Is Optus already throwing in the towel on FTTN?

commentary If analyst group CEG speaks on behalf of Optus, it looks likes we can assume the carrier has given up on its chances of winning the coveted NBN (national broadband network) tender being considered by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

A new report commissioned by Optus, compiled by think-tank Competitive Economics Group, predictably argues that the winner of the NBN should be subject to structural separation rather than operational separation.

It's nothing new — back in December 2006 the Competitive Carriers Coalition commissioned a similarly themed report by the Allen Consulting Group. And you'd find few telecommunications analysts that disagree with the premise.

What's far more interesting isn't the recommendations of the report — but the language CEG uses — language that infers that Optus is already throwing in the towel on the tender.

CEG analyst Jason Ockerby told ZDNet.com.au that despite the report being written in the context of the NBN, "the scope of the report isn't to comment on any tender's merits".

Nor is it supposed to be an outright attack on Telstra, he said. "Optus has put up a bid, it has put its AU$5 million deposit down, this advice would equally apply to Optus if it won the tender."

Yet the language of the report does assume that Telstra will win. Here's one example:

"Without structural separation, Telstra will have very powerful incentives to damage competition in downstream markets that rely on access services provided by the NBN. In fact, regulation of access prices without structural separation may increase the incentives to damage competition in downstream markets."

Surely Optus, in commissioning the report, would have asked CEG not to be so defeatist in its approach.

For the sake of end users, it's not the kind of language anybody wants to hear from Optus. We want to hear that Optus wants to invest, that Optus wants to win. In fact, we want to hear that from every party to the tender.

One can assume that Optus wouldn't want to be "structurally separated" should it be the victor — so simply by virtue of releasing the report, it appears the carrier is already looking toward the future — a future where Telstra inevitably wins, and the expensive task of regulating them is the remaining concern.

I hope for all of our sakes I'm wrong.

Advertisement

Talkback 17 comments

    Bogus BidAnonymous -- 28/05/08

    What a joke!!

    Michael Egan has already been quoted as saying that he does not care if Terria lose the bid process!!!

    IdiocyTaylor W**** -- 28/05/08 (in reply to #320102791)

    Ha! So what? Maybe it means they actually want a decent network, no matter who is the victor. Sure, a structurally separate network owner would be good for their shareholders, it would also be good for us! So leave them alone.

    SEPARATION bad PUBLICAnonymous -- 29/05/08 (in reply to #320102828)

    What you actually are saying separation would be good for a 'puppet" telco with the strings being pulled from Singapore going by the name of OPTUS/TERRia

    Crazy worldJames Bell -- 28/05/08 (in reply to #320102791)

    I know.. what a joke! I mean.. a group of companies have paid a $5 billion bond to compete, yet if another bidder comes up with a solution that's just as good for competition (i.e. good for consumers) and wins then Terria will still be happy. What a crazy world we live in! Michael Egan should be hanged for having such consumer friendly views!

    Correction $5 millionJames Bell -- 28/05/08 (in reply to #320102836)

    As per heading

    All businesses are dollar motivated.Anonymous -- 30/05/08 (in reply to #320102836)

    I think anyone who believes that any business really wants what is best for us, even if it means they miss out on the spoils themselves, has got to be either a dreamer, patsy or fool, sorry. Its the dollar and the shareholder that counts no matter if you are Telstra, Optus, BHP, ANZ or whoever. Really lets get over this, one side is good and the other bad, no matter who you support and at least understand the basics.

    This should be under blogsAnonymous -- 28/05/08

    Its inaccurate too, after all Opel was going to be structually separate.

    WhyAnonymous -- 28/05/08 (in reply to #320102795)

    Why?

    how so?james squires -- 28/05/08

    Of course it is going to mention Telstra. Of the 3 confirmed bids (Teria, Telstra and Macquarie), only one would it apply to. Why? Teria have already stated that it would be structurally separated and Macquarie aren't a telecoms company. So whether they are named or not, makes no difference.

    As for signalling defeat, I would interpret this the other way. Namely that they are highlighting areas where their bid is superior.

    re: how so?Brett Winterford -- 28/05/08 (in reply to #320102803)

    A good point James, I guess the authors of the report, and this journalist (me), took for granted that Terria would be structurally separated.

    Disagree?SJT -- 28/05/08 (in reply to #320102805)

    Few telecoms analysts disagree? Hmmm.

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

    Top example SJT!James Bell -- 28/05/08 (in reply to #320102824)

    Wow SJT, you're even more predictive than usual today. Before even visiting the URL you posted I immediately guessed it would be from none other than ]"independent" telco analyst Kevin Morgan. For those unfamiliar with Kevin's work I strongly recommend reading some of his other articles where you'll find it's not at all challenging to identify a clearly biased trend. To my knoweldge he's also the only "independent" analyst in NWAT's history to have had an article published on its site. That's quite an achievement on Kevin's part!

    Try finding another analyst SJT..

    TTTJSJT -- 29/05/08 (in reply to #320102835)

    TTTJ - I see you have 3 more cheques in the mail.

    Structural System VS OwnershipAnonymous -- 28/05/08

    Even though structurally seperated, from a business perspective it would be the right move as either way optus would still earn money. Sure it won't be the same company however most likely it will be a shareholder or in someway be able to reap the profits

    No need to hope - you ARE wrongGreg Alexander -- 28/05/08

    I'm really not sure how you could say 'One can assume that Optus wouldn't want to be "structurally separated" should it be the victor' and still consider yourself knowledgeable about the Terria proposal.

    You are right that the report could have said "the NBN should be structurally separated from any retail telco" (perhaps it did say that - do you know?), but Telstra is the current monopoly owner and as such can be specifically mentioned.

    Ignorance must be blissAnonymous -- 29/05/08

    People, you should try to make a living selling against the Gorilla, it ain't easy.
    And for those that will not get carrier choice, be prepared to pay BIG BUCKS for access!

    YeahAnonymous -- 29/05/08 (in reply to #320102874)

    Yeah we know, Simon's probably down to a measly personal wealth of what, $50m. Its tough.

Add your opinion


Latest Videos

Blogs

  • Chris Duckett PayPal launches Aussie developer program
    PayPal announced the opening of its certification program for Australian developers today, making Australia the first country outside of the US to offer certification.
  • Array Cash cow in a BigTinCan?
    Around one third of Australia's telcos have shut their doors over time, but that isn't stopping new ventures hoping to chip away at carriers' mobile call bonanza. By fighting carriers at the smartphone rather than the home phone, could the latest two contenders be onto something big?
  • Array A third of the way to a zettabyte
    This week on Twisted Wire we look at how internet usage is changing in Australia and around the world. How are we meeting this demand and how is the cost structure changing for the service provider?
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured