DSLAM report card: Telstra tells all

Telstra will be forced to keep meticulous records on activities in its telephone exchanges, according to new regulations designed to alleviate complaints by other telcos.

The Croydon (Vic) exchange area
(Credit: Telstra)

Rivals of the nation's largest telco have complained for years about long delays to access the exchanges and Telstra's move to limit (cap) how much hardware can be installed. The other companies need access to install their own hardware, particularly DSL multiplexers (DSLAMs), which provide broadband services.

"The ACCC believes that there is a strong need for independent oversight of Telstra's processes to cap exchanges to ensure that Telstra is held accountable and access seekers are not unreasonably denied access to Telstra exchanges," said Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) chairman Graeme Samuel in a statement today.

"There is also a clear need to identify the exact cause of delays with Telstra's queuing system," he added.

Under the regulator's new rules, Telstra will have to keep records and monthly reports on its exchanges and outline the details of capping decisions and how much space is reserved by the telco for its own future requirements.

Telstra will also have to provide information on the length of queues to enter an exchange, including which companies are seeking access, where they stand in the line and how they are progressing.

The decision will help throw some light on the "keys to the exchange" argument, according to an ACCC spokesperson, and will help the regulator do its job.

"The record keeping rule will assist the ACCC in carrying out its statutory functions under the access regime in the Trade Practices Act and provide confidence to access seekers investing in competitive DSLAM infrastructure about the accuracy of Telstra's processes," Samuel said.

But Telstra said the rule will be time-consuming and expensive without helping consumers.

"The ACCC is over-reaching its powers again where no problems exist," a spokesperson for the telco said in a statement, adding that the company had already made changes itself to provide access seekers with more information on capped exchanges.

The capped exchanges won't be fixed by record-keeping, the spokesperson continued, because it was a symptom of the high demand for space in the exchanges which has been brought on by the ACCC's low pricing of the unbundled local loop and line-sharing services through which rivals use Telstra's copper.

"Sometimes there may be delays — just like there would be at a David Jones fire sale. Any delays are not deliberate and this process won't fix them."

The best thing would be to get on with the national fibre-to-the-node broadband network and stop "mucking around" with the DSL technology, according to Telstra, which in its NBN regulatory submission said it didn't want the new fibre network to have to coexist with the existing ADSL2+ network.

Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!

Advertisement

Talkback 53 comments

  1. Stand on your own two feet. Sydney Lawrence -- 14/07/08

    Never in the history of world business have competitors devised such a devious trick to obtain unfair advantage over an opponent.

    Until the Telstra opposition invest in plant and equipment and abandon the free-ride mentality Australia will never have true and fair competition.

    1. Here we go again... Anonymous -- 15/07/08

      Telstra do not own the copper, they are paid to maintain it for the nation and even then if I recall they stated that 15% of the copper network is screwed.

      People act as though Telstra has a God given right, it does not. It is a privatised entity who is charged with managing a national asset, if they don't want it anymore then seperate the retail from the wholsale and make it a wholesalers issue to get the funding.

      The sooner the ex public servants in Telstra and the dinosaurs out there realise that Telstra no longer own Australias telecommunications infrastructure lock stock and barrel, the sooner well get this mess sorted out.

    2. It's called a legislated right Rule 5: Anonymous never forgives -- 15/07/08

      The copper in the ground is now owned by Telstra.

      Like it or not this is not being maintained by the company for the country, it is being maintained by the company to retain asset value and increase returns to the shareholders who actually bought those assets from the government.

      Using your logic all of the infrastructure paid for by every carrier out there is also owned by the government and is only being maintained by the carrier on the country's behalf.

      The day that the government starts taking away private assets without just and fair compensation or choice will be the day we rename the country to be called Zimbabwe.

    3. here we go again alright Anonymous -- 15/07/08

      here we go again. you have it around the wrong way, what do you think telstra shareholders bought, leasing rights? they bought telstra's assets including the copper. where you are getting confused is there are provisions within the sale, which included access to telstra's competitors for existing fixed line. that's why mobiles aren't regulated and newer fixed investments, like the adsl2 exchanges aren't either. all blasphemy aside, no they don't have a 'god given right' but perhaps 'jc rights' though!

    4. Australian owned. Unlike some. Sydney Lawrence -- 16/07/08

      With due respect (if any is due) "Here we go again" is the silliest rant ever published in Australian journalistic history.

      Unnamed author please be advised that Australians paid 60 billion hard earned bucks for the ownership of Telstra, lock stock and barrel.

      We all understand the requirement to supply access to bottleneck situations but the ownership of the equipment resides with Telstra.

    5. Irony? TelstrSpinMakesMeDizzy -- 15/07/08

      Oh Sydney, cant you see the irony in your blind defence of all things blue and gold? Competitors ARE trying to invest, and Telstra are stopping them.

      They have devised no devious plans as your conspiracy theory alludes. They are simply asking for the access to the bottleneck infrastructure that they are entitled to by LAW.

    6. Irony! You spin you right round baby right round like a record -- 15/07/08

      The only investment bottleneck is the tight a**es at all of those companies crying poor because they don't want to invest and Telstra is making it harder for them to ride on their back. No one will stop a company from investing serious money and building truly competitive infrastructure.

      Just look at the Telstra mobile network where they built a massive network and 2 years later the other carriers are still making community service announcements about how wonderful their networks will be just as hell freezes over.

      How about the Singtel fibre cable to Tasmania, 3years, $15M of Tasmanian taxpayer funds and it is still not up and running.

      What about backhaul, today the high profit links (Syd-Mel, Syd-Bris, Mel-Adel, Adel-Per) are highly competitive but how about Adel-Dar, Per-Dar, Bris-Cairns which are ignored by all carriers except Telstra because of the low margin. Don't make claims that the infrastructure was there all along because backhaul has been increased by over 100 fold by Telstra in the past decade.

      We could look at profitability, each company releases a financial report each year. As Telstra is an Australian company the reporting must be audited.

      Troll through the facts and figures and you will find that their profitability is solid but is highest in the mobiles area, in fact this is propping up many other low profit areas making the company's overall figures look quite good.

      Isn't it funny how the most unregulated part of the industry (mobiles) is also the most competitive and successful. What does that tell you, they invest, others invest and the best company comes out ahead.

    7. irony haha Anonymous -- 15/07/08

      your not still sore at the big T over that mean mr bruem answering your stupid nwat comment with a witty reply are you precious?

    8. Not Sydney you **** You are lost -- 15/07/08

      That comment was not by Sydney! You are simply a loser who makes comments without facts or basis.

    9. Invest and compete. Sydney Lawrence -- 16/07/08

      TelstrSpinMakesMeDizzy do you not realize that if the present ACCC system continues Australia will never have true competition.

      For example, Telstra build a network, opponents demand the ACCC let them piggyback on Telstra's network at a price determined by the ACCC.

      What incentive do the parasites who feed on Telstra have to invest and build their own equipment? Time for a bit of truth and honesty in this situation I say.

    10. Parasites Simon -- 24/07/08

      I wish people would stop with the Telstra spin "parasite" or "leech". The ACCC and the Law is the domain of the Federal Govt not private enterprise. If you really believe that private companies are leeching off telstra then petition the govt and stop this churlish attack on these businesses. Access to the monopoly that is the pstn was put into law by the govt to counter the stupidity of selling telstra without first separating the infrastructure from retail. If you want to blame anyone for the mess this has cuased, blame the Howard govt not the businesses trying to deliver sharholder value or the ACCC. Or do you simply believe the rights of telstra shareholders are somehow more important than the rights of other company's shareholders?

    11. "True Competition" Anonymous -- 24/07/08

      What this country needs is true competition not the stuff OPTUS has come to know & love (& sponged off) under the Howard Government.

  2. You have to be kidding John Hamilton -- 14/07/08

    How about they also report on the true cost to maintain these exchanges, the copper in the ground and the associated maintenance programs.

    Once they report the costs on an exchange by exchange, copper pair by copper pair and call center / technician costs they they can charge the wholesale clients the true service delivery costs.

    That would never happen, the ACCC would never never enforce this rule as they know as well as everyone that all of these resellers are simply getting a cheap ride.

    1. True service delivery costs James Bell -- 14/07/08

      According to Telstra its true service delivery costs can't be any more than $19.95 as that's what they charge retail for a full telephone service, yet Telstra wanted to charge $30 for a piece of low-tech aging copper to its competitors. Where's the logic behind that? Or the logic behind wanting to rise wholesale prices by a rate over 300% to what it originally agreed upon only a few years ago?

      Oh and by the way why do you care what Telstra's "true costs" are?

    2. Oh! and why do you care? John Hamilton -- 14/07/08

      LOL James TTTT Bell. Telstra offers a service at a price as they generate income from actual calls carried on the line. It's a bit like supplying a mobile handset for $50 although it costs the company more then that they know they will generate an income from call charges. If Telstra is not going to generate call revenue from a phone line then they lose an income source and the true cost of the line becomes more evident.

      You want copper to be bequeathed or supplied at a cost that does not reflect it's true cost, you want call charges at next to no cost and interconnect fees at nothing from mobiles but plenty from fixed lines.

      You are the biggest hypocrite in this country (even more then Graeme Samuel, John Howard & co). At least we know who pays their salary and they don't deny it.

      I worked in this industry for almost 40 years with my first 22 years in Telecom, I keep across what's happening via news stories, visit this site every few weeks and own about 20,000 Telstra shares (about 5% of my share portfolio), My personal well being does not depend on the success or failure of Telstra and am not interested in trading any of the shares. Is that what you wanted to know?

    3. Strange cattle in the Circus. Sydney Lawrence -- 15/07/08

      John Hamilton your expert opinion is greatly appreciated in the endeavour to bring sense to this debate. I cannot understand how the Anti Telstra Circus do nothing to promote the virtues of their own companies but simply and continually attack Telstra. Surely their companies have something going fo them?

    4. Anti Telstra Anonymous -- 15/07/08

      A lot of us are anti telstra is because TELSTRA IS UNREASONABLE a lot of the time and they dont make it easy for us to supprot them. Just look at there IPhone pricing and everything else. It wouldnt be so bad if it didnt stick it to the customer every chance it gets with shareholders is allways right screw the customer mentality. (What happend to the customer is allways right?)

      Thank god for the competition....

    5. Anti Telstra Michael K -- 15/07/08

      I've been a happy Telstra customer for many years now. I'd rather do business with them because I believe they are the best. It's not unusual to find that an Australian company is better. You should give them a fair go and you might be surprised how good they are.

    6. YOU ARE UNREASONABLE Joe -- 15/07/08

      When Telstra is lumped with having to support a huge part of the country on their own, the unprofitable part, while they compete with 290 plus companies for the easy to deliver and high profit products and areas. People talk about the government paying a USO rebate to Telstra to maintain services in the bush but about 5 years ago Optus won this after a Liberal tender process and when they saw the cost to maintain the USO they very quickly walked away saying it would not be profitable enough for them.

      Everyone complains when Telstra is more expensive but does anyone actiually recognise them for the work they do in areas that actually cost them money to maintain.

    7. I'll tell you why I care James Bell -- 15/07/08

      I care because if people like yourself were running the ACCC then we'd all be paying more. You'd obviously allow Telstra to charge exorbitant access rates to competitors, effectively destroying what competition we have and this would then impact the costs consumers are forced to pay for such services. So unlike the Telstra supporters who post here I do actually have a legitimate reason for caring.

      Your mobile comparison is flawed because when carriers subsidise with a low or no upfront cost there's always a 12-24 contract behind it. These underlying costs well and truly guarantees them a return.

      And this still doesn't answer how Telstra could suddenly decide to do a backflip on the costs they originally agreed upon by such a significant margin, not to mention the fact that servicing ULLS requires significantly less OPEX (I'd estimate below 10%) than what their retail services are "costing" them to service.

      The notion that Telstra is being forced to provide ULLS access at below cost is a furphy.

    8. Lies Lies Lies Anonymous -- 15/07/08

      James Bell cares because he is a paid employee of the CCC/T4/Optus/Opel/Terria or another carrier. His job description includes the requirement to write a total of 5000 words attacking Telstra across a total of at least 7 different web sites. The information he has would only be able to be sourced by either someone that has either no life outside of telecommunications or one that works for one of the carriers.

    9. Blah Blah Blah Jams Bell -- 15/07/08

      Let me guess. You can't provide a decent argument so instead you resort to conspiracy theories? Either contribute to the topics being discussed or don't bother because accusing me of working for T4 etc., is getting old.

    10. Blah blah indeed, blah blah king SJT -- 15/07/08

      I can assure you I can supply you with a decent argument and having you running off tail between your legs as usual!

      Thing is, you are just too blinded by either hatred or cash for comments to recognise it.

      So really, what's the point!

    11. Love it James "cash for comments" Bell -- 15/07/08

      Now I know what to call myslef ...

    12. How about... SJT -- 16/07/08

      Even better, how about the CASH for COMMENTS CRUSADER? - CCC!

      Then you'd be just like one of your many Hel$tra hating idols, Mr. David Forman-Lundy!

    13. A+ for perseverance James Bell -- 15/07/08

      Oh no SJT.. please don't post that scary link to the Telstra Shareholder rara pack again (with disclaimers covering its inaccuracies included). ;)

      Don't worry SJT I don't hold it against you that you can't find any real evidence to support the whole "leeching" claim given the evidence could never exist to begin with, but you certainly deserve an A+ for perseverance so well done!

    14. An A+ for SJT and an F for James, sounds right - cheers! SJT -- 15/07/08

      Ok as you wish - I will be like you from now on and not supply any links, proof, facts, opinions, but still claim I am "always unquestionably right" and those dopey experts wrong (ooh sorry, on the oppositions payroll) - lol!

      A much deserved all round A+ for SJT, thanks for realising it my friend and a much deserved F minus for James Bell.

    15. Re: A+ SJT -- 16/07/08

      Sorry one more link for the blind nay saying, paid antagonist, before I do like James and not supply any facts - lol!

      CommsDay July 10 2008 - ... "the problem for the ACCC is that its separate accounting separation process throws up a similar bunch of figures to the TEA ones: it indicates that LINE RENTAL and basic DSL services RUN AT A TREMENDOUS LOSS, and that the differential is made up mostly with timed voice services and, presumably, various value-added charges (unmeasured, as it so happens, by the current process).To accept the output of the TEA model as even being faintly connected to the truth has enormous ramifications for the access regime—indeed the veracity of all regulated prices"...

      For the full story: -
      http://www.commsday.com/comment/reply/242

      So once again, I reiterate - "LEECHES"!

      Oh sorry that's right, although most everyone else in Telecoms recognises Grahame Lynch as a most knowledgeable telecoms expert, "you do not"! So somehow in that most biased head of yours, that alone conveniently gives you the right to blindly refuse to accept any of the the "facts supplied by Mr. Lynch"! And then have the audacity to again refute the leeching claims and the again ask for proof, which you will once again, just blindly ignore. What a wonderful catch 22 type excuse system, you have going - lol!

      Ooh, this also further shows ss to be disadvantageous, because the "losses" caused by these "leeches" are currently being subsidised from other areas. However, under ss these other areas would become totally separate companies and such subsidisation could no longer occur. Which means??? C'mon you can work it out!

      The "added costs" will simply be passed down the line and inevitably paid for by the consumer - you and I. Making ss, more consumer "unfriendly and costly"!

    16. A+ for effort and nothing more James Bell -- 16/07/08

      Well done SJT. You've found another link by one of your 3 self-appointed experts. Besides being a journalist who doesn't even live in this country, but publishes articles for Comms Day, what else do you know about him? I know very little more about him and without the intention of discrediting Grahame certainly don't see how his opinions are of any greater significance than those of the many other journalists from other sites such Australian IT, APC Mag, ZDNet etc.. In fact as far as I'm concerned even your own views hold no less merit than Grahame's, and even if he were to have experience in the Telco field it doesn't mean he has a comprehensive understanding of Telstra's costs to in fact prove anything. You may as well post one of Phil Burgess's speeches next and claim that to be "proof" as well.

      SJT you'll never have the proof because it simply doesn't exist and is a figment of your imagination. I honestly beleive even Telstra knows it's a furphy which is why it couldn't convince two separate, independent statutory bodies that it's proposed $30 ULLS charge was reasonable.

      I can't believe you're posting here essentially trying to argue why Telstra should be able to charge more!

    17. T4/James ~ F minus for absolutely everything and lucky to get that! SJT -- 16/07/08

      Your strange logic I'm sure, even amazes your brethren Telstra bashers. Likening an independent expert's opinions and those of Phil Burgess! Of course Phil Burgess like Paul O'Sullivan and James Bell will all be biased towards their respective companies. Phil - Telstra, Paul - Optus and you the T4! That's bleedin' commonsense - DER! Ooh sorry, I do understand you do not possess commonsense!

      Anyway... I see you totally ignored my questions (as usual). SO AGAIN - do you use the same cheapest is best logic with everything you buy? Refer to Yes in deed commonsense for a wake up call and then ANSWER THE QUESTION!

      Then also tell me which hypocrite you actually are.

      Also for the 3rd time, you forwarded some lovely figures compiled by James Bell, but where's the PROOF, PROOF, PROOF? Thought I'd say it 3 times as once or twice doesn't seem to register with you T4 types! BTW - my expert may not be to your liking, but at least I have one, no two, no three - ROFL.

      From the, well what do you know files: --

      8th Annual Media, Entertainment and Telecom Awards 2008 (last night).

      Best Telecoms Company of the year - TELSTRA
      Best International carrier - TELSTRA international
      Best regional Service provider - TELSTRA Country Wide

      And what about these doozies: -

      CEO of the year - Sol Trujillo (TELSTRA)
      Best COO - Greg Winn (TELSTRA)
      Best CCO - Dr Phil Burgess (TELSTRA)

      And to rub salt, so to speak

      2008 Hall of Fame - Sol Trujillo (TELSTRA)

      Hmmm, do you see a pattern forming? Probably not , so if you need a hint it starts with T but isn't your paymasters - lol!

    18. Oh Dear (again) James Bell -- 16/07/08

      The evidence I have used is as clear as day on Telstra's webite (i.e their retail pricing), and I've posed links in the past which confirm both the ACCC and Australian Competition Tribunal's outcomes towards Telstra's proposed ULLS pricing, along with their reasons behind the determinations.

      Thanks for informing me of Telstra's success in the 8th Annual Media, Entertainment and Telecom rara Awards. If Phil Burgess is winning anything then it immediately raises concerns, but upon looking at the results they didn't win best broadband service did they? ;)

      And many of us know that Sol is one of the most controversial CEO's not only in Australia but the world. For those interested I highly recommend reading through the history of his Wikipedia entry. Simply look him up and click on the "history" tab at the top of the page. It's had some rather disturbing entries. Classifying the level of service to provide customers based on the average household income was one controversy he's particularly famous for from his old US West Days.

      p.s If you want to use a real analogy to compare Telecommunications to I suggest moving away from clothing brands and cars considering the "Internet" does not change regardless of your provider. Gas and Electricity services are more suitable comparisons and yes I am more than happy to pay less for gas/electricity.

    19. 4 (T4 perhaps) of your lamest paragraphs yet! SJT -- 16/07/08

      Replies to your possibly lamest 4 paragraphs yet: -
      # 1 no proof again
      # 2 no Telstra didn't win best bb, they won everything else and thought it only fair to leave one award for your second rate paymasters
      # 3 the Wiki entry (as you well know) was hatcheted (doctored) with lies and has had many fictional quotes removed! But don't let that stop you still spreading those very same lies! Perhpas I just found the culprit? Sol T - Hall of fame 2008 - hmmm
      #4 HYPOCRITE & HYPOCRITE

    20. The great thing about Wiki Anonymous -- 17/07/08

      It records the person's IP address, all we need now is James' IP address and we can do a search to see what he has written about his employers and Telstra.

    21. Re: The great thing about Wiki James Bell -- 17/07/08

      I believe one of the ip addresses responsible came from Telstra's NextG network ;)

    22. Re: #3 James Bell -- 17/07/08

      #3 The information surrounding the consumer-fraud lawsuit against US West is well documented on the internet SJT. It's not just something a person made up and decided to post on Wikipedia.

      http://www.westword.com/2000-07-06/news/colorado-misses-the-call/full

    23. Easy SJT -- 17/07/08

      That's easily explained, I now simply do a James and refute the author as biased, on the payroll or just plain wrong.

      Then bluntly refuse to accept any info from him, as proof, easy - lol!

    24. @ oh dear again zoran distrevski -- 17/07/08

      ive been reading the james bell sjt fued but dont really know whos right or whos wrong or if there is a right or wrong. i dont want to argue, but i think sjts prices question and your answer you gave od james. i think internet does change and that could be the problem. i used to have a dial up but have adsl. used to be in front of a monitor, but have a card and can use my laptop remote. and premium products, acces to technicil advise and wire less coverage. its gas and electricity that are always the same but always getting dearer not internet. so im not looking to argue with you, but i can't see the lodgic you are trying to make. why dont you just answer the qeustion of if you always buy the cheapest or not. its easy you do or dont and also answer if you write about other companys who are dearer. you do or dont to. maybe you do have different rules for telstra than others but because you dont like them just dont see it. thanks and sorry if i have said anything wrong.

    25. Re: @ oh dear again James Bell -- 17/07/08

      Zoran,

      Apologies if my previous post did not make sense to you. Last night I was held up at the airport for almost 4 hours due to a delayed flight and when you're stuck at an airport there's not much else to do besides consume copious amounts of alcohol, so it is certainly quite possible I didn't succinctly explain my argument.

      The point I was trying to make was that regardless who is responsible for building and running the NBN the only significant variance consumers can expect to receive is the price. There's only ever going to be one fixed line NBN as there is not the need, nor the demand for multiple NBN's in this country. The government has set relatively clear guidelines as to what it expects to be delivered from the NBN, particularly in terms of minimum speed requirements, so naturally the winning submission will be required to deliver on these requirements. Let's face it there's not going to be any large variances between the types of networks the various NBN contenders are going to propose (unless a dark horse proposes FTTH which I suppose is possible), so it's predominantly going to come down to bang for buck, ownership, regulation and the open access environment.

      If we then go back to the analogies (and to answer your question) with regard to whether or not I simply buy the cheapest things I can find the answer is no. I happen to have a passion for very fast cars, but I don't see our existing ADSL infrastucture being comparible to Ferrari's to Datson's. My Internet service is currently supplied by Optus, which I believe to be relatively good value, but I'm sure you are aware there are many cheaper providers out there. My concern is that if ULL access rates were to go up then every single one of these providers would be forced to increase their prices. From a functional perspective the ADSL you receive from your provider is unlikely to be all that different from the ADSL you would receive with any other service provider. Yes there may be differences with the customer service, billing, content services etc. you receive at a retail level but this is not relevant in the wholesale world because with an open access network you're still free to choose your provider and pay for those respective services. The key difference is that the final amount you will be spending (regardless of provider) is largely dependent on the wholesale rates these providers are required to pay. If the company that wins the NBN tender is expecting an unreasonably high ROI then we will all suffer.

    26. If the ULL price went up Ding Dong -- 17/07/08

      Some of these companies may decide to invest into some infrastructure themselves instead.

      You are learning James, if you can't blame Telstra then blame the alcohol.

    27. Enzo Bell? (A most jealosu) SJT -- 17/07/08

      Oh it's so much clearer now, James.

      You want to save a few cents per day on bb, to put towards a new Lambo, to park in your garage next to the Ferrari and Porsche. Your jornalistic pursuits are apparently most profitable?

      But I thought you were the voice of the "average man"?

      So I'll keep an eye out for a red Ferrari with "JB$T4" plates and a black Porsche with "Ih8 tlstra" plates.

      But good luck to you, I really am just jealous this time.

    28. Delivery costs - but "why do you care" - lol! SJT -- 15/07/08

      Typical ridiculous James comment - "why do you care" - lol. He's used that a lot lately, must be an addendum in the T4 bible of inconsistencies, stalling and clouding, outlining how to get out of a sticky question - lol!

      Why don't you care (being the self proclaimed consumers hero) that a lot of telecoms analysts and SingTel - Singapore, are saying structural (ss) separation, would increase consumer costs? BT's CEO Mr. Livingston, who has been through the whole array of separation issues, saying ss "isn't the answer"?

      But of course you "will blindly believe" heaps of Telstra's competitors who love the idea of Telstra's ss, surprise, surprise! Seems you are anti-Telstra, Pro-TERRiA, anti-consumer to me!

      You say, according to Telstra, delivery costs can't be any more than $19.95 - you need to supply proof!!!!!

    29. All it takes is a little common sense SJT James Bell -- 15/07/08

      Unlike you SJT it would seem I care about what I'm spending for the services I receive.

      In relation to your comments regarding "ss" you also fail to mention that there are already three competing fixed networks in Singapore, or the obvious fact that Singapore has a vastly different population density than Australia allowing for multiple fixed line networks. We could go even further to talk about how Singapore is also in the middle of their own NBN process where SingTel has actually submitted its bid as part of a consortium in a model comparible to that of Terria.

      Besides the fact that it's not I, but Telstra that has failed to supply any proof of how ULLS costs them any more to service than what the ACCC and ACT (yes I'm sure everyone in these organisations must be corrupt..*yawn*) have determined as being reasonable, all it takes is a little common sense SJT.

      Telstra Fixed Line Retail: $19.95
      Costs: Copper, pillars, exchanges, all the internal Telstra PSTN architecture (which is extensive), Advertising, Billing, All the call centre work (i.e Activations, Billing Enquiries, Service Assurance, Retention, etc), Financial/Credit services, Techs, Network support etc. etc. etc.

      ULLS Wholesale: $30 (proposed by Telstra)
      Costs to Telstra: Copper, pillars, exchange (space only & equipment supplied by provider), billing, techs, some network support

      Ok I know I haven't covered every single area that would be a cost to Telstra here (in either example), but as it's easy to see the costs associated with providing ULLS access are going to be significantly less.

      Or we could simply compare the proposed $30 to the $7 which Telstra was happy to charge until late 2005 before it realised ULL was actually taking off.

    30. Yes indeed commonsense - how about you try it, even just once! SJT -- 15/07/08

      Lol James (F minus) you seem to care what you are spending on? Now you are having to steal my argument - lol.

      I have said all along, I want value. But if value to you means cheapest is best, fair enough. To me value = product + service + support/price. Unlike you, I refuse to reward cheap and nasty shoddiness. As such my biggest gripe is, the T4 intelligentsia such as yourself, not only promote cheap and nasty, but then ridicule Telstra for them offering value, but at a price. You do understand that no matter what you buy, someone has to be the dearest and someone the cheapest, that's commonsense. It's the value for money that needs to be determined.

      As I asked elsewhere, do you use the same warped cheapest is best, logic with eveything you purchase? Do you wear $200 Nike joggers, when you could buy a similar pair from Kmart for $25, no name sunnies or Oakley's, drive a Merc when a beep beep Barina will get you from a - b just as admirably? If you don't buy cheapest everything, then you must be a hypocrite to accuse but not practice what you preach, my friend.

      If you do buy cheapest of everything, good for you and I'm not belittling you at all. But do you then go to every blog and forum under the sun to accuse Nike, Oakley and Merc of being greedy and evil, because they are more expensive. If not, once again you are a hypocrite.

      Either way, the hypocrite accusation is looking most incriminating, aye?

      Yes nice figures, nice dates and nice rhetoric - all supplied by JB, but where's the actual P-R-O-O-F?

      Bye for now SJT (A+) - thanks again for the A+!

    31. $19.95 v $30 Anonymous -- 16/07/08

      Building a separate call center to handle only wholesale clients?

      Interconnections build to communicate between carriers?

      Managing a wholesale churn centre on behalf of all companies? Even if they go from AAPT to Request Telstra manages the change!

      Loss of retail income on that line?

      Some network support? This is even greater network support as testing equipment must now cater for different hardware vendors based on each wholesale provider's chosen hardware supplier.

      The pre 2005 $7 fee was based on an ACCC determination several years earlier that Telstra could not even think of requesting a review until 2005.

      Why do you have access to so many (rubbery) facts and figures but choose only to show the ones that support your cause? Your credibility would be greatly enhanced if you bade comments based on an unbiased perspective instead of giving the impression that every time we see the name James Bell we know another bank deposit was made.

    32. Oh come on.. James Bell -- 16/07/08

      Oh come on! You know damn well the cost to have a team of 15 contractors or whatever it is they have in Telstra wholesale is going to be substantially less than the multiple teams of call centre staff required to support their retail services. The Network and IT support costs are also significantly less from a ULLS perspective as there is less than 1/5th the hardware architecture to support, and it's low tech hardware at that!

      Instead of questioning why I don't want higher prices why do you support Australia's largest multi-billion dollar corporation charging more for these services?

    33. Retail losses James Bell -- 16/07/08

      Not to mention any loss of retail income being completely irrelevant because
      a) It's a declared asset which all competitors are entitled to access
      and
      b) The retail income loss is being replaced with wholesale income, which also entails significant OPEX savings

    34. Yes income loss Anonymous -- 17/07/08

      For every dollar they lose in retail income they may gain 15c in wholesale income while only reducing costs by 50c. in other words wholesale does cost them a huge amount of real profits.

      You and a handful of paid for posters & disgruntled IT geeks will never see the forest from the trees.

  3. The good old days... Anonymous -- 15/07/08

    I liked the good old days when everyone hated telstra (for good reason) and no one was stupid enough to try to defend them.

    1. quick over to tttt then Anonymous -- 15/07/08

      well the party is over and the truth is out. most people apart from dopey geeks and you stupid, are starting to realise it!

    2. People are awake to Anti Telstra propaganda. Sydney Lawrence -- 16/07/08

      As the great Bob Dylan said "the times they are a changin". Change with them Anon or get left behind.

    3. Cost V Quality. Sydney Lawrence -- 17/07/08

      Zoran Distrevski like you I am enthralled with the conversational discourse between SJT and James.

      It is extremely thought provoking and entertaining. Referring to your thoughts on the cost of services and the selection of various price offers from providers, perhaps the following true story may be enlightening.

      A short time ago a friend from the U.K. arrived in Brisbane, obtained a van and purchased a mobile phone. She obtained the phone from Vodafone as it offered the cheapest price.

      As she proceeded on her drive to Cairns she discovered that her mobile was useless as there was no Vodafone network signal. She then, on advice, purchased a Telstra Next G phone which delivered suitable results.

      This demonstrate that while costs are important it is sometimes folly to buy on price alone. Usually you get what you pay for.

    4. BB Simon -- 21/07/08

      While thats a great story for 3G mobile phones, this has nothing to do with internet access and the NBN debate. Ive been a Telstra customer and have churned several times since. I discussed options with friends and relatives and have been with GoTalk for some years now.
      My point is that although the price varied from rip-off to cheap, there was not much to differrentiate the services of the different providers. My current service costs less than half of my previous Telstra service but the service is better and billing is correct.
      As I regard internet access as a commodity, my selection is made on price - as it is with all commodities.

    5. Amen brother! Anonymous -- 13/08/08

      "My current service costs less than half of my previous Telstra service but the service is better and billing is correct.
      As I regard internet access as a commodity, my selection is made on price - as it is with all commodities."

      Hear hear!!!

Add your opinion


Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Angus Kidman Storage infrastructure on the tender track
    For a large-scale storage project, it's not uncommon to go out to tender for the best deal — but when was the last time you had to put together a tender for a document management room?
  • Array Apple has killed the video store; will ISPs be next?
    The Olympics are nearly over, and the Australian team deserves kudos for an excellent performance all around. Yet even as the Olympic sun sets on the Bird's Nest for the last time this weekend, millions of spectators around the world will be scanning their dials in the hope of finding something else to fill their viewing hours.
  • Array Conroy's filtering plan: security worries
    Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has welcomed "improvements" in ISP filtering technologies, but will a broad-scale roll-out make ISPs a thief's favourite target?
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured

  • iPhone Launch Centre

    iPhone Launch Centre
    The ZDNet.com.au iPhone resource guide contains everything you need to know about Apple's highly anticipated mobile device.