ISP gang of nine dobs in Telstra to ACCC

After writing to the ACCC late last month, a delegation of nine ISPs has met with the head of the competition watchdog to discuss their concerns regarding Telstra's conduct and a looming ADSL2+ "drought".

Spearheaded by South Australian-based provider Internode, the nine ISPs requested the ACCC take action to discourage Telstra from the "anti-competitive" practice of blocking access to its recently activated ADSL2+ network.

The letter asked ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel to reprimand the national carrier should it fail to comply with repeated requests from rival providers to open up access to the network.

Internode managing director Simon Hackett said the ACCC is now investigating Telstra after a meeting between the competition watchdog and the ISP delegation in Canberra discussed the claims made by the nine service providers.

Hackett warned that Telstra's monopoly over the network would lead to an ADSL2+ "drought", which he described as the "point at which all other providers have run their remaining stocks of port capacity to zero" under Telstra's capped access arrangements.

"The point is that key exchanges are now in zones in which there will be only BigPond ADSL2+ to choose from if you want a new service once existing port stocks are run to zero by existing competitors," Hackett told ZDNet.com.au today.

The Internode managing director said that out of the 300 exchanges that currently service the majority of metropolitan Australia, there are approximately 80 that fall into this category.

"If that isn't the definition of a retail monopoly for ADSL2+, it is difficult to see what is," he said.

According to the ISP delegation, Telstra has not made any attempt to engage with industry in resolving the problem, leaving them with no other choice but to appeal to the ACCC over the situation.

"Established government and regulatory policy is for competitors to build their own facilities-based infrastructure; but we are being increasingly blocked from doing so," said Hackett.

"Hence the only answer here -- as we could expect years of delay from Telstra over exchange access blocks -- is to have the ACCC mandate the provision of wholesale ADSL2+ from Telstra until they get the capping issue fully resolved," he said.

The ACCC had not responded to ZDNet.com.au's request for comment at the time of publication.

Talkback 20 comments

    FYI Marty Hamilton -- 12/03/08

    There's a bit of broken link code early in the article.

    Correction ZDNet Australia -- 13/03/08 (in reply to #320097168)

    Thanks Marty - we've fixed that now.

    Telstra is Bad Alex Smith -- 13/03/08

    Telstra is the worst telecommunitcations company, they provide the slowest speeds @ the highest price. Not once have they ever followed with outstanding credit in which they owe nor were they happy to help out with issues that have arrised over the years. In my opinion Telstra should be condemmed and another company taken over as our leading communications provider!

    RE:Telstra is bad Anonymous -- 13/03/08 (in reply to #320097184)

    Its all well and good to say Telstra should be condemned and another company should take over, the fact of the matter is that the exchanges are currently OWNED by Telstra.

    In the monumental stupidity of the federal government at the time, privatization of Australia's primary telecommunication company and, in essence, only national infrastructure has led to this being a problem.

    Australia has not got the physical network to support the competition that should be regulating the Telstra prices, as it stands you have one company owning 90% of the infrastructure being told to 'share' its hardware without any legal reqirement outside of competitiveness.

    As far as supplying service, they have no real reason to supply anything other than a base level of service. No matter what they do you are still going to be paying them. Be it directly for having your account with them, or indirectly through the costs that other service providers have to pay to have their infrastructures use the hardware that telstra own!

    Freeload almost finished. Sydney of Brisbane -- 13/03/08 (in reply to #320097196)

    When are these parasitical freeloaders going to cease their game of "ACCC help us".

    So far, by their deception, and to their financial advantage, they have managed to hoodwink the ACCC and keep the gravy-train running.. But their latest escapade to the ACCC concerning ADSL2+ challenges the realms of fantasy.

    Telstra, and Australia have been told by the Government of Australia that it considered, with the advice of the ACCC, that ADSL2+would not be "declared". Plain as the nose on your face I would say.

    just cliches and missing the point Anonymous -- 13/03/08 (in reply to #320097197)

    Sydney your rant is full of typical cliches of an ignorant diehard telstra supporter and doesn't address issue at all.
    Do you believe monopolies are good?
    Do you believe in competition?

    Mr Hackett is complaining about not being able to install more DSLAMS in exchanges because Telstra is blocking them. This is typical anticompetitive behaviour by Telstra.

    I agree that its asking allot to force Telstra to wholesale its ADSL2+ DSLAMS, but if there is no other option then it makes sense. In other words if other ISPs can't install their equipment in exchanges then it does make sense to force telstra to wholesale its ADSL2+ DSLAMS in those blocked exchanges.
    Telstra can easily avoid this issue by allowing other ISPs to install their own DSLAMS in all the exchanges.

    We need a competitive environment otherwise Telstra will continue to make broadband expensive and of poor value.

    Makes Sense? John Bowman -- 13/03/08 (in reply to #320097200)

    "I agree that its asking allot to force Telstra to wholesale its ADSL2+ DSLAMS, but if there is no other option then it makes sense"

    What a joke. I run and own my own business, and if I owned the only meat grinder in the country there is no way known that I'd let my compititors (the butcher up the road) come and use it. You want to compete with my mince?
    Get your own grinder!
    Would the ACCC force me to share the grinder because it was the only one? Not likely.

    So why is Telstra put in this position? It's ridiculous.

    And the same applies for my freezer. So my competitors got their own grinder, good on them. That doesn't mean I'll store their meat in my freezer until they get one of those too.

    Then I suppose if it was the same model, not only would I be responsible for grinding everyone else's mince, storing, but I'd have to order it, pay maintenance and power for my facilities, then the ACCC says I need to sell the mince to my competiton for $0.50 a kilo.

    Consider this situation in your business, and any other hypothetical you can think of. Hopefully you'll realise just how stupid this really is.

    To Use your Analogy Anonymous -- 13/03/08 (in reply to #320097243)

    What does your largest shareholder say you should do with your meat grinder?

    Interesting question - more interesting answer Anonymous -- 13/03/08 (in reply to #320097247)

    "What does your largest shareholder say you should do with your meat grinder?"

    If the largest shareholder were to use its position to force a course of action that knowingly disadvantages other shareholders, then I'm not sure that is exactly legal. This is a classic conflict of interest, especially if that large shareholder had another agenda.

    Missing the point Anonymous -- 13/03/08 (in reply to #320097252)

    The point is you would buy your own meat grinder if you could, however you the butcher has told everyone that they must not supply you any grinders, they can supply to everyone else but not you, get the drift this is anti-competative. What Hacket is saying is that he will put in his own equiment with pleasure, but Telstra wont let him, for no other reason than they have decided not to, or they have used all the space for their own equipment. Seems like if Telstra wants to limit competition all they have to say is "no more ports", however if you use us and use alone, we have plenty of ports available.

    Given that Telstsa own the copper and nobody else, how do you suppose Hacket can force them to give him acess.

    Maybe Telstra needs to have all the ports at an exchange in a pool, they they have to bid for as well. In other words Telstra may find it impossible to have an available port as well. If they don't have the same restrictions then its anti-competative.

    If your water utility denied you access to a water supply, just because they thought it was a good idea, I am sure that you would be screaming from the hills, as they own the infrastructure and you dont. If they told you to buid your own pipeline, I guess you would not be happy. Think about it. I agree the government has stuffed this up and should fix it.

    Largest shareholder Anonymous -- 15/03/08 (in reply to #320097247)

    In the case of Testra the largest shareholder does not have a controlling interest anymore.

    Re: Makes Sense? Marty Hamilton -- 14/03/08 (in reply to #320097243)

    You can say "Get your own meat grinder!" because it would be fairly easy to do. So do you know how easy or hard it is to finance and build a wire connection to 98% of homes and businesses in Australia, without the aid of monopoly phone revenues for decades and with there being another similar network in the way? Enlighten us, since you think it's a good analogy.

    Analogy Response John Bowman -- 14/03/08 (in reply to #320097275)

    All, in response to any of the replies to my original post, I'll put in a couple more of my thoughts here, but before it gets silly, I do want to note that it was only an analogy, and there will obviously be some considerable differences between my own business and that of the telco industry. Having said that, it's something tangible to myself, and I just hope it is in some way thought provoking.

    Anyway...

    I would expect my largest shareholder, or any of my shareholders, to get a return on their investment first and foremost. My largest shareholder may be oblivious to the meat grinder situation, or they may know every detail concerning the situation. Either way, my responsibility is to be successful and reward their investment, so I will run the business in a fashion that achieves this. In this case, that means the grinder is for my use only.

    "If the largest shareholder were to use its position to force a course of action that knowingly disadvantages other shareholders"

    I don't understand how this relates to my small situation, as shareholders big or small surely want the same thing, a return on investment. Again, In this case, the grinder/freezer/whatever is off limits. Yes, this is a significant competitive advantage, but that's just business. You can pick any industry and there will always be a couple of companies that have an advantage over the rest. At the end of the day, I'm serving my shareholders and using my position to my and their advantage, and I hence, I don't see the conflict of interest. (If I've misunderstood your comment, please advise, and I'll address it as best I can)

    "The point is you would buy your own meat grinder if you could... he will put in his own equiment with pleasure, but Telstra wont let him, for no other reason than they have decided not to, or they have used all the space for their own equipment"

    I'm afraid this is beyond my scope of knowledge. I can speculate, but I can not say one way or the other whether Telstra has space or not, so take this as you wish. Furthermore, this is where the significant contrasts between butchers and telco start to rear their head.

    My opinion is, if I had the only physical facility or infrastructure relating to my industry, and I was required by law to share this, I suppose I would have to. However, if I LEGITIMATELY could not service others, for whatever reason, that's their bad luck, my own interests come first. obviously I would need to prove to the powers that be that this is the case, and if i can prove that, end of story. If I can't, then I might have some problems, which is precisely what is occuring now with Telstra and the rest. We'll no doubt get an outcome over the coming months.

    "If your water utility denied you access to a water supply, just because they thought it was a good idea, I am sure that you would be screaming from the hills, as they own the infrastructure and you dont."

    As a water consumer, i would be livid. That's ridiculous. However, if I was a Water Utility, I think that is a fair enough position for them to take.

    Marty, best comment yet I think, and I agree partially.
    "You can say "Get your own meat grinder!" because it would be fairly easy to do"

    There are multinational telco's involved in this, they can easily do it, it's just a matter of being willing to do so.
    The smaller aussie telco's will have some issues. I am a loyal Telstra customer, but I applaud the efforts of Internode in particular, as they have (when are where possible) installed their own DSLAMS and ifrastructure. Now if Telstra can not house these in other exchanges (again, they will need to prove this to the ACCC), I'm afraid that is Internode's and everyone else's bad luck.

    As for the monopoly, this will always be a topic of hot discussion. I think it is crazy we have got to this position. If the government invests for almost a hundred years in national infrastructure, then sells it along with the company it has created to prov

    Grinder Anonymous -- 25/03/08 (in reply to #320097243)

    John, if only it was all as easy as buying a grinder! The problem with building a competing network to the national pstn infrastructure Telstra shareholders own, is cost. The cost of laying cable is only a minor part, the real cost is in gaing access to the thousands of easments across the nation. If this is even possible (doubtful) the cost is so high as to ensure there could not be a return on investment.
    Various Telstra supporters seem to overlook this basic legal issue and call competative iSPs leeches/parasites. If there was a workable business case, someone would have completed a competing network years ago. What we have in this country, is the worst sort of compromise, where Tesltra has been forced to share infrastructure. The problem is that Telstra has impeded the sharing of the local loop with the setting of arbitrary rules, stalling and mis-information. The often talked about management buyout of the pstn has never eventuated and the big loser in all this are the Australian public and all business.

    Does it make sense? Anonymous -- 13/03/08

    Tesltra's infrastructure was originally built using taxpayers money. Should the government provide taxpayer dollars to help fund new infrastructure to other competitors? If the infrastructure can support all competitor requirements then open it up to reasonable requests.

    Telstra Infrastructure rodney -- 14/03/08

    I hear that telstra has investigated a plan to sell off its infrastructure systems because they are now so much of a drag on the revenue that the institutional shareholdes are ready for bold changes.

    This would an interesting step - as I would suspectt only an overseas funded company could afford this.

    Then you will all have your way - separation - independence - level playing field for all.

    Running to zero? Anonymous -- 14/03/08

    What sort of "other provider" business allows their ports to "run to zero" ? What - they don't want to spend any money to install some more ports (or any at all) to take on more new customers?

    Bad practice other ISP's - install your own equipment and DSLAMS... there's absolutely nothing to stop you - not even Telstra.

    The fact that Telstra charges so much is downright annoying, but in reality they do this in order to pay for the equipment they install at exchanges. Pretty obvious I would have thought. You can't just run the price down lower because customers demand it, the equipment doesn't get any cheaper - so what are you supposed to do as a business? Take less profit.... (point taken!)

    Hey other 9 ISP's - how about this for an idea - roll out your own DSLAMS in ALL exchanges and have the same coverage as Telstra...

    Whilst I agree that Telstra should probably offer ADSL2+ wholesale to other ISP's, they are entitled to do so at whatever cost they like and at whatever time they like in the future when business requirements let them, this should not be up to the ACCC.

    Did you read the article? Anonymous -- 18/03/08 (in reply to #320097295)

    The whole point of the article is that the "other ISPs" are TRYING to install their own DSLAMs but Telstra is preventing them from doing so, citing "capacity issues" at the exchanges in which they would like to install those DSLAMs. If Telstra has acted improperly in relation to this prevention, then it's anti-competitive and should be actioned by the ACCC.

    Let's wait and see Anna Watts -- 19/03/08 (in reply to #320097477)

    If an entity such as the ACCC can find an excuse to fine or reprimand Telstra they will. Let's just see what comes out from their investigations. If Telstra is cheating or lying then we will know soon enough.

    My Opinion Anonymous -- 27/03/08

    Telstra should be privatised by the Govt then we might see the end of copper wire and let everyone enjoy adsl.Let the Soul man run 3G with shareholders money (plus his yank mates)and see how long it lasts and shareholders.
    ISP servers whom use oz tax payers landlines at give away prices are bound to be cheaper than Telstra at present.These Corperate Cos are making a bundle at the expense of us when the profit should be challelled into service for everyone not elite CITY residents,it sucks.

    regards peed off rural worker

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

Tags

Back to top

Featured