Is Telstra a backhaul monopolist?

Yes, says iiNet, and the telco giant's price chains are keeping smaller players from venturing down the rural broadband route.

The nation's third largest Internet Service Provider joined the growing chorus of debate on Telstra's obligation to maintain rural telephone services. Optus chief executive Paul O'Sullivan recently said the Universal Service Obligation (USO), which requires carriers to subsidise Telstra's maintenance of regional and rural phone services, should be reformed.

O'Sullivan's comments came after Telstra regulatory managing director Kate McKenzie told an industry conference the USO was "not sustainable" in the longer term. Telstra claims a lack of funding for the USO is "holding back" profitability, and is a regulatory burden.

However, Steve Dalby, iiNet regulatory affairs general manager, told ZDNet Australia the real issue was how to increase competition in bush communications.

According to Dalby, while iiNet has been able to justify the investment in metropolitan areas to rollout broadband services in competition with Telstra, the cost of using Telstra's Internet 'backhaul' links to rural areas was prohibitive -- and there are no alternatives.

But in urban areas, he said iiNet was able to beat Telstra over the head with threats to seek alternative network access from competitors like Optus, Powertel, AAPT or Primus.

The solution lies in reducing the cost of the bush links, and Dalby hopes the federal government can "force" Telstra into action.

"If competitors of Telstra can get access to the backhaul network at prices which are much more reasonable than Telstra is quoting at the moment, then there will be more competition," he said, adding this would net consumers better services.

The telco's dominance over bush services isn't the only reason why ISPs are unwilling to invest in rural Australia, said Scott Hicks, managing director of South Australian ISP Adam Internet.

While he admitted his company had very little infrastructure in the bush due to the "very expensive" backhaul services, he said the other difficulty was getting the "right number of customers" to justify any investment.

But times are changing and competition in the these areas are increasing, Hicks said. "There is quite a lot of work going on around South Australia with particular projects like [government-run] Broadband SA," he said. "I've seen a few other carriers putting their own backhaul out to certain areas like [regional centres] Port Lincoln, Renmark either via fibre or a wireless solution."

Playing monopoly
One strong voice for the monopolist argument comes from Robin Simpson, a research director at analyst group Gartner.

"There is no competition, there is just Telstra [most of the time]" Simpson said of the backhaul space. "It's a historical accident of the fact that you have a government incumbent."

Like Optus' O'Sullivan, Simpson would also like to see reform in the USO pact. Instead of paying the money to Telstra, it and any other government funding allocated to bush telecoms should be portioned out to any telco willing to invest in infrastructure for a particular region.

The analyst believes this will enable competition to develop and ultimately lead to ISPs like iiNet being able to do good business in those areas.

"If we encourage somebody else to go in, Telstra actually has some incentive to compete," Simpson told ZDNet Australia.

A revamped USO could even open the market to non-traditional ISPs. "Soul Pattinson Telecommunications have got quite a bit of backhaul in regional centres," he said, adding some states' rail infrastructure corporations also had their own optical fibre already running along some rail lines, and would only need a little financial incentive to add more.

"These people not only look after railway lines and signalling and stuff, they also have fibre in many cases, or very high quality copper," he added. "It runs along all the railway lines -- and of course, where do the railway lines go? They go to big towns."

It would be a small step for these organisations to set up a high-speed WiMAX-based wireless broadband hub at the centre of small towns, Simpson said, using fibre running alongside the railway line to provide cheap backhaul.

"All of a sudden you can deliver high-speed broadband services economically to the entire town. So I think there's a little bit of lateral thinking to be done here," he added.

Long-term, Telstra may inadvertently face increased competition due to another factor -- a price drop in hardware.

"The equipment to do backhaul is getting cheaper," warned Simpson. "The economics are changing because the cost of wireless is starting to come down.... It's starting to compete with the cost of getting a team of people and a big CAT [earthmover] and digging a trench for 20km to stick some fibre in."

Advertisement

Talkback 5 comments

    I Actually used to work for te ...Anonymous -- 09/08/05

    I Actually used to work for telstra and i know some real dirty secrets they want to keep quiet,
    They are mis representing the mobile network client base so when they sell telstra soon the private company will see a healthy well used network when in actual fact it is currently 1/5 of what they are stating it actually is.
    they are doing this by using existing customers accounts. when a customer wants to move up or down in thier plan telstra do this sneaky trick which is,
    for each plan they change a "ghost" account which was the previous plan level is left on the system purposley and then for example
    the customer wants to move from a 100 plan to a 75 plan and then back to a 80 plan over thier 24 month contract period telstra have just created 2 more "ghost customers" by not deleting the dormant accounts when the changes were implemented. this can be proven. if the customer is then fed up with telstra and moves to another carrier the computer system which doesn't see these "ghosts" then charge the customer for not 1 account for leaving but 3 in total which aquire disconnection fees. if you call telstra before doing this they are ordered by the team leaders to delete the ghosts so nothing is found out. suprise suprise. the client market for telstra is roughly now projected a further 1/3rd bigger than it actually is.
    Fraud or Human error? just when they are selling telstra this "fault" suddenly appears??????
    Pack Of ****s spread the word i tried to go to today tonight channel 7 but telstra shut them up quickly somehow. you be the judge take out two 12 month plans with no phones on seperate account numbers (REQUEST THIS FOR BUISNESS PURPOSES YOU NEED TWO SEPERATE BILLS) and leave one as it is and the other change multiple times then revert to your plan level you first signed up on so both plans are the same plan levels dollar for dollar port out your numbers on them both without telling them and compare the disconnection bills!!! surprised they dont match when they are both the same level plan now???? I want to expose them for the lying corporation they acually are.

    I Actually used to work for te ...Anonymous -- 09/08/05

    I Actually used to work for telstra and i know some real dirty secrets they want to keep quiet,
    They are mis representing the mobile network client base so when they sell telstra soon the private company will see a healthy well used network when in actual fact it is currently 1/5 of what they are stating it actually is.
    they are doing this by using existing customers accounts. when a customer wants to move up or down in thier plan telstra do this sneaky trick which is,
    for each plan they change a "ghost" account which was the previous plan level is left on the system purposley and then for example
    the customer wants to move from a 100 plan to a 75 plan and then back to a 80 plan over thier 24 month contract period telstra have just created 2 more "ghost customers" by not deleting the dormant accounts when the changes were implemented. this can be proven. if the customer is then fed up with telstra and moves to another carrier the computer system which doesn't see these "ghosts" then charge the customer for not 1 account for leaving but 3 in total which aquire disconnection fees. if you call telstra before doing this they are ordered by the team leaders to delete the ghosts so nothing is found out. suprise suprise. the client market for telstra is roughly now projected a further 1/3rd bigger than it actually is.
    Fraud or Human error? just when they are selling telstra this "fault" suddenly appears??????
    Pack Of ****s spread the word i tried to go to today tonight channel 7 but telstra shut them up quickly somehow. you be the judge take out two 12 month plans with no phones on seperate account numbers (REQUEST THIS FOR BUISNESS PURPOSES YOU NEED TWO SEPERATE BILLS) and leave one as it is and the other change multiple times then revert to your plan level you first signed up on so both plans are the same plan levels dollar for dollar port out your numbers on them both without telling them and compare the disconnection bills!!! surprised they dont match when they are both the same level plan now???? I want to expose them for the lying corporation they acually are.

    Telstra the whole story Mick Woodman -- 01/05/08

    I struggle to understand the logic behind the government’s sale of Telstra.

    It seems to me to have exacerbated the whole communications mess here in Australia.

    When Telstra was owned by the people of Australia we had the third best communications network in the world behind Denmark and Sweden and now we have one of the worst in the western world. Why is this? Is it because of a lack of investment by our government or are there other deeper causes?

    Has the rest of the world caught us up and passed us in technology

    Monopoly
    As far as a monopoly goes we have made the situation worse by selling off the control the government had over our telecom network
    In the good old days (sic) of government control we had equal quality across this huge expanse of Australia without any segment being left in the dark ages due to commercial realities.

    Then we invited commercial interests to set up in competition with a govt authority and a massive price restructuring occurred bringing the cost of communicating down swiftly as competition increased breeding excellence in performance and cost structures.

    Initially Optus forced telecom to provide better service and cheaper prices across the board. All good for the Australian consumer. And yes Optus was at a disadvantage from the get go as it had to compete with an entrenched established giant. With further deregulation Vodaphone became a player again with a further increase in service and cost reductions. It seemed we were on the right path for once.

    What a turn around was the complete sale of Telstra, yes Telstra was in a massively entrenched position with the ownership of the hard wire network and on selling its service to the other two competitors causing an unfair advantage to Telstra in the market place so what did the government do? It sold the whole Telstra machine to private concerns and appointed a ‘successful’ telecom CEO from America (of all places to choose a communications manager from) with its great record of communications (sic) reliability and confusion. So now we have a ruthless commercial entity holding the other players to ransom on every communications level except mobile phones.

    Surely a better scenario would have been a sale of the retail and mobile sectors of telecom to private partners and either

    Kept the exchanges and in ground cabling as a govt entity who sells time to the commercial sector without bias
    Or
    Sold that sector to a different private entity that would then be able to wholesale the line space to each of the retail competitors without any nepotistic bias.

    Personally my choice would have been for the govt to retain the hardware of copper cables and exchanges.
    I believe the choice is so obvious especially as we now suffer a skill shortage her in Australia
    Telecom has trained successfully 100s of 1000 of technicians here and added those skills to the country’s workforce.
    We wouldn’t now be going thru the debacle of who is going to create the new Internet network it would have been installed by the ‘public’ Telstra and its capacity would then be available to all the private ISP’s.

    Communications are not new cars or swimming pools they are a vital necessity for the day to day running of business and government in this country we are a few people spread across a vast land and we need to be given the tools necessary to compete on the world stage this we cannot do if the government allows us to be held to ransom by a monopoly that controls the life blood of communications

    "Please keep up" jon -- 01/05/08 (in reply to #320100719)

    Dear Mick,

    The Howard government can be thanked for selling off Telstra. There are so many posts like yours that seem to "lament" this, however this is the reality & we have Coonan/Howard to thank.

    As far as monopoly goes, if Optus/Singtel had of their finger & invesetd instead of always whingeing over the last 10 yaers Telstra may have had some decent competiption.

    Sorry I dont buy that argument!!!

    Get a faster link or learn to type Speedy -- 01/05/08 (in reply to #320100719)

    33 months to type that? Bet you can't wait until you get upgraded to ADSL2+

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Blogs

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

Tags

Back to top

Featured