NBN - Everything you need to know about the National Broadband Network

Broadband benefits get a reality check

The federal government has not provided any evidence that its proposed AU$4.7 billion national broadband network would deliver claimed economic benefits, an analyst said this week.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has stated it was essential for the nation's "future economic prosperity" that Australia build its own national broadband network. The government is currently negotiating with the industry to work out who will receive AU$4.7 billion of funding to build and operate the network.

However, Intelligent Business Research Services analyst Guy Cranswick this week said the Australian government had not produced any documents laying out proof of its economic claims.

Cranswick said his research on reports of a similar network in Japan had showed the country had not benefited economically from the infrastructure roll-out. "They haven't found anything; nothing," he said.

The analyst said if anyone was to benefit, it would be the finance and media sectors, particularly broadcasters. "I think everything else is rather nebulous," he said. He didn't believe industries such as hospitality and agriculture would see many advantages at all.

Cranswick also took aim at the technology proposed for the network, fibre-optic cables linked to the existing copper telephone network through street-side cabinets known as "nodes". He said the technology was not cutting edge, with speeds only "pseudo-adequate" for 2001, let alone 2010.

"In my own view it's a waste of money," he said. "Why go to fibre simply so you can say that Australia has a fibre network?"

The analyst pointed out Australia had placed ninth out of 30 countries in the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) broadband rankings. However, the nation only reached twenty-third place when it came to the price of monthly subscriptions.

"ADSL2+ is plenty fast. It'd be nice if it was more widely spread and cheaper," he said. "The issue is not technological. It has to do with regulation and market structure."

Australia needed to tackle its regulatory framework and move the economic levers to encourage investment in Australian broadband, Cranswick said and "not necessarily say let's start again with another new technology".

"There should have been a longer and more thorough research and consultation process," he continued.

Cranswick said the government's promises — 12Mbps reaching 98 per cent of the population — were unlikely to be met, or at least not within budget: "Life experience and project experience tells you this is probably not realisable."

"Even in Britain they can't guarantee the speeds across the nation," he said. "You don't want to give everyone a Rolls Royce," he added, saying the costs wouldn't match the benefits.

Cranswick said he was not against fibre, but just against spending tax payers' money without a proper case. "It's everyone's money."

Advertisement

Talkback 75 comments

    What planet?????? Anonymous -- 09/07/08

    Is this guy for real, and I guess we didn't need to upgrade from dirt roads either...........

    LOL LOL LOL Anonymous -- 09/07/08 (in reply to #320106210)

    This is the same guy who probabbly has a 386 machine with a "whopping" 40M harddrive.
    LOL

    Telstra is ready to do the hard yards NOW!!!

    WE desrve the best NOW!!!

    FTTN all the WAY for the future of Australia!!

    Guy Cranswick provides no proof either Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106210)

    I'm sick of all these crank experts barfing out useless articles for the media. FTTN fixes two major problems with the current network, its slow unless you live near an exchange and unavailable in many areas, plus its unreliable and expensive to maintain all those ancient trunk cables.

    dirt roads Simon -- 21/07/08 (in reply to #320106210)

    Various states are digging up bitumen roads and returning them to dirt as they are cheaper to maintain. Questions on the economic benefit of FTTN need to addressed.

    Telstra must build FTTN Anonymous -- 21/07/08 (in reply to #320107291)

    Telstra must build the FTTN!! They are the only company capable of managing large scale projects......the OPEL scandal and leaving QLD off air shows the ineptitude of SINGTEL/OPTUS!!!

    Must? Anonymous -- 24/07/08 (in reply to #320107328)

    Telstra must build the FTTN? You must be kidding? Tesltra will contract all of this work to infrastructure builders, as they no longer have the capability of pulling fibre. Maybe if the cost slashers had retained NDC and TRL there may be some substance to your claim. Wait till the next round of offshoring is completed and you will see that telstra is simply becomming a sales shell with no internal capability to manage any infrastruicture. I've heard the target is to reduce current head count by 50%.

    Pfft! Anonymous -- 09/07/08

    The economic benefits are immense. My Telstra shares will finally be worth something when we get the Government handout to build the network!

    Roll on the gravy train!

    Pfft2! Anonymous -- 09/07/08 (in reply to #320106232)

    Good point, I'd better sell my Optus and iiNet shares. Maybe the free ride on Telstra's back is coming to an end?

    Oh dear, all the king leeches with their snouts in trough, will have to send back their unofficial Telstra sponsored Ferrari's too!

    Pfft2 - Fake Post Anonymous -- 09/07/08 (in reply to #320106237)

    You wouldnt say such comments if you had optus or IINet shares.

    fake post really? Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106239)

    really was it fake - no? it's called sarcasm rocket scientist.

    because apparently anyone who sticks up for telstra is obviously a shareholder and anyone who sticks up for optus or iinet aren't, they are concerned citizens. what a crock.

    What a crock Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106279)

    Yeah!

    Screw this "equity partnership" with the Government. Show us the money! If Terria (and others) want to share the network with the Government let 'em; us Telstra shareholders want to make as much money from our investment as possible. Give us our money first and support the rest of the country second!

    This whole process has nothing to do with broadband; its about getting the Government to give Telstra a big bag of cash and lock our customers into nice, fat, juicy contracts for as long as possible maximizing our returns.

    support the rest of the country Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106285)

    support the rest of the country, which country singapore

    come down from your tttt soap box and smell the roses

    huh Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106302)

    Huh? I *want* the money to come to Telstra so that the value of my shares increase.

    It doesn't even matter if the NBN is a flop or only covers Sydney.. just show us shareholders the money! If we remotely cared about the other guys in the industry we wouldn't have bought Telstra shares rotfl!

    same here Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106307)

    same with my optus and iinet shares, that's why i want terria to win - der

    Remember OPEL ? steve -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106285)

    Hypocrite Optus Fanboy!!

    The Hypocrosy od OPTUS Fanboys is breathtaking!!

    What this country needs is "True Competition" not the regulated stuff OPTUS has sponged off for the last decade!!!

    Need for speed. Sydney Lawrence -- 09/07/08

    What does this dude mean "even in Britain" as if we should follow the old country which is a basket case in most areas. Maybe he has just left the cave.

    The Emperor Has No Clothes!! Sam Marconi -- 09/07/08

    This whole thing started as an attempt by Telstra to bamboozle the then government to restore its monopoly and has now can a full circle. There is excellent high speed broadband in our major cities and we need to address regional areas. OPEL was a good plan to do just that at 5% of the current cost. It is still not too late

    Happy to wait another decade Carlos -- 09/07/08 (in reply to #320106249)

    Sounds good as long as you are willing to wait 10 years for that $2 company to do anything. There is only one truly competitive telecommunications service and that is the mobiles market. Let's look at some facts.

    1. It has been an open competitive market for over 10 years
    2. Telstra has recently built a network using their own funds
    3. No other company has come close to the speed or coverage of that network
    4. Telstra has plans in place to ensure this network increases it's coverage and speeds on a regular bases for the next 5 years or more
    5. The other carriers have plans to increase the coverage and speeds over the next 2 years.
    6. Even after these carriers increase their coverage they will still be about 2 years behind Telstra for speed and have no plans to catch up to Telstra's coverage.

    Open competition works but in the one and only real example of this in Australia it demonstrates that Telstra is the only one willing to take the risks to invest first and in areas the others do not see an appropriate return to justify their investment.

    Have you any idea what Telstra's really done? Richard Alston -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106254)

    Carlos,

    You seem to have swallowed Telstra's propaganda hook line and sinker! Although legislation was introduced 10 years ago to introduce competition, the main objective of the related processes and rules was to preserve the monetary value of Telstra to maximise its sale price.

    Notwithstanding major flaws and Telstra's exploting these flaws to indulge in serious anti-competitive conduct (which is exceptionally well documented), it is competition that has delievered service innovation at affordable prices to Australians. We have seen stagnation in services wherever there is lack of competition. For example, in all major cities, consumers enjoy high quality high speed broadband at prices they can afford. In regional areas, the consumers are screwed because of lack of competition due back haul constrictions, high cost back back haul and poor condition of the underlying network. Although Telstra has received billions in government subsidies, it has not invested in regional Australia.

    This NBN thing is political hogwash promised by Labor simiply to embarass Liberals during electioneering and telcos/ISPs in Australia will not come and say that publically because of fear of retribution from the government.
    PS: I am not what my name suggests.

    no what my name suggests Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106289)

    no but you may as well be, with that liberal party faithful crap.

    no what my name suggests Richard -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106303)

    Wake up, MATE! This is not party political but for Australia. Remember the slogan DO THE RIGHT THING? Anyway, I happen to be a prominent and strong Labor supporter.

    Re: have you any idea. SJT -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106289)

    One of you has swallowed hook line and sinker and imho, it certainly wasn't Carlos.

    There is competition (but little investment) in the cities, simply because it is too easy for Telstra's competitors to access Telstra network at minimal cost and resell.

    As a consequence, obviously, if these competitors aren't willing to lift a finger in the profitable densely populated areas, they certainly will not invest in the non profitable bush, surely that's commonsense?

    However in relation to the mobile sector (which you overlooked) where they do not have such access, there is plenty of fierce, "true competition" and we the consumers are better off as a consequence.

    Richard, regardless of your obvious political persuasion, here's a few articles for you to read, if you would like help to remove that hook from wherever it lodged: -

    http://www.commsday.com/node/224

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23718830-7583,00.html

    http://business.theage.com.au/g9-cant-win-but-can-fight-for-a-copper-future-20080514-2ed9.html?page=2

    http://www.commsday.com/comment/reply/193

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/eaten-by-singapore/2007/07/21/1184560106866.html

    Then also say hello to James. If you don't understand what I mean, just wait and it will become clearer - lol!

    Cheers.

    ... Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106331)

    "here's a few articles for you to read"

    Opinion pieces and editorials. Up to your usual FUD eh SJT.

    "True Competition" Helen Coooooooonan -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106343)

    Whatever happened to Alston?

    Caused a train wreck & left country??

    Re... SJT -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106343)

    Thank you anonymous antagonist.

    Yes, opinion pieces and editorials from amongst others "independent experts" for everyone to read and consider for themselves. What a terrible thing to do, try to give everyone, the other side of the story too! How dare I, when you thought you had everybody duped, never mind!

    I know you T4 types don't like "independent experts" because they inevitably prove your spoonfed, syrupy, anti-Telstra BS, as the BS it is!

    But just because you refuse listen to anyone but the T4 doesn't mean others don't have a mind of their own?

    Conversely of course, they could read your links (oh, but you haven't supplied any, because independent experts in general shun you and the rest of the T4/CCC?). You haven't even supplied your name have you?

    I'm sure you as a T4 disciple and probable employee of Telstra's competitor's are much more credible than the "independent experts" - lol!

    SJT is a Telstra shareholder like Sydney Lord Watchdog -- 28/07/08 (in reply to #320106343)

    /me nods at the subject...

    SJT isn't a shareholder! sjt -- 05/08/08 (in reply to #320107847)

    FYI - SJT isn't a Telstra shareholder, isn't an employee, isn't a paid commentator, isn't related to and doesn't even know anyone anyone who is associated with Telstra! So where does that leave your argument now fool?

    I'm sure you have closer ties to Telstra's competitors than I have (as I have none) to Telstra - so spill your guts, like I just did!

    opel = bamboozle Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106249)

    the words bamboozle and opel are most apt together!

    to Richard Alston Carlos -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106280)

    I did not talk about propaganda, marketing, politics or any of that hogwash you talk about.

    What I discussed was simple facts about the one and only truly open and competitive sector within the Australian telecommunications industry.

    I suspect you have no idea what this is so I will tell you ... GSM BASED MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    Each company had equal opportunity to obtain spectrum ... In fact Telstra was not permitted to bid for the 900Mhz spectrum.

    Each company had equal opportunities to negotiate for locations and build towers ... in fact Telstra was not permitted to access certain locations that were subsequently given (rent free) to competitors meaning Telstra had to build multiple towers to compensate for the less then ideal locations.

    Each company had available funding to build their networks ... Come to think of it Telstra is the smallest of the 4 companies that have built mobiles networks in this country (Vodaphone, Singtel/Optus/Singapore Government & Hutchison).

    They all have the ability to conduct their own research to ensure they have best of breed networks. Hang on hasn't Telstra rolled out the world's largest & fastest UMTS/3GSM/HSPA network as well as announcing 21Mbps capabilities today? Hasn't the bulk of the enhancements to the capabilities of HSPA in the past 2 years occurred due to Telstra supported research? Isn't this the same technology that Optus and Vodaphone are sure to leech off to build their own networks with no investment or technology risks albeit 24 months after Telstra had developed it and implemented it on their own network.

    Let's not try and divert from the subject at hand, if you intend on replying to my posts then address the points stated otherwise do not start your reply by addressing me (or by attacking me) directly.

    What about regional Australia? James Blackley -- 09/07/08

    So the media has finally started to ask the right questions - Alan Kohler, John Durie and now Suzanne Tindal. Every one knows that major Aussie cities enjoy world-class broadband except for RIM/Pair Gain problems inflicting about 10% of users (Phil Burgess not withstanding), regional Australia is neglected and must be fixed. Why is Conroy quiet on this shortcoming? Why are all pollies quiet on this problem?

    He's right Matthew -- 09/07/08

    We don't need nationwide FTTN yet. Hell we don't even have a proper ADSL2+ network yet across the outer suburbs of most cities.

    We just need the current ADSL2+ network upgraded, opened to competition, and extended to everyone and provided at a reasonable price.

    Those who can already get ADSL2+ from ISPs other than Telstra already pay reasonable prices for broadband, while those who can only get ADSL1 do not because of Telstra's monopoly over the lines.

    It would cost much less to do this and the benefits would be greater.

    Once we have nationally established ADSL2+, we can garner investment for gradual FTTN or even FTTH improvements as necessary.

    Move on Australia. Sydney Lawrence -- 10/07/08

    Do I detect a shift in thinking concerning the NBN from Telstra opponents who now see that they are not capable of building the NBN so in desperation try to hold Australia back and deny the majority of Australian's fast broadband in their hope of maintaining the current system and the free ride on Telstra that they have enjoyed for so long?

    Don't Telstra Staff Have Other Work To Do ? Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106284)

    Everyone in the Australian Telecommunications Industry (other than Telstra staff and their paid suppliers and analysts) understands that the NBN has always been a furphy.

    The only reason the Labor government is backing such a ludicrous plan to spend $4.7b of taxpayers money on this donkey is because a couple of years ago the engineers at Telstra developed a way to get their Monopoly back (build a new network FTTN network).

    They then lobbied the liberals very hard but were told to get lost. Coonan could see through the smokescren.

    Unfortunately the labor party, who weren't in power back then, said we support this Telstra proposal bacause we hate the liberals and must disagree with all of their policy decisions - pretty obvious politicing.

    So now the labor party is committed to delivering on an a election promise that evolved purely from Telstra's monopolistic intentions.

    The bit about speeding up everyones BB is just a big furphy - ADSL2+ at all exchanges and wireless BB to fill in the gaps is the perfect solution for Australia - if only we could get the politicians (and Telstra) out of the way !!!

    you made your polittical alliance Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106288)

    youre now bitter because you and the rest of your sponging isp mates were in bed with the Libs and their sidekicks and now the blankets and mattress have been taken away by the other mob? what goes around comes around. say bye bye to the free ride.

    Please, end the free ride! Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106304)

    That way Telstra will no longer have to honour the USO! Please end the free ride. No more handouts from the Government to support aging copper in the ground.

    That way we can get everyone onto nextg or fibre which we (Telstra) can price to whatever we want. 18% ROI? Bah, give us 25%+.

    We can do it when we finally get rid of the competition and return to the good old days of the single monopoly!

    back to work Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106309)

    shouldn't you get back to work? surely there's dozens of disgruntled optus customers waiting to speak to an obvious stooge like you

    Money Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106313)

    "shouldn't you get back to work? surely there's dozens of disgruntled optus customers waiting to speak to an obvious stooge like you"

    You're against making money? Don't like the fact that when Telstra is given the tender (and they will) our shares will increase in value?

    Then when the competition has withered away we can charge what ever we want. Ah, the return to decent dividends...

    Deny it as much as you want; at the end of the day its not going to be the best company winning the tender it'll be Telstra and fellow shareholders such as myself winning. Fingers crossed when each share hits $20 I'll still be able to afford whatever scheme is in place for Internet access.

    And all of those people that like the cheap internet they have now will be offline and there'll be more bandwidth for the rest of us!

    "Monopoly Myth" Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106309)

    Is this OPTUS/Internodes reply...throw up their hands because they cant sponge anymore???

    As Don McGauchie rightly points out the whole Monopoly thing is a "Myth"..look at mobiles...you guys (Tierra) need to compete & pull finger "out"

    Yeah, let's do it Lord Watchdog -- 28/07/08 (in reply to #320106309)

    Yep, end the USO. No more phone books, no more public phone boxes, no more government subsidisation of services to the bush.

    Everyone must instead shift to Sydney or Melbourne where you can access the 'Net using at least three fast technologies whilst 99% of the landmass is stuck on dialup pace.

    Let's see how willing Telstra is at providing their services without support from the taxpayer.

    Perfect Solution for WHO? Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106288)

    "The bit about speeding up everyones BB is just a big furphy - ADSL2+ at all exchanges and wireless BB to fill in the gaps is the perfect solution for Australia - if only we could get the politicians (and Telstra) out of the way !!!"

    Its only a perfect solution for Australian consumers. Bugger them! I want the value of my shares to increase and the only way that'll happen is when Telstra gets a nice fat cheque from the Government to build FTTN then charge like a wounded bull for it.

    Its un-Australian to be against an Australian owned company maximizing their shareholder returns, even if it is at the expense of consumers and competition.

    Aussie - true blue Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106310)

    "Its only a perfect solution for Australian consumers. Bugger them! I want the value of my shares to increase and the only way that'll happen is when Telstra gets a nice fat cheque from the Government to build FTTN then charge like a wounded bull for it.

    Its un-Australian to be against an Australian owned company maximizing their shareholder returns, even if it is at the expense of consumers and competition."

    I love Australian sarcasm.
    Maybe Telecom Australia can bring John Williamson back to sing us some more true blue Aussie songs!

    BTW I am a 5th gen Aussie and despise how Telstra use my Aussie heritage to support their unethical positions.

    sarcasm regurgitated Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106347)

    since you love it here's some more

    5th gen aussie supporting a singapore company over an aust company. but that's great for my *optus shares*

    yes see, i also like sarcasm too, after all, who in their right mind would buy optus shares haha

    so don't now pull the patriot crap, hypocrite.

    perfect solution & true blue Anonymous -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106310)

    you seemed to have repeated yourself. haha

    suppose thats 1 way to get the tttt comment count up.

    with brain power like yours it little wonder the big t have it all over you and you employer.

    What are you trying to prove? James Bell -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106356)

    The Australia-Israeli chamber of Commerce, of which Optus is a major sponsor, held a lunch where ACCC Chairman Graeme Samuel was going to talk about his "vast experience and knowledge". What exactly are you trying to prove here? Are you alluding to some sort of special connection between Optus and the ACCC? Don't forget it's not only Telstra who've received outcomes they don't deem favourable. The only difference is Telstra take virtually every determination through the courts.

    It doesn't matter who is in power at the ACCC, Telstra still won't be happy. I recall relations being just as sour with Graeme's predecessor Allan Fels, but at the end of the day it doesn't even matter because the ACCC doesn't exist for the benefit of multi-billlion dollar corporations; it's here to protect consumers.

    Kevin on other hand has a long history with the Telecom (Telstra) Technicians Union. Whether or not he still has financial connections with Telstra today does not hide this fact.

    One that loves facts and figures Carlos -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106386)

    You love to quote the fact there are 47 separate ACCC actions against Telstra at the moment.

    Would you be kind enough to share with us how many actions are being taken by the ACCC against Optus today, how about all other communications companies combined? I'll make it easy for you ... 0 against Optus, 1 against all other companies combined.

    Let's not pretend that Optus and others are that perfect.

    I have personally lodged 17 complaints to the ACCC against a number of telecommunications and non-telecommunications companies using the same rules that have been applied by the ACCC against Telstra and I have never had a reply by them let alone any actions.

    It's Appalling! James Bell -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106396)

    Carlos, what have you just answered for yourself? The fact that Telstra has so many actions against the ACCC and there's only 1 action against all other companies combined is absolutely appalling (for Telstra that is)! While other companies such as Optus may not have any actions against the ACCC right now decisions have certainly been made in Telstra's favour in the past. An example which Optus often complains about was the ACCC's mandate for mobile carriers to reduce Mobile Termination Rates. This was when Telstra argued that by lowering the Mobile Termination Rates it would then be able to pass on the savings it made to its fixed line customers for calls to mobiles. The only problem is it's been a while now since that determination was made, and I think Telstra must have forgotten to pass on the tens of millions they now save annually as a result of this decision.

    I can't speak for the 17 complaints which you have lodged, but I do agree it's not good if you haven't even received a response to any of them. Nevertheless if the ACCC didn't exist it cannot be denied we'd all be paying a lot more for what we're currently receiving today. Who knows what would have happened to competition considering Telstra would be charging its competitors more for ULLS access than what it charges retail, or if we'd even have ADSL 2+ access period!

    Yes it is appalling! Carlos -- 11/07/08 (in reply to #320106398)

    The fact that the ACCC will jump:

    As soon as one of the lawyers of the 200 plus registered telecommunications companies, or
    If a politician needs to increase their profile, or
    If Graeme is bored

    They will take aim at Telstra, open all barrels and fire

    but...

    If Telstra or an individual have an issue they will pretend they don't exist.

    Let me restate what I have said above ...
    I lodged 17 individual complaints against a number of companies, in each and every complaint I have made reference to a ruling against Telstra and the fact that my complaint is based on the same rules that were applied against Telstra. All 17 complaints have never had even an e-mail, phone call or letter acknowledging the complaints.

    If this doesn't show that the ACCC base their decisions on politics instead of what is in the countries best interest then what does it demonstrate.

    The ACCC has zero credibility in this country, they interpret the law as it suits them, in many cases the interpretations conflict with their own previous actions.

    I would like to see what their policy is, I assume it will something like this...
    (1) If it exists it exists to benefit us
    (2) if it doesn't exist pretend it does and see point 1
    (3) if in doubt pretend it doesn't exist and see point 2

    You talk about mobile termination rates between carriers, you would be aware that these are regulated at 9c per minute when a fixed service calls a mobile service but is only 1.2c when a mobile calls a mobile.

    Telstra dominates fixed line services and every time a Telstra fixed line calls another carrier's mobile Telstra pays that carrier 9c per minute.

    The mobile industry is fairly even (~50% Telstra and ~50% others) so calls between mobiles will typically be balanced between outgoing payments and incoming payments, even if they are not the payment is only 1.2c per minute (about 12% of the fixed - mobile).

    What this means is that Telstra pays massive fees to those other carriers because of all of the fixed to mobile calls being made by Telstra clients.

    Why do you think that they all push for cheaper mobile charges? It is to increase their mobile market share to increase these payments from Telstra.

    Optus has been actively getting out of the fixed line business for years as there is no profit for them, Vodaphone & 3 don't even play in that space.

    How has the ACCC impacted you personally? James Bell -- 12/07/08 (in reply to #320106518)

    Carlos,

    You state you have lodged 17 individual complaints against a number of companies which have all been based upon similar actions against Telstra, yet received no response. Now putting aside one possibly wondering why you're lodging so many complaints (all of which have Telstra links?) I am interested to know more about them. Do you care to share some of the more serious ones which you believe warranted action? (and I'm not asking this to try and discredit them, I am asking out of genuine interest)

    I'm not quite sure what the point you are trying to make in is in relation to the Mobile Termination rates though. These have dropped by nearly 2/3rds courtesy of the ACCC. What Optus, Voda etc. were making from charging Telstra for calls to terminate on their networks went to Telstra in substantial savings. Now the costs of MTR's shouldn't directly concern you or I as consumers, but what should concern us is that in Telstra's submission it argued by reducing these rates would bring down mobile to fixed prices for its customers. This has not happened and instead Telstra now continues to charge substantially high rates (both retail and wholesale) for calls to mobiles despite it now saving what's estimated to be in excess of $450 million. In fact even on Telstra's HomeLine Ultimate plan at a cost of $89.95 per month customers are still getting slugged with a 39 cent connection fee and a rate of 37 cents per minute (4 times the current MTR) for calls to non-Telstra mobiles. You also mention yourself that Telstra wholesale customers are pulling out of the market in droves which is primarily due to the virtually non-existent profitability and constant hurdles their wholesale provider (Telstra) places in front of them.

    The point I am trying to make here is that the ACCC does not exist to protect the profit margins of these companies. Its purpose is to ensure we have the best system in place allowing for a competitive environment and the decision above was made with that intention, despite it actually backfiring and only benefiting the incumbent. It comes as no surprise Telstra is not their biggest fan when we consider the number of times over the years it has abused its monopoly and market position to hurt competition, and ultimately consumers. Being a company in its position it should also be setting a precedence in the industry which it is not. It is impossible to deny we wouldn't all be paying more for services if it weren't for the ACCC and although not all determinations made are ones I would personally agree with I am extremely thankful for their existence.

    ACCC personally? Carlos -- 12/07/08 (in reply to #320106612)

    They have not done anything to me personally, I have submitted 17 individual complaints based on advertising restrictions and pricing constructs that have been applied against Telstra to prove that the ACCC doesn't rule in a fair or unbiased manner.

    I will provide one of these which I have previously commented on, it is possibly the single greatest example I have found that proves the ACCC applies their policies unevenly.

    We all know about the Telstra "everywhere you need it" advertisements which ran for about a month, 3 months after this run had finished the ACCC began action against Telstra for misleading / deceptive advertising practices.

    Some things to note here is that the action was lodged after the advertising was removed, Telstra removed it at the end of a preplanned schedule and there were no warnings by the ACCC while the advert ran. The action was instigated following a complaint from an unnamed source (I assume lawyers from T4, Optus or similar). This was one word in a 30 second advertisement although the ACCC gave the impression the entire advert revolved around that word.

    At the same time this action by the ACCC was hitting the media Toshiba had a wide spread advertising campaign (Internet, billboards throughout the CBD in in several major cities, print and catalogs) for one of their laptops which claimed "weighs nothing, does everything". All of the advertising contained these 4 words and only these 4 words.

    I lodged a complaint based on the principle that if 99% of the population and 22% of the land mass is not sufficient be be classified as everywhere then how can a 1.6Kg laptop weigh nothing and how can any object do everything (will not run Mac software or toast bread is simple examples).

    About 12 months have passed with no action and no communication from the ACCC. They are happy to act against a company after an advertising campaign has finished to ensure the market knows that these types of claims are unacceptable but will not act against a company that ran obvious & deliberately misleading advertising at the same time as their actions against Telstra.

    The important thing about the ACCC is they need to make determinations in an even and uniform manner and not based on political pressure, media expectations or public opinion. I would be happy to agree with all of their determinations so long as the rules they have used are applied in a uniform manner to every single company in this country.

    They say justice is blind, unfortunately when it comes to the ACCC that is clearly not the case. When a rule of law is interpreted that interpretation needs to become a reference for all similar legal arguments but we see it all too often that the same rule of law is being interpreted in many different and conflicting ways by them.

    I will not even bother responding to the cost argument as this will simply add another 500 words from me and 2,000 words from you.

    Obviously Uncy Graeme enjoyed his Optus lunch - lol! SJT -- 16/07/08 (in reply to #320106622)

    Thanks for that interesting but most disturbing comparison Carlos.

    Interesting also that "the mouth (well keyboard anyway - lol) - the self proclaimed most knowledgeable telecoms man in the cosmos, James, has decided it prudent not to respond? Well at least until he has a written statement /response from his T4 paymasters, to submit - lol!

    This clearly explains why this (refer to link) showing a lovely Optus brunch with the "impartial ACCC referee" - Graeme Samuel, is even more distasteful, than first thought!

    http://www.aicc.org.au/event_detail.cfm?id=15

    ;-) Carlos -- 16/07/08 (in reply to #320106970)

    SJT ... A man of wisdom!

    For your information James Bell -- 16/07/08 (in reply to #320106970)

    The only reason I didn't bother responding was because I genuinely had hoped Carlos would provide a decent example as one of the 17 odd complaints he had raised against the ACCC. All he ended up proving was that he is a man with nothing more than a chip on his shoulder.

    I personally agree the ACCC attack on Telstra for their "everywhere you need it" campaign was a bit overboard, but at the end of the day I don't really care. I would have thought Carlos could have at least come up with an example that mattered (i.e. something that has impacted the prices consumers are paying for services), but alas he didn't.

    Oh yes SJT that Israeli spy must be stopped before its too late!

    ACCC Davo -- 21/07/08 (in reply to #320106622)

    Maybe the ACCC do not respond to frivilous complaints and hence you have not heard anything...

    Davo may know what frivolous is Sean -- 21/07/08 (in reply to #320107295)

    But does he know what narrow minded is?

    The answer. SJT -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106396)

    Here is your answer Carlos.

    http://www.aicc.org.au/event_detail.cfm?id=15

    An Israeli spy? James Bell -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106386)

    My apologies SJT I think I've got it now. Were you trying to tell us that Graeme is an Israeli spy?

    Got it - lol! SJT -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106397)

    No I'm afraid you'll never get it!

    Unless of course "it" is a T4 cheque!

    Hypocrisy! SJT -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106386)

    Your blind and mindless hypocrisy astonishes!

    I'm sure even your mates at T4 can't believe it?

    Broadband Countrywide David Morton Mair -- 10/07/08

    I am not a tech but feel the cheapest way to get broadband to the population in the country is to provide a wireless network that is sold at aprice equal to ADSL or less. No need to put wires underground. There may be a problem that I am not aware of but speeds of up to 20meg are said to be coming online in the next 12 months. I am a wireless user who lives in the outer suburbs of Melbourne and even there ADSL is not available

    Broadband Countrywide richard alston (not the one) -- 10/07/08 (in reply to #320106294)

    David,

    That is a very smart observation-wireless indeed is the quickest way least expensive to blanket Australia with broadband. Speeds do not have to be 12 Mbps or higher. Everything works great in the range 1.5 to 5 Mbps.

    HIghly intelegent Carlos -- 11/07/08 (in reply to #320106296)

    What frequency spectrum will we use?

    There is almost no spare spectrum and the spectrum that is available will require a base station every km or so.

    Wireless technology (including mobiles) will also be much more susceptible to three issues, these are called packet loss, latency and jitter. The reason you need to get very high bandwidth capabilities if not for simple throughput but to minimise the impact of these three issues.

    National wireless networks designed to replace fixed infrastructure will be doomed to failure for many reasons, these are just a few of these.

    *sigh* Anonymous -- 11/07/08

    It is such a shame that these articles have become a personal battleground for one-eyed antagonists.

    Is it too much to ask for informed comments discussing the actual article (shock!) without degenerating into Telstra:GOOD, Optus:BAD (or vice versa).

    You each have your own propaganda sites to play on at NWAT and TTTT - can't you leave these areas to people that want to have rational, objective discussion?

    On topic - I actually agree with the article. I'm all for faster broadband, but have yet to see any hard figures on how it is "essential for future economic prosperity". As a tax payer, I would like to know exactly how spending 4.7b is actually going to benefit the country other than political diatribe and electoral sound bites...

    Good point & I am guilty Carlos -- 11/07/08 (in reply to #320106486)

    I have posted a number of comments on this page and these seem to have been drawn into the good v evil argument.

    As to the value we will see from the $4.7B investment:

    By providing reliable, cost effective higher speed services to a much broader cross section of the country we will be able to:
    (1) Move such of the technology intensive services we deal with daily outside of the major cities into regional Australia. Imagine human call centers, data hosting etc being conducted out of Orange, Byron or Townsville helping the communities and encouraging people to stay in the community instead of moving into the overpopulated cities.
    (2) Helping people work from home, I am an example of this. I use to drive into the city every day adding an extra car to the roads, 50km in driving per day, 5 liters of petrol per day etc. I had a dial up access of years and hated it so I drove into work simply to sit in the office. I now have ADSL2+ and spend 3 days a fortnight at home saving 390 liters of petrol each year, over 150 hours of travel per year etc etc... work out the benefits to me personally, the environment, my wallet and all the other cars on the road not having to compete with me. Now imagine this times 100,000 people --> 39M liters of petrol saved each year, 15M hours of productivity saved and an average of 30,000 cars off the road every day.
    (3) ... I'll let you think of one
    (4) The medical industry, as people age we need to find better ways to access medical support. Doctors do not do house calls the way they use to and we can not always go and sit in a waiting room for hours. Imagine having a web cam at home or even a GP with a number of nurses and the doctors in another location. Cameras can be used to help with a virtual house call, nurses can take blood pressure, temperature etc. The benefits to nursing homes, regional Australia etc would be amazing.

    Back to the subject and hopefully providing some sense.

    yes but... Anonymous -- 14/07/08 (in reply to #320106523)

    I agree with most of that (except of course that much of what you are suggesting can be acheived today - but people simply don't do it) and I'm sure there are hundreds of other benefits but the issue is quantification.

    Whenever I propose capital expentidure in my business, I am expected to come up with discrete, quantified benefits to support the argument. I think it is easy to get sucked into the "cool" benefits of faster broadband without really thinking about the actual fiscal implications.

    It could turn out to be a really expensive novelty toy that just means everyone can get their porn faster. At the very least, I would like to see some evidence from the government that they have actually put some economic thought into the whole thing.

    What's next??? Giving everyone a new computer? oh wait...

    economic benefits Simon -- 24/07/08 (in reply to #320106523)

    Not many economic benefits there Carlos. We were spruiking the same things in 1998 for internet then later (2001) 3G services:

    1. telecommuting
    2. remote medical diagnotics
    3. decentralisation

    We even managed to get business to sink large amounts of cash into these great economic outcomes. Trouble was, the market didn't run with it. Telecommuting is still a tiny blip on the working population stats and unlikely to change until there is a major cultural change across management and workers in this country.
    Medical networks have been available for some time and again plagued with legal and cultural issues. Seems old people want direct human contact over technology.
    And as for decentralisation, well they've been trying that one since the days of the Albury/Wodonga experiment in the 70s. Seems that in general, businesses are not comfortable being located in regional areas. There are plenty of people looking for work in those areas but the bulk of Oz business wants to be located in or near their markets and supply chains.

    It won't without a commonsense approach Lord Watchdog -- 28/07/08 (in reply to #320106486)

    "As a tax payer, I would like to know exactly how spending 4.7b is actually going to benefit the country..."

    It won't benefit the country at all if Telstra is allowed to construct the broadband network unilaterally, assume complete ownership of it and then charge wholesale (and retail) customers a king's ransom for access.

    If the taxpayer subsidises the network's construction then they effectively become shareholders in it (I know this will upset Sydney Lawrence, Carlos and SJT due to their obvious competing pecuniary interests) and therefore the taxpayer should have their own representatives on the board of the entity controlling the broadband network and thus have a say in the setting of prices, usage allowances and restrictions and so-forth.

    Under Labor we are unlikely to gain such consessions however. There goes the commonsense element.

    As a Taxpayer Anonymous -- 28/07/08 (in reply to #320107851)

    As a Taxpayer I would like to know what SINGTEL was going to do with the 1 Billion dollars it tried to syphon??

    As a Taxpayer Anonymous -- 28/07/08 (in reply to #320107864)

    Umm possibly build a network providing wholesale broadband access to hundreds of thousands of Australians who today either have no broadband at all or very limited options?

    1,000,000,000 Tax dollars saved!! Anonymous -- 30/07/08 (in reply to #320107877)

    oh...ummm....you are refrring to the joke that was OPEless....Senator Conroy made the correct decision...saving the Taxpayer 1 Billion that would have gone to SINGTEL!!

    $1B Anonymous -- 30/07/08 (in reply to #320108023)

    From this about $510M was planned to buy the services that have already be built by Optus, this was the costs that Optus paid to build it and there was no depreciation factored in. $450M was to build new infrastructure.

    This means that $510M would have gone directly into Singtel's coffers overnight.

    How was this helping the country?

    Re: it won't Anonymous -- 05/08/08 (in reply to #320107851)

    Interesting, better not leave your amateur little internet business and become a detective, Einstein. Once again for the record I have no pecuniary interests in Telstra.

    Unlike you who claims to be a taxpayer only, when those who know better will claim otherwise, I am actually just a taxpayer.

    So once again, where does this leave your argument now fool!

    Wake up Australia. Sydney Lawrence -- 12/07/08

    Suzanne I am interested in the the qualifications of, and the genuine helpful provision of solution that these so called "experts" that you quote can really deliver for Austraia. For instance, there is a tendency to select "experts" from the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

    With due respect, these two countries are not at the top of the tree concerning super fast fibre Broadband supply. In fact to be honest they are basket cases, as is Australia at the moment, and to expect Australia to follow their advice is bit much. Follow leaders not laggards.

    Senator Conroy has a big problem. If he were to grant the NBN tender to any but Telstra he risks a disaster too horrible to consider. Cost blowouts with application for more Government hand-outs, delays in roll-out of decades not years, massive disruption to Australia's communication system and the transference of Australia's vital National Broadband Network ownership to a foreign Government.

    It is becoming clear that the motivation for those opposing Telstra and their NBN application is not to obtain the build but to play a spoiling game and wring every possible advantage for themselves while maintaining the free ride on Telstra which in itself is a serious block to competition in Australia.

    Tesltra? Simon -- 21/07/08 (in reply to #320106553)

    But Telstra won't be building the NBN if they do win the contract. The same contractors will build the NBN regarless who wins, the only difference will be who supplies the capitol, how much management overhead is charged and how the various councils deal with easments and environmental planning.
    So really, I couldn't care less who wins the contract. The NBN strategy will fail unless the structural issues for telecommunications in Australia are sorted first.
    But hey, everything is just rosey the way it is, Telstra are a great organisation that really cares for its customers and all the rest are either loonies or evil foreigners!

    Wrong again Sean -- 21/07/08 (in reply to #320107296)

    The builders may be a bunch of contractors but they will only do what is requested from the company "building the network"

    I built my own house many years ago.
    I may not have dug the foundations
    I may not have poured the concrete or laid the bricks
    I didn't hammer a single nail, paint the walls or lay the carpet.

    But I did do some important things...

    I designed the house, I chose the color schemes, I chose which parts to use, I chose all tradesmen based on past performance and I carefully monitored the construction.

    The end result was a house that was well built, that was to the highest quality within my budget and that I have lived in for 17 years with absolute joy. Even today people visiting it for the first time comment on the great design and features I put in.

    What I am saying is anyone can build a network but to get a high quality, scalable and suitable network will require a company with experience, vision and long term commitment.

    Experience Anonymous -- 24/07/08 (in reply to #320107358)

    Is there anyone left in Telstra who understands these design issues? How many of the very talented people from TRL or NDC are still at Telstra? Just what level of engineering expertise has Telstra retained?

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Blogs

  • Darren Greenwood Telecom NZ savings damage prospects
    If Telecom NZ wants to have any of the NZ$1.5 billion the government intends to spend on its new broadband network, it had better think long and hard before offshoring 1500 jobs.
  • Array iiNet: The whys and what nows
    Last week the Federal Court ruled that internet service providers are not responsible for copyright violation by their customers. This is an important decision not just for iiNet, which spent around $4 million defending the case, but for all ISPs in Australia and, indeed, globally.
  • Array Govt, hurry up with releasing data
    A programmer scraped data from the My School website to make some really cool heat maps showing regions of smart schools — no thanks to the government, which didn't supply the data in any useful kind of format.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured