he mumbled the word competition so many times that it was the second most used word throughout the whole speech.

    but guess which word was the most used? telstra. what an insecure little band of no hopers you faithfully support haha.

    Anyway Anonymous -- 01/10/08 (in reply to #320113195)

    Anyway getting back on topic Telstra lost (as they always do) and Optus won so suck sh*t Telstra fanboy

    @anyway Anonymous -- 01/10/08 (in reply to #320113262)

    from above.

    yes very smart, you can now choose either telstra or telstra via someone else. either way telstra get money. with optus using their own hfc network this would exclude telstra and give real choice. but optus are too lazy.

    so *you now choose telstra*, because *optus won*. hahahahaha

    seems youve outsmarted yourself, which wouldnt be hard, my cats puckered old freckle is obviously smarter than you, **ckhead.

    @anyway Anonymous -- 01/10/08 (in reply to #320113265)

    But no because apparently Telstra are being forced to provide ULL at below cost (according to dumb*sses like you) so you still lose. hahahaha

    @anyway Anonymous -- 01/10/08 (in reply to #320113266)

    not according to you they dont, they make $bills from wholesale and youre always right, arent you. enjoy your telstra, cats freckle.

    @@anway's anywho the anon-o-mous! -- 03/10/08 (in reply to #320113267)

    if telstra make $bills from wholesale, then perhaps they should shut up and stop trying the raises the price of wholesale lines? because according to them there losing money from it... despite telstra wholesale contributing positively to there bottomline...

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Renai LeMay How reliable is IP telephony?
    Have you ever heard a weird kind of hissing, crackling or popping noise when calling someone on an IP telephony line? How rare is the phenomenon these days?
  • Array Forget the NBN, 100Mbps is already here
    Telstra and TransACT will shortly begin offering 100Mbps broadband to many customers. By moving early, the companies have not only raised the bar for Australia's broadband services, but thrown down a challenge to a government that now faces increased pressure to deliver the NBN as promised.
  • Array IT: Govt's cost-cutting bitch
    The government needs to stop looking at IT as a necessary evil or the place to remove costs when the Treasurer comes calling.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured