G9 closer to fibre network than Telstra

Telstra's rivals now have a "more developed" proposal for a national fibre broadband network than the giant telco has ever had, according to the national competition regulator.

The group of telcos known as the G9 -- Optus, Telecom New Zealand (AAPT/PowerTel), iiNet, Macquarie Telecom, Internode, Primus, Soul and TransACT -- initially detailed their proposal some 10 months ago, and are still putting the finishing touches on the plan.

"I think it's fair to say the G9 appear to have a more developed proposal than we ever saw from Telstra," Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Graeme Samuel told a telecommunications user group conference in Sydney this morning. Telstra cancelled its own talks over a new national fibre network with the ACCC in August last year.

Samuel said the G9 members had been providing information to the ACCC on their infrastructure model, financial and proposed telco access arrangements to the network once it was built. The group is preparing to lodge a formal proposal -- known as a special access undertaking -- with the ACCC to detail those terms in the second quarter of this year.

Although Telstra has backed away from further discussion about its own proposal, Samuel said he would "always welcome" a resumption of talks with the telco.

"It is certainly in the interests of all Australians to have some competitive tension between the parties looking at rolling out fibre to the node," said Samuel.

The ACCC boss said in any discussions about a fibre rollout, the regulator would ensure that several fundamental principles applied.

Firstly, transparency in the process would be crucial. "No deals will be done with any carrier behind closed doors," said Samuel. "All proposals must be put forward for public consultation at the appropriate time."

Secondly, network builders will need to strike a balance between the interests of potential access seekers (such as rival telcos), and investors' need for a rate of return commensurate with market risk.

And lastly, the ACCC would preserve the confidentiality of any discussions before a proposal is made public.

"This will maximise the competitive tension between parties, leading to the best outcome for end users," said Samuel.

Advertisement

Talkback 41 comments

    Telstra and G9. Sydney Lawrence -- 08/03/07

    Can Mr Samuel be serious when he states that he would seriously consider the G9 proposal. Firstly the G9 would be a monopoly where competition to it would be banned. This is surely opposed to every principle espoused by the Howard Government and the ACCC. This is a childish, stupid bluff with the chance of finding an investor to risk their billions of dollars in a scheme bound to fail practically zero. Please Mr Howard get out of the way and let Telstra deliver high speed broadband to Australians for the sake of Australia's future.

    Telstra & G9 Anonymous -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075878)

    Even combined all the ISP's that make up G9 do not match the monopoly of Telstra. The only company holding back broadband in Australia is Telstra... They could release ADSL2 to many exchanges, they don't. They could of released FTTN they didn't. They claim that they will have to give up use of this technology to competitors yet they don't even seek a special access undertaking.

    G9 and Telstra Dave Fagan -- 13/03/07 (in reply to #320075879)

    Anonymous, you speak loud but you do not want your name attached. GUTLESS and PATHETIC I SAY.

    Telstra & G9 Anonymous -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075878)

    Even combined all the ISP's that make up G9 do not match the monopoly of Telstra. The only company holding back broadband in Australia is Telstra... They could release ADSL2 to many exchanges, they don't. They could of released FTTN they didn't. They claim that they will have to give up use of this technology to competitors yet they don't even seek a special access undertaking.

    Telstra and G9 Charles G. -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075878)

    Hilarious. The entire point of Telstra's FTTN plan was so that they could re-monopolise access to the copper network. When they weren't allowed to do this, they scrapped the whole idea. Just as well, as it would have wiped out the millions of dollars of investments into DSLAMs that other ISPs had made. (Investments which, if they weren't made, would have left us at 1.5mbit max speed.)

    The entire point of the G9 plan is to equalise access to the copper network. All ISPs, regardless of whether they are the 800 pound gorilla (Telstra) to mid size ISPs building their own network (Internode, iiNet) to the tiny bottom of the market resellers (Dodo) will be able to access it for the same cost.

    If they weren't guaranteed a monopoly, who's to say that Telstra wouldn't come along and build a new network, and sell access to it at below cost (underwritten by the billions of dollars in the bank)? This would result in undercutting G9/Speedreach and sending them into financial trouble, then once they are gone, Telstra can raise their prices back up to their current overpriced rates.

    G9 Proposal Dave Fagan -- 13/03/07 (in reply to #320075881)

    I can understand that we do not need monopolies. However, we do not need taxpayers money given as freebies either. I will tell you that the huge number of ISP's will be 'fly by nighters' once the money dries out.
    Also, take controls off Telstra (the most highly regulated company in Australia). The Gov't sold off the Network to people like me. I own a piece of the copper network and if others want to use it, fine, but pay me a reasonable return. I wouldn't let swatters in my house for free, why should I let the Gov't and ACCC use my asset for others to use for FREE?

    Be honest Sydney Charles G. -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075878)

    By the way Sydney, it would be nice if you would be open about the fact that you are a Telstra shareholder and part of their astro-turfing group:

    http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/Home/PageBlog.aspx?mid=293

    Telstra and G9 Sydney Lawrence -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075882)

    Charles G... please be advised that I am not a holder of Telstra shares, am a retired person not employed or provisioned by Telstra in any way. Your argument must be very weak when you resort to personal attacks on any person who does not agree with your point of view. I would simply ask again, how could the Federal Government or the ACCC condone or support a plan to establish a business, as proposed by the G9, that would make that business a cartel and monopoly with Government regulation to ban any competition to it. I was under the impression that this situation was exactly what Mr Howard and Mr Samuel were trying to oppose. It is true that I have established a group of people who are interested in Telstra, mainly the 1,600,000 shareholders, the 45,000 Telstra employees, the millions of Australians with an investment in Telstra via their superannuation and of course every man, woman and child in Australia who own the billions of dollars in Telstra shares held for them in the Future Fund. I am a fifth generation Australian and have no hesitation to back and support a great Australian company when it is under threat from foreign owned opponents. Much the same as the support Qantas is getting from the Howard Government at the moment I suppose.

    Page on NWAT Charles G. -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075886)

    If you aren't a Telstra shareholder, you may wish to get this page corrected - http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/Home/PageBlog.aspx?mid=293 - which claims that you are: "In for the long haul, Syd has been a Telstra shareholder since the first T1 float in 1997, and maintains a long-term and loyal interest in the company."

    PWNED! Matt Reid -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075889)

    LOL....nice one mate! :-)

    In regards to the story; if the G9 want to bring fast broadband onto the market why should we want to stop them? It will only benefit all Australians in the long term, and it might make Telstra sit up and realise they should stop having a tantrum in the corner and get back to business.

    People complain about the international interests of the G9, but i think you'll find that up to 35% of Telstra shares can be foreign owned. Telstra used to be the big Australian, but now it is part owned AND run by internationals.

    Ban All Competition. Sydney Lawrence -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075893)

    Matt... I notice that you make no mention of the request by G9 that the Government legislate to ban competition to the G9 cartel.

    Duplication Anonymous -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075906)

    You either get Telstra to build the network or G9. You do not want to duplicate like what happened to cable. I favour the G9 consortium because they are going to let anyone use the network at the same price. Telstra wants to lock everyone out of their FTN network.
    Or it becomes a national project and the Federal government builds it like they do with national roads.

    Uh huh Matt Reid -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075906)

    Even if that were true, how does it differ from what Telstra proposed with their own FTTN?

    You should stop regurgitating the propaganda and untruths force fed to you via Telstras spin doctors and look at the hard facts. The G9 have proposed a next generation fibre network which will benefit the telecoms sector (and consumers) for years to come, yet all telstra is interested in is how to increase profits (and keep the competition out).

    When it comes down to it would you rather:

    a) A single company running the show with no competition.

    or

    b) A group of nine companies controlling a single network, yet individually competing for customers like any normal healthy market should.

    It's not rocket science.

    "Cartel"? Charles G. -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075906)

    I have to love the newspeak that Telstra is coming up with. Is using the word "cartel" one of the suggestions in the Telstra Shareholder's "Astroturfing for Dummies" book?

    A cartel uses methods such as "price fixing, limiting supply, or other restrictive practices". The G9 is going to open up access to broadband to all companies equally - something which is not happening now, as Telstra gives priority to its Bigpond arm over other ISPs.

    A Great Company! Rex Alfie Lee -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075886)

    Well Sydney, your wires are truly crossed if you think Telstra is a great company. Once upon a time it was, in the days when they pumped resources into R & D & collected the dividends from almost every telecommunications company in the world. But to call this toilet of a company that malingers on every step, that does turnarounds at every bend, cheats customers when being checked by ACCC by putting up temporary towers in the country then pulling them down when they're gone & grizzling constantly about a system that was laid in place before they became a non-Gov't institution & was a part of the reality. Remember something, everything Telstra has, Telstra got because it was a monopoly & all of it belonged to us, the people of Australia. When Mr Howard screwed us all by selling Telstra as if it wasn't ours, the basis of Telstra's industry was already there. They had to do little. Now, run by another American CEO who devastated 2 companies before coming here to do the same thing with Telstra & openly admits he couldn't give a stuff about service, rather the shareholders; I tell you this is un-Australian. We give a damn about the poor bastards who need our help but this Yankie Doodle cares about business. Fullstop!

    To call this company a great company - yeah right! I call them scum!

    Solutions. Sydney Lawrence -- 09/03/07 (in reply to #320075941)

    Oh dear Rex... what can I say. Probably express my sadness and regret that you are obviously a bitter and twisted person. Your tirade of hatred for Telstra demonstrates that you are not thinking rationally and are seemingly driven by some personal happening in your life that has clouded your judgement. That aside the undeniable facts are these.
    1. Telstra is one of Australia's largest companies.
    2. Every Australian has a financial interest in Telstra and in it's financial well being.
    3. Australia desperately needs fast broadband and only Telstra has the capabilities to provide this service.
    4. Present Telstra management has guided the company successfully to a quality rebirth.
    5. Opponents profess to want competition and yet the G9 proposal has requesting the Howard Government to legislate to ban opposition to G9. This is crazy.
    6. It is in Australia's interests to allow Telstra to build the FTTN and allow them to receive a commercial return on their investment. I believe Prime Minister Howard will allow this to happen and solve the present problem.

    In the calm light of day ... Mike -- 09/03/07 (in reply to #320075959)

    Sydney

    Look again at "your" Telstra - it is subsidised by millions of Australians (who get no dividends or paychecks from Telstra) and have no choice but to pay Telstra for their local line connection.

    Telstra looks like a blood sucking leach on society from my perspective.

    Lets drop all this extremist support for an un-Australian Icon

    Solutions? mike smith -- 27/03/07 (in reply to #320075959)

    Ok, let's skip the ad hominem attacks on Rex.

    1 - True.
    2 - False - check the shareholder register.
    3 - False
    4 - Arguable. Look at the share price.
    5 - True, but I cant see them getting it.
    6 - False. It was bad enough to sell the local loop infrastructure as part of Telstra, and it would be really bad to have Telstra own the fibre infrastructure, particularly if it is constructed with taxpayer or Future Fund money.

    Monopoly FTTN Greg Alexander -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075878)

    I agree that the G9 proposal is a monopoly. The advantage of this monopoly is that it's not mixing monopoly & competitive practices - so there'll be no confusion as to whether the wholesale price is fair.

    However - it is still a monopoly. We need to minimise that as much as possible. As such, I can only hope that the G9 starts by building in areas with the slowest broadband, including buying out Telstra's existing RIMs at fair value.

    I know the proposal is to leave the 1.5km around each exchange to the existing ADSL2+ competitive system - is it possible to make that further out (2km?) for the first couple of years, then add the closer nodes?

    ps. I also believe that in some areas Telstra will use its cable network, with DOCSIS3 speeds, as a competitor to the G9. What effect will that have on the networks returns etc?

    1.5km limit Charles G. -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075890)

    I believe the 1.5km limit was a feature of the Telstra FTTN but I'm not sure if it is relevant to this one - not 100% on this though. Under the Telstra plan, households more than 1.5km from the exchange would be served by cabinets (or nodes, the N in FTTN) similar to RIM cabinets, whereas ones closer than 1.5km would be served by the exchange as it is now.

    As far as I know the Telstra cable network will be unaffected - although if they do join up with the G9 to build the network it could become apart of it, as all existing G9 members will be offering up their existing infrastructure as part of the network - for example, TransACT's cable network in Canberra.

    Telstra and G9 Anonymous -- 08/03/07

    Syd, lets get some facts strraight.

    1) It would appear you are a staright out liar and in fact a Telstra shareholder.

    2) It is unfortunate that Telstra is misleading people in the general public to do their campaigning for them. As someone who works in the industry, it is very simple to see through the barrage of half truths and straight out deceptions and lies that Telstra releases to the public. On the face value, often what Telstra says appears true or believable if you don't have experience in the industry. Obviously you are an intelligent, enthusiastic and passionate person, I only hope you can look into these lies perpetuated by Telstra and focus your energies onto something that is actually honest and constructive.

    Most of the companies you mention as being Foreign owned in fact are not, such as iiNet, Soul, Internode, and more, and many are listed on the ASX and available for you to invest in.

    Please consider the brilliant work that is being done by these companies, which is the only thing which keeps Telstra upgrading any facilities or services. There would be no ADSL2+ Broadband in Australia without these small Australian companies, and the significant investments they are making. Ultimately, Telstra still is not providing ADSL2+ to its 2000+ enabled exchanges due to its own stubborness.

    Regards

    Competition. Sydney Lawrence. -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075913)

    Anon... I would have expected that with your fervent beliefs you would be prepared to have your identity published. As I have previously stated I do not own any Telstra shares. However this is besides the point and would you be so kind as to answer this question. Your statement that Telstra is a monopoly is quite wrong and I wonder, considering the number of Telcos in the business, how you can justify this assertion. Telstra wants and welcomes competition it just is hesitant to subsidise and assist it's opponents. It would appear that you are the one that is fearful of competition and expect the ACCC to be your saviour and defender. Best wishes to you in your endeavours and let the customer decide who survives in the Industry.

    Competition Charles G. -- 08/03/07 (in reply to #320075917)

    You say "Telstra is a monopoly is quite wrong and I wonder, considering the number of Telcos in the business, how you can justify this assertion."

    Telstra has a monopoly over the CAN (copper network / customer access network).

    For 95% of these ISPs, Telstra gets minimum $45 a month from every customer. (minimum $20 line rental, minimum $25 DSLAM port fee, and maybe more that I can't think of off the top of my head).

    And for the few ISPs who have customers on their own DSLAM ports, Telstra gets at least $28 a month per customer ($20 line rental and the line access fee - I'm not sure what it is, but $8 is conservative. In addition to this, there are site costs for DSLAM space (rack space, air conditioning, etc) which must be paid to Telstra.

    Telstra could have 0% retail market share and still be making a huge profit from broadband. What incentive does it have to compete on retail value or quality of service? None, so it offers as little as it can for as much as it can.

    no shareholder???? Wouter -- 09/03/07 (in reply to #320075917)

    You know me Syd and you know how much I dislike the lies on NWAT; is this another example? Or did you sell your Tel$tra shares?
    Found this post by Sydney Lawrence.:-

    by Sydney Lawrence, Tuesday, 3 October 2006

    Poppy, surely you jest? One thing I can tell you, when you claim to speak for shareholders, you don't speak for me or my family and friends who are also Telstra's shareholders.

    Sydney = Owned Again Anonymous -- 24/03/07 (in reply to #320075963)

    The hypocrisy from the NWAT camp is astounding.

    "It would appear that you are the one that is fearful of competition and expect the ACCC to be your savior and defender. Best wishes to you in your endeavors and let the customer decide who survives in the Industry."

    Are you really that clueless of an idiot? The customer CAN'T DECIDE who survives in the industry OTHER THAN TELSTRA with the current situation.

    The 'G9' would give a personal at least NINE PROVIDERS TO CHOOSE THEIR PSTN FROM. Currently all copper services ARE FROM TELSTRA, and hence why, ridiculously prices in comparison to other countries, and the rollout of new technologies is non-existent.

    Providers can’t roll out new technologies due to Telstra’s restrictive practices, and technology stoppers (eg, RIMS).

    re: Competition Anonymous -- 09/03/07 (in reply to #320075917)

    Syd, I never said anything about Telstra being a monopoly in my comments. Go back and re-read my post, perhaps you are responding to too many comments at once on behalf of Dr Phil and his campaign of deception. Seriously, this NWAT campaign of lies needs to stop its just ridiculous. Any why do you support a group of Americans running this great Australian company. Do you think Telstra plays fair, have a look at the articles today about how Telstra is charging its own Telstra owned stores lower wholesale costs than Telstra Licencsed stores run by franchisees. Oh, and by the way it forces Telstra stores to purchase mobile handsets from Brightstar, a company in which Sol has an interest, and which whose contract was never put out to tender for others to compete with. This is Sol double dipping and ripping money out of Australia and into his and his friends own pockets. Take a look Syd, its hard to believe something that goes so against basic procurement guidelines could happen but it is.

    anyone with more power will exploit it Anonymous -- 09/03/07

    You know this could of been solved if the underground communication cables or/and where they where laid remained the property of the Australian public and sold Telstra without them (if it is true about Telstra owning these things and/or rights). And any one who accessed these lines to provide a service had to pay their equal share to maintain them(Be it by the amount of users using them). But we all know Telstra would not have proberly sold so well even if they wanted to in the first place. And i doubt that not duplicating the lines is going to solve the problem just as duplicating is going to solve it.

    And deregulation is only good if there is more non co-operative competitive competition that is not a stalemate competitive environment. And dose not have to pay their competition to use the only lines (in this case) that supplies the services that they want to supply at their prices which makes everyones else plans more expensive than there own. We deregulated the banks to open a more competitive environment even if its not the same subject look how that became more competitive and cheaper and it is not the only thing we deregulated.

    I have a feeling (as again if this is true ) that if Telstra even got an unregulated competition environment as long as they gave up any/its ownership of the underground communication cables or/and where they where laid so no competition can go against them except where they use Telstra's own lines where they can charge their line fees

    Like where i am now at least 30-33 km away from Sydney CBD and the only viable cheapest - fastest - high data allowance plan is only on a certain "Big" telcos cable. Which the plan i am on is the only capped one offered by this isp in the first place and some of the competitors that can not go down this street at the same rate of speed as cable line though adsl that could be offering 0.5-6 times as much data and proberly the ones closer to the exchange getting equivalent speeds if not more. And could be getting it at the same price and also not having uploaded data added to the cap for usage like mine has.

    and by the way i thought the G9 is only called the G9 because the other 8 telcos hope Telstra will be one of them?

    correction Anonymous -- 09/03/07 (in reply to #320075953)

    I have a feeling (as again if this is true ) that if Telstra even got an unregulated competition environment as long as they gave up any/its ownership of the underground communication cables or/and where they where laid - they will be unwilling to do so -so no competition can go against them except where they use Telstra's own lines where they can charge their line fees

    A lot of Bluff an Gluster Anonymous -- 09/03/07

    People need to realise a lot of what the g9 is is bluff and guster. The fact is that the G( needs the government to force Telstra to handover a section of the network at one rate and then but it back at 3 times the cost. Sorry people but isnt Telstra now a publicly listed Company. Since when does the Governement aquire assets that belong to public shareholders. This will end real quick in the federal court as unconstitional.
    To all those people who believe that Some of the G9 are thier to be "the good guys". Why is it they only put in Infratsructure (dslams) only in high density areas.
    The bottom line is if these companies were serious they wouldnt need Telstra to be a part of the consortium they would build the infrastructure themselves and Telstra would have to simply follow the rule of law in how it was to co-operate. That is what is currently legislated.

    g9 = Hot air

    Hmm.. someone been smoking something Anonymous -- 09/03/07

    Sydney - mate you sound like a stark raving lunatic.

    For starters you haven't answered the many posts flat out proving you've lied about your telstra share ownership.

    For second you obviously haven't read anything about the G9, preferring instead to listen to the voices in your head telling you how lovely Tesltra is.

    Read up on G9 and you *may* (if you can see past your own opinionatedness) realise that they aren't a cartel, or anything of the sort, they're a bunch of likeminded companies who see the advantage in raising the standard of Australia's broadband.

    They haven't asked anyone to lock out access, they've asked ACCC to comment on if they're making the system open enough for everyone to participate in; retail, wholesale the lot. I can't really see how you can justify your comments on this.

    Thirdly, how the hell can you justify a company that has been consistently increasing prices on an asset that has been fully depreciated for many years! $28 for a line rental is absolute bollocks - this is what you're condoning!

    Blind. Sydney Lawrence -- 09/03/07 (in reply to #320075991)

    There are none so blind as those who will not see. I say again, I have no shares in Telstra. I quote from the G9 FTTN Proposal Progress Update. "Ensuring that there is only one FTTN network - The efficient national outcome is that only one network is built, and all operators access it, G9 has highlighted this issue to Government and ACCC as an important policy lever". It may well be that Telstra, in a spirit of true competition, will wish to combat the G9 cartel by building their own fibre and as I understand it G9 is appealing to the ACCC to forbid this competition. As I have said, this is crazy.

    Blind Anonymous -- 09/03/07 (in reply to #320076000)

    Syd, you are a tool. If you don't know what a tool is rollover and ask Dr Phil.

    Hopeless. Sydney Lawrence -- 09/03/07 (in reply to #320076003)

    I rest my case. When debaters are so devoid of a sustainable argument as to resort to childish rubbish and abuse it is time to cease trying to enlighten the retarded and let them proceed on their way. As the old saying goes, If ignorance is bliss is folly to be wise.

    You don't have an argument. Anonymous -- 24/03/07 (in reply to #320076011)

    You just spout meaningless garbage phrases that any person can copy-paste from NWAT propaganda website.

    Lead by example, make some actually INTELLIGENT CLAIMS and we'll debunk them in short order.

    Blind Frank Grant -- 10/03/07 (in reply to #320076000)

    Syd, what you quoted is the crux of the problem "The efficient national outcome is that only one network is built" You do not want to build 2 $4 billion networks. That is plain crazy. The G9 have offered Telstra to join the group but they have declined. Telstra will not even talk to them. Which shows that Telstra does not have Australia's future at heart. Telstra is acting like a spoilt little brat that does not want to share its lollies.

    Syd's Interests Katherine Rivers -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320076000)

    "There are none so blind as those who will not see. I say again, I have no shares in Telstra"

    See over here Sydney, how about declaring that Telstra tour aswell?
    http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/Home/PageBlogComments.aspx?mid=293&pid=469

    "by Sydney Lawrence, Friday, 23 February 2007

    On Wednesday this week I travelled to Melbourne for the Broadband Australia Campaign BACK Telstra launch. I travelled from Sydney with fellow Telstra Active Supporter member Jeff Whitton who lives in Orange and knows all to well the need for high-speed broadband in the bush."

    Australian to Australian, Sydney; Telstra need to **** or get off the pot. If they're so keen to build this world-leading broadband network for Australian's then they can build that within Australian regulations today. If they aren't interested (and let's face it "3G" sounds so much trendier than "broadband", and their biggest share-holders all have fine inner-city telecommunications services) then let someone else have a go. And if this month's consortium aren't up for it -- perhaps even because the regulations that protect the interests of Australian's aren't conducive to commercial interests -- then what better way to build the future national information infrastructure for all Australians than with the Future fund established with the sale of Telstra.

    With my tax-funded interest in Telstra divested into this fund, it is entirely appropriate that it be used to better my community, and of little concern to me what happens to the old Telecom. Remember Sydney, this is Australia's future we're talking about, not Telstra's.

    Why share its lollies MiltCF -- 13/03/07

    WHy share your lollies . Telstra is a publicly listed company. It is all abour making money for shareholders. Like every other publically listed company on the stock exchange. If you have an issue with this take it up with your local memeber of parliament.
    The G9 and its propsal is completely self serving as well, and they couldnt give a hoot about what the customer wants.
    By enforcing the rule that their is only 1 network = no need for anymore capital investment in telco infrastructure, so when the newtork is complete and the rest of the world is moving on to the next thing we can have the same argument again....
    We want to move away from over regulation.
    Feel free to hate Telstra it is your right . Hold them responsible it is your perogitive but tell me why is it that Telstra must share what it owns and is currenlty legislated to share to rival companies who wish to set the rate at which it is to done so they can maximise their own profit. But hey that will probably be Telstras fault as well...............!!!

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/forums/0,139029293,339274093-320076001o,00.htm Roland Steenbeek -- 26/03/07 (in reply to #320076215)

    The reason why Telstra would have to share it's lollies is that these "lollies" were originally paid for by the Australian Taxpayer. The fact that Telstra is now a private company is all well and good, but they have never invested into their own infrastruture (because back then it was government owned), so now it has to share that infrastructure with competitors, because it got such a good deal in getting it in the first place instead of having to build it like any other company had to.

    I agree with most other comments here, that Telstra should never have owned the cables. They should have stayed in Government control and usage of those should have been charged back to all users on an at cost price. Instead the Howard government (of which Sydney seems to be a great supporter) was so keen to get rid of Telstra and maximise the money they could make, that they forgot the interest of Australians and sold the whole lot without much regard as to how others are suppposed to access them

    Roland

    Survival of the fittest. Anonymous -- 28/03/07 (in reply to #320076880)

    Roland, I expect it will be impossible for you to see and understand, let alone agree on the Telstra facts but here goes. Telstra was sold to the Public, lock, stock and barrel. Yes Roland, everything, the real estate, the buildings the shops, the fibre cables and the copper cables all sold to the people who purchased Telstra Shares. Ownership passed legally and lawfully. There is no need for Telstra to share it's lollies unless Telstra wish to, and for the Australian Government to try to artificially help Telstra's opposition by disadvantaging Telstra is wrong. You cannot build up the weak by pulling down the strong. That way you end up with a group of mediocrity, who will, in the end, all finally go broke. I say let the market decide the winners and the losers and if Telstra is that winner and charges customers excessive prices a competitor will see an opportunity to challenge Telstra and enter the market to oppose Telstra. That's how our market should work. For the Government to continue to subsidise small unprofitable Telcos to allow them to remain in business is sheer lunacy and a waste of public money. I am sure that either Mr. Howard or Mr. Rudd will understand these facts and bring this debate to a fair and reasonable conclusion.

    Fios Network is the Future Simon L Kelly -- 27/03/07

    G9 Group Needs to see what Verizon built in the US it's called Fios to Have a Super network it's pure FTTP giving access to speeds of 50mbits & cutomers can have 50 HD Channel also making it a multi Tier Product.

    Fios Network is the Future Simon L Kelly -- 27/03/07

    G9 Group Needs to see what Verizon built in the US it's called Fios to Have a Super network it's pure FTTP giving access to speeds of 50mbits & cutomers can have 50 HD Channel also making it a multi Tier Product.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • David Braue 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.
  • Array Can complaints on mobile content be cut?
    On 1 July this year the new Mobile Premium Services Code was introduced. It sounds like it's had a good impact, but is it enough?
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured