NBN - Everything you need to know about the National Broadband Network

Telstra CEO: Hands off my backhaul

By Liam Tung, ZDNet.com.au

28 October 2009 05:28 PM

Tags: backhaul, conroy, lte, mobile, nbn, thodey, telstra

Facing a possible ban on bidding for 4G wireless spectrum, Telstra chief David Thodey today warned the government to steer clear of its backhaul networks — its last front for network-level competition.

David Thodey talking to Telstra CFO John Stanhope
(Credit: Liam Tung/ZDNet.com.au)

With the government's threat to bar Telstra from participating in next-generation wireless spectrum auctions, expected after 2012, Telstra chief David Thodey played up the company's right not to sell its backhaul networks.

Answering a question from Deutsche Bank analyst, Sameer Chopra, Thodey declared Telstra's backhaul network as "core" to its business.

"Are we willing to consider them having access commercially, wholesale? Of course we are, but there are certain assets that are core to this business, and we do not have any intention or desire to vend these assets in," said Thodey.

Telstra's Next G mobile network in conjunction with its extensive backhaul network is set to be the last front the telco can fight competitors at an infrastructure level. Telstra chief financial officer John Stanhope today said that once Telstra has been separated, differentiation would need to occur above the network layer, which would include billing systems, products and services.

Thodey went on to explain that when it came to mobile services, there were two considerations: spectrum and backhaul. While the government had control over spectrum allocation, Telstra controls its own backhaul network.

"I want to stress," said Thodey, "that our mobile network is second-to-none because we have fibre running to all the base stations." He clarified that 85 per cent of its mobile base stations were Ethernet connected. "So the backhaul is second to none. And remember that's where many mobile operators have fallen foul as the data volumes have increased," he added.

The Federal Government is currently assessing bids for its $250 million tender to build key backhaul links in rural areas where Telstra has enjoyed a monopoly.

Talkback (49)
Print
E-mail
Share
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Reddit
- Slashdot
- StumbleUpon

Talkback 49 comments

Add your opinion

Enforced sale please Anonymous -- 28/10/09

Take it all, I say - including Next G built with cash garnered from the taxpayer-owned fixed network. Kill off Telstra and let a plethora of smaller, customer-focused Australian companies take up the slack.

Oh! God NO! Anonymous -- 01/11/09 (in reply to #320389942)

We could go back to UNI owned and run links you know when the whole of Australia had 1 128Kbit link oened by QUT.

The UNI couldn't afford to upgrade the link so sold it to Telstra and they upgraded the link then started adding links, to where we are now.

The Government sold off Telstra before Telstra upgraded the Australian links/networks so while the POTS was paid for by tax payers.

The rest after that hasn't been paid for by tax payers and in fact a company has paid for it self.

Government owned Telstra was 20 years ago.

If the government get the network is goto the dogs.

Telstra vs. the People of Australia Bruce Weinel -- 29/10/09

Regardless of "intention or desire", infrastructure built with taxes, not investor's capital, is not private property and no "conservative" government can alienate the people's title to it. [IMHO]

Telstra does NOT own the copper local loops, nor the "golden boomerang" backbone network. Every bit of infrastructure (and the real estate involved) that was built by the PMG, Telecom Australia, Aussat and OTC should be immediately seized and placed under a new company with [initial] 100% government ownership. When Australia has communications facilities comparable to Japan and other OECD countries _then_ the "private versus public" issue might become sensible.

Aussat Anonymous -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320389985)

The Fraser govt's Aussat debacle ($1billion red ink) provided the entry opportunity for Singtel to create Optus as a telco in Oz.

Ah wrong. Anonymous -- 01/11/09 (in reply to #320389999)

Optus was a company started up by Cable & Wireless a UK company.

Under the Aust Government deprate to have a second carrier, to compete against Telstra as they keep thinking that competition will suddenly drop prices but in the real world they seem to only go up for some reason?

Anyway Cable & Wireless found that Optus wasn't making enough money so sold it off to Singtel, who in turn wanted it to make money.

which it doesn't as the Aust government prop up Optus with cash, to keep them in business.

re ah wrong Anonymous -- 01/11/09 (in reply to #320390345)

bullsh-t

Ownership Anonymous -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320389985)

Bruce,

What about anynetwork that has been built since privitisation? Are you saying that the infrastructure that a private company has built should be just seized from that company?

By your reckoning any company that has constructed any sort of assett is open to have their assetts seized by an ocer zealous government!

Last time I checked this was Australia not communist China!!!

Telstra's Network, Not ours Alex G -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390002)

The network belongs to Telstra, not taxpayers, they have built the network using the money we have payed them since the 1950's when they were privatized to use their network.

You could say that the modern network in its entirety was payed for using the money they earned, not the money loaned at the very start.

So feel happy we have a fast broadband network at all, because why should Telstra innovate anything else, when the Government will promptly steal it claiming it as "ours", when it isn't, and then promptly make everything more expensive trying to claim back the huge cost of buying out Telstra's Assets.

And all the while, the NBN still won't have been built, not that it will anyway, because 43 Billion might do FTTP to half of Australia at best, and that doesn't include buying Telstra.

It belongs to TLS shareholders - WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS RS -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390021)

Again for those who wish to rewrite history.

Please explain how the "High Court of Australia" could get it so wrong and you get it so right?

Scroll down to Page 5 ... http://www.ags.gov.au/publications/agspubs/legalpubs/litigationnotes/LN16.pdf

http://www.minterellison.com/public/connect/Internet/Home/Legal+Insights/Alerts/NA-+Telstra+fails+in+its+constitutional+challenge

Alex, I await you stunned silence (like I have received from all other TLS shareholder) with bated breath!

Laws and regulations - yes, but not removal by force majeur Anonymous -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390029)

The reference you make to high court refers to access, not to take over. The CAN belongs to Telstra, and nothing in that high Court judgement changes that. Go back and read it again, RS, and this time, try not to read into it something that isn't there!

Removal? @Laws and regulations! RS -- 31/10/09 (in reply to #320390160)

Now that you have made a complete fool of yourself (by ironically, doing exactly what you wrongly accuse me of - reading something which isn't there) Anonymous Telstra puppet, had you cared to read my heading and those BIG, BOLD letters you would have noticed...

"IT BELONGS TO TLS SHAREHOLDERS - WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS".

Which part of that don't you understand?

You say - ..."The CAN belongs to Telstra, and nothing in that high Court judgement changes that"...

Yes and that's exactly what I said, hello! We agree.

Also - please show me where I mentioned removal or take over of assets, let alone advocating same?

Telstra puppet, just because you see the letters RS at the top of a comment, you don't have to get all defensive and run for the S&S (Sydney and Sol) book of Telstra FUD, spin and stupid conspiracies.

So please stop your untrue accusations and cheap attempts at political point scoring, because they have backfired, as usual and just read what I wrote.

So again just in case it wasn't clear...

"IT BELONGS TO TLS SHAREHOLDERS - WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS"!

Try again communist Andrew Davion -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320389985)

Infrastructure built by the government with taxes is the government's property until the government sells the infrastructure to private people.

As far as suggesting telstra does not own these assets- that is simply not true. The High Court in 2008 confirmed that Telstra does own its CAN but it is subject to an access regime. i.e. Network owned by Telstra. Network access regulated by ACCC.

Also if the government owns Telstra's network can we all get our $7.20 per share T2 payment back?

Communist - says the burned greedy TLS shareholder RS -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390074)

Settle down burned, greedy shareholder. And no you can't get your $7.40 (not $7.20) back.

You bought shares in our NON-COMMUNIST SYSTEM but now want the government to bail you out Communist style, lol! Whose the Commy here me or you?

Yes Telstra shareholders own the assets, I never said they didn't, so your point?

But thank you for at last agreeing competitors are legally allowed access and are not leeches, which has been the crux of the problem for years.

Here's more from the High Court. Mar 08 -

... it proceeds from an UNSTATED PREMISE THAT TELSTRA HAS LARGER AND MORE AMPLE RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE PSTN, THAN IT HAS. But Telstra's "bundle of rights" in respect of the assets of the PSTN has never been of the nature and amplitude which its present argument assumes. TELSTRA'S BUNDLE OF RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE PSTN HAS ALWAYS BEEN SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF ITS COMPETITORS TO REQUIRE ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE ASSETS...

In other words Telstra puppets, Telstra went into court believing they had absolute control (Telstra's unstated premise of larger and more rights, than it has) in regards to the PSTN. But their (bundle of) rights solely depends upon the rights of competitors accessing their network.

I put it to you now that as Telstra have admitted they were misleading and deceptive in not allowing access, they have not only breached the ACCC rules but they have breached their bundle of rights to ownership!

As such a court case could and probably should, be mounted to relinquish Telstra of their ownership, due to this breach!

Communist - says the burned greedy TLS shareholder Anonymous -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390075)

Far too much birdseed in your porridge, RS.

Burned RS -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390106)

So says the burned TLS shareholder, lol!

Telstra ownership Anonymous -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320389985)

Bruce, if, as you say, Telstra does not own the copper network, we would NOT be posting these messages. And Conroy would not have to write the bill in the first place.

Australia backs Telstra. Sydney Lawrence -- 29/10/09

Surprise, surprise the advantage seeking freeloaders are still with us.

The lunacy talk of "the Australian shareholders don't own Telstra" resurfaces, even with the fact that Australians paid $60 billion for it.

Mr Thodey and Mr Stanhope are on the right track, and while they may assist NBNCo survive, their entire focus must be to ensure a strong Telstra for all Australians.

Please Sydney... Salami Chujillo -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390001)

do not use the word "freeloaders" as you can't even answer a simple question. Why is TelstraClear not investing in it's own infrastructure in NZ but choose to freeload on NZ telcom? or why is the great australian icon deliberately holding back australia? I tell you why, because you are a greedy TLS shareholder who's only interest is yourself. You have no insterest for Australian consumers as you pretend to be.

re Please Sydney... Kiwi Ken -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390010)

Why don't you move to NZ. Seems they are of major interest to you.

re please Sydney Anonymous -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390010)

Anyone notice how on other threads this same question has been asked by non other than the insulting sewer dwelling RS?

Check another article Telstraclear is now investing in New Zealand the way other companies are here.

Suprise suprise.

Gee Salami sounds like RS and Vasso sounds like Sydney, wow RS -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390081)

You Telstra puppets make "anonymous accusations" - look your doing it again!

But really even you who stupidly bought TLS shares can't be that stupid. Why would I ask the same question as 2 different people?

It's a bit "too obvious" don't you think?

It seems Salami simply agrees and wants to know too. But if it makes you and the portfolio feel better "anonymous", you think what you want.

But surely even you greedy shareholders couldn't suggest leeching here but no problem in NZ could you?

So instead of incorrect conspiarcy theories, why don't you just answer the question(s).

If Telstra's competitors are leeching off Telstra here, are Telstraclear leeching off Telecom NZ, yes or no?

Sorry Dude Jim -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390001)

Sorry mate.

Telstra has lost. They can fight, they can moan, they can carry on but in the end, they will loose.

Thodey is putting up a front to 'save face' but in the end they will loose... Thats politics. There is no way the Lib's would go to a DD with this too. Going on recent polls they are going to be slaughted anyways..

I am not sure who you are reffering to with the comment of freeloaders however?

For the love of God! Mister PInk -- 29/10/09

When a gov't privatises a company, they are effectively selling it, so even if it was built with taxpayers money, it's irrelavent because it was bought with shareholders money, and that money has long been spent by the government.

Why you buy your house you dont expect the builder to turn up in 10 years later and demand the bricks back because it was paid for with his money!

Please keep away from the 'add your opinion' button until you complete 5th grade!

Moot Point Jim -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390042)

Your analogy is quite moot.

Not sure of what state you live in, but using your 'building a house' - The govt has every right to take your built house 10years later and your land aswel if its for the purpose of building something that will benefit to greater the community. I.e. That brand new spanking 8 lane highway.

I know the point you are trying to make, but there are better ways of saying it.

Depends Krish Sharma -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390048)

If the government takes you're house you will expect compensation. If telstra is split then 2 things will happen, either the shareholders get shares in the new wholesale company which will be a wholeseller monopoly, or the government will need to buy the whole sale component off telstra, which would be billions of dollars. From what the government has said it is likely to go with the first option.

More of a Moot Point Master Pink -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390048)

Sorry Jim, but we are not as smart as that sausage man and his cronies (sic).

.....Moot Point Anonymous -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390048)

Jim,

Yes I agree, they have the right to re-acquire the land for the publich good. But at a fair value.

I know, because I own such a block of land. They just can't evict me. That's not very Australian.

But they can Jim -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390165)

My word they can just evict you. Yes they will (generally) offer you a fair price.. But in the end.. If they want that land, they will get that land. They will win.

Call it Un-Australian all you want.. But the same could be said in reverse. A few people putting up a fight, holding up development of this freeway.. Is that fair to the potential millions of users of it? That may not seem very 'australian' to those millions?

There is always 2 sides to an argument.

But at the end of the day, *if* the Govt of the day *needs* something, generally they will get it and if they cant, they will legislate to get it. Why?Because that is their job. Thats what they were voted in to do.

Missed Point Mark Archer -- 06/11/09 (in reply to #320390048)

I think YOU missed the point Jim.

The point Mr Pink is trying to make is that even though a builder may have used his own money to pay for the bricks for your house, once you've made your payment to them the bricks are yours. nothing to do with the government.

The govenment owned Telecom. It sold it to the Australian people under Telstra. Not just the business name, but the infrastructure. Sold. To the australian people/shareholders. No longer owned by the government.

Yep, For the love of God! Bob the Builder -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390042)

Hear hear, but I don't think he will hear you, on that point.

Desperate disgusting Telstra desperados RS -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390057)

Gee look Sydney, Vasso and Mike have disappeared and magically a new batch of Telstra goons have appeared.

You guys seriously are *&^%$#

@For the love of God RS -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390042)

The PSTN was originally a government monopoly which was vested to Telstra (in 1992 Steve) and later sold to TLS shareholders.

WHILE IT DOES NOW BELONG TO TLS SHAREHOLDERS - IT BELONGS TO THEM WITH STRICT RULES & REGULATIONS (the bit all Telstra puppets like to forget or simply are unable to comprehend).

It's not hard to understand if you don't have a TLS portfolio clouding the senses!

So talking about when you buy a house, you buy it and it is yours - "but there are still rules". Perhaps such as, you cannot knock it down and build a pub. Or you cannot drill for oil or mine for minerals, whatever. There are rules.

Telstra are not above the law and must adhere to the privatisation (access) rules and regulations and no amount of shareholder greedy comments will alter that!.

But rather than buying a house, what if you are actually "given or vested" a house, with the proviso, others can use the house too and they even have to pay you rent?

Well "prior to privatisation" Telstra were vested not just "a house, but the entire Australia wide, multi-billion dollar government owned, monopoly, PSTN", under this type of usage/rental arrangement and they make $b's in profit each year from it...

BUT STILL WHINGE AND WHINE, UNBELIEVABLE!

Well said Anonymous -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390069)

Couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that the privatisation was conditional in that Telstra had to allow open access to competitors, etc is a point that whining TLS shareholders often forget.

Now, TLS DID break these conditions, which gives the govt the right to act. What action they will ultimately take remains unseen as they are still in negotiations with TLS, but PLEASE WHATEVER HAPPENS DO NOT CRY COMMUNIST WHEN WE GET THE RESULT!

Telstra did pay for the network Jamie Anderson -- 29/10/09

The government took billions of retained earnings from Telstra, while they were the sole shareholder and just before the float under the premise that it needed to be compensated for the money invested in their network, this was in addition to the funds to be raised from the float itself. Shareholders effectively paid more than their share price for Telstra, because the government emptied the vaults before they sold it. Telstra shareholders have had to pay to restock this capital, because Telstra would have had to go to the market to get finance to continue their capital works which would have been at a higher cost than had they been able to make use of retained earnings, so thereby raising their weighted average cost of capital and therefore the risk profile of the stock holding.

In any case I agree with the general principle that when you sell something, the fact that you paid for some item is moot, if you are selling it as is. They didn't sell the Australian public the right to the future revenue and cash flows, they sold those AND the infrastructure.

Whether or not this was the right decision isn't Telstra's issue, it is the government of that day's

In their responses, people seem to be confusing access provisions, created in the name of encouraging competition, with a signal of ownership. The govt would have had an economic and philosophical problem with privatising a monopoly, so was morally bound to do things to increase the level of competition, hence the enactment of access rights. But these don't signal lack of ownership, just the competitive issues around their use in maintaining a monopoly position.

Other than the laws cited by various others about compulsory acquisition of assets in relation to the national good, there are other laws that could come into play too. One being those called into play when the National Competition Commission forced both Rio and BHP to share their private West Australian railway lines with Fortescue Metais late last year. This didn't involve a nation building government project, but a view taken on market efficiency of private organisations surrounding the transport metals from mines to ports. Requiring that these rail lines were opened didn't change the ownership, merely the access, for which Fortescue would naturally be required to pay for at some commercially agreeable rate.

It should be noted that I am not a Telstra shareholder, nor a shareholder of any communications stock. I am merely a bemused onlooker at this pseudo-relogious fervour pouring out of people with no dispassionate point of view.

I agree that Telstra could pose a significant risk to the success of the NBN project, but the way to mitigate this risk isn't to froth at the mouth, but to arrive at a sensible and commercial decision. Thodey et al are playing the negotiating game just as well as the Federal government, we would expect nothing less of a top-flight CEO of any company in order to get the best outcome for his shareholders. If he rolled over easily, there would be questions as to his suitability as a CEO, and ASIC would be asking a question or two about probity.

At the end of the day, we the people stood by and allowed this privatisation, it isn't Telstra's problem if the government didn't get it right, now the egg is scrambled, the question is how to get the right result for the country without harming the shareholders, who are mostly individuals. I think causing commercial and economic harm to shareholders in the name of some national good sends a very bad and dangerous message to the world about the rights of the holders of capital here in Australia, and it starts to eat away at the premise of the rule of law and property rights which are necessary for any healthy and functioning capitalist economy. Because if you hold shares in any other company, you will start to wonder what will happen to you if the government decides to take some of the assets of your firm on uncommercial terms.

There is a solution to this, and it must be legal, and commercial. Whether Rudd likes it or not, you can't drive a negotiation to the parameters of some figures in an election promise that you made up from thin air. Commercial reality says if the price is too high vs the benefits, find another way to satisfy the requirement.

TLS shareholders own the network - with rules & regs! RS -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390085)

Nice work Jamie, I thoroughly enjoyed your comms comment and a some rationality, refreshingly coming from the Telstra side "for a change".

I THINK IF EVERYONE REALISED THAT TELSTRA OWN THE PSTN, BUT WITH RULES & REGS WHICH ALLOW ALL COMPETITORS LEGAL UNFETTERED ACCESS TO IT, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION! Sorry I'm not shouting at you Jamie. But unfortunately...

Firstly there's 2 issues which as you rightly say, people are confusing.

1. The vesting of the PSTN to Telstra.
2. The later, privatisation of Telstra/purchase by shareholders.

But also a 3rd issue which intetwines - Telstra's ownership clauses pertaining to the PSTN, when vested, and the rights of access to competitors. This was an integral part of Telstra receiving the PSTN.

But you say... "The government took billions of retained earnings from Telstra, while they were the sole shareholder and just before the float under the premise that it needed to be compensated for the money invested in their network, this was in addition to the funds to be raised from the float itself"...

Sole shareholders/owners are entitled to all earnings. It has nothing to do with network compo or whatever. That money belongs to the owners, who were the governmnet at the time. Plus the funds raised at IPO have nothing to do with Telstra obtaining the PSTN - again 1 & 2 being confused.

So where did "Telstra" (not taxpayers/customers/shareholders) actually pay for the PSTN?

Telstra didn't pay for the PSTN it was vested to them in 1992. They did have to repay some debt, but pittance, in comparison to what they received -
"an Australia wide, monopoly golden goose, oin a platter to prifit from at will"!

Again I reiterate before the loose cannons start again - it is now owned by TLS shareholders with ongoing rules and regulatiuons. Those being Telstra's Bundle of Rights to ownership (which they breached and admitted to, btw)!

Here's a link to a little debate in another thread with a comment from the Justices and another to the High Courts verdict.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Telstra-CEO-Hands-off-my-backhaul-/0,130061791,339299270,00.htm#320390075

Page 5 ... http://www.ags.gov.au/publications/agspubs/legalpubs/litigationnotes/LN16.pdf

I look forward to a possible response, Jamie!

..................here's an apt response RS Anonymous -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390093)

Give the verbal diarrhea a rest.

Ode to an idiot named Mike! RS -- 29/10/09 (in reply to #320390107)

See what I mean about your rational correspondence, being refreshing in comparison to the other shareholders, Jamie!

The above (...here's an apt) is the normal type of comment, from the greedy, idiot Telstra shareholder.

So another limerick for another idiot -

There once was a greedy uber-fool named Ne wIn

Stupidly thought Telstra shares a shoe-in

"If you knew what I paid you'd cry"

Was his repetitive lie

This clown...doesn't know what he's doin'

Re ...heres an apt response RS Anonymous -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390107)

As a Telstra employee I read through these views from RS about Telstras network acquisition & the courts thinking he is just another Telstra bashing Optus fanboy. So I checked his links then googled & it all looks aok. I didnt know a lot of that stuff ever happened & thats what these chats are for not dumbass name calling. So Instead of being a trolling **** all the time you should take note & try to add to the thread Anonymous.

Telstra employee! RS -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390133)

A most unlikely ally, but thanks!

How about Conroy buy Telstra back ? Anonymous -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390093)

It seems the whole argument is going around in circles, with good points from both side.

The government sold Telstra to you and me, with strings attached.

Now the government is wants to change the strings to a much stronger one.

I totally agree that that is the right way to go.

Just buy my share back first.

Yes circles and you know why? RS -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390163)

Yes we are going around in circles on both sides.

Because we have...

- one side (my side) who simply want what's best for all Australians in relation to comms.

- and then the other side who are greedily only interested in themselves and their TLS shares and don't give a flying *u** about the rest of their fellow Australians.

Having made a bad investment decision, these greedy bas***ds have now found a new angle to try to magically fixed their dung pile portfolios.

They not only want the government to save them, but in typical Telstra fashion, they also want absolute top dollar too. Top dollar for a network they not so long ago, were crying was costing poor Telstra hundreds of millions per years to maintain, due to it's age and condition.

Strangely, these greed driven, used car salespeople/shareholders, are now telling us it's a gleaming wonderful network worth $60b+ (lol) so give me the $$$$$$$$$$, they say!

Just buy my share(s) back first - says it all!

...Circles Anonymous -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390166)

Let me ask you a simple question mate.

Have ever sold anything in your life ?

Why should he steve -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390163)

Anon do you understand how the market operates. If the govt wants to buy part of a company then they will negotiate with the company. There is no reason for them to talk to or negotiate with a shareholder.

If the govt and the company come to an agreement then the asset is sold and the company will use the money appropriately. It may even give the shareholder a special dividend.

If you do not like the arrangement then you can always sell the your shares on the open market.

I agree steve -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390093)

RS I agree with you comments and it is refreshing to read without all of the rhetoric about shareholders.

To add to the discussion the govt also vested the PSTN and more to Australian Telecommunications Commission (trading as Telecom Australia) in 1975. See para 13 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2008/7.html

I am not a lawyer but when the govt creates a commission eg Australian Telecommunications Commission or Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation Limited (Trading as Telecom Australia then Telstra Corporation Limited) any asset transfer may be only possible via vesting of the assets.

Thanks Steve RS -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390171)

Thanks Steve much appreciated, I'll have a read!

Alway willing to discuss rationally and "learn from" those who do not let their finacial agenda overule their commonsense, from all sides of the equation.

If we could just rid ourselves of one very odd TLS shareholder in particular, who never comments on comms and just responds to me with childish idiocy,15+ times a day (refer above to ... here's an apt response RS) this would be a wonderful arena for comms discussion.

Particularly now that Telstra are endeavouring to improve and redeem themselves in the eyes of the consumer. Nice job David Thodey.

Cheers

I think there is some confusion Jamie Anderson -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390093)

You said:

"But you say... "The government took billions of retained earnings from Telstra, while they were the sole shareholder and just before the float under the premise that it needed to be compensated for the money invested in their network, this was in addition to the funds to be raised from the float itself"...

Sole shareholders/owners are entitled to all earnings. It has nothing to do with network compo or whatever. That money belongs to the owners, who were the governmnet at the time. Plus the funds raised at IPO have nothing to do with Telstra obtaining the PSTN - again 1 & 2 being confused. "

I agree that the government could do whatever they liked with retained earnings provided that the followed a process sanctioned by ASIC and did not harm the company's ongoing prospects, payment approved by Board, and appropriate to the company's circumstances etc etc

That isn't what I was saying. The dividends were required to me made explicitly to take the PSTN network. So I haven't drawn an implication that dividends = payment, it was actually explicitly part of the sale process.

Also of course funds from the IPO are consideration for the sale of the asset being the physical operating assets and the right to the future cash flows of the business. You say that the IPO funds have nothing to do with Telstra obtaining the PSTN, I didn't say that either, what I said is that the government received proper consideration for the sale of those assets. This is in response to the hyseteria that some people have over the idea that Telstra somehow tricked the Australian Government into receiving these assets for "free" and that they somehow belong to taxpayers. My illustration is to show that the tax payer has received due payment.

Lastly as inferred by you and others, I am not a shareholder of Telstra, nor an employee, nor an associate. The only financial link I have with the company is as that I am a customer of theirs on normal commercial terms. I have no agenda to push save that I would like the NBN mess resolved, quickly, with minimal cost to the taxpayer and for us all to get on with our otherwise productive lives. Throwing mud into the water isn't going to help clarify matters of advance the quality of debate and discussion on the NBN.

Come Clean Conroy. Sydney Lawrence -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390194)

Jamie, by sensible and honest comment you return the debate to the level of civilized democracy.

By investment, every citizen of Australia has the opportunity to market a product or service and compete for the consumer dollar.

When a Government legislates and uses blackmail to destroy competition to create a monopoly with no opposition it is time to protest.

I would ask why the ACCC has been silent when it is obvious that the Rudd Government intends to create a monopoly an ban competition?

I would also ask why, considering the protest the Future Fund made to get rid of Sol, they remain silent when the Rudd Government displays its intention to devalue Telstra.

How can it be that the Rudd Government promotes the NBNCo without any costing, any idea of return on investment or customer acceptance.

If a private company or individual was to promote, for public investment, such a mish mash of smoke and mirror mirage the powers that be would be onto them in a flash.

because.. Salami Chujillo -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390197)

cuz it is the way forward Sydney, Telstra as a wholesaler and a retailer has been a disater for Australian consumers. They've been holding Australia back in the dark ages for too long.

@ Come Clean Conroy RS -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390197)

Yes Sydney, and when Jamie turns around tomorrow and says something not so Telstra glowing, you will turn on him and abuse him, like the crazed, biased hypocrite that you obviously are.

For example -

Sydney Lawrence -- 23/10/09... "Sensible and undeniable truthful comment from Don Argus, Mel and RS".

Then a few days later

Sydney Lawrence -- 28/10/09... "Daveo and RS really do need help. I realise that to to try to answer the absolute undeniable facts that Vasso and Mike promote would be enough to unbalance the human mind and RS and Daveo are to be pitied. But help is at hand....It is my intention, in the spirit of compassionate humanity, to arrange for a team of Doctors, expert in the stabilization of the human mind, to work in shifts 24/7 for as long as it takes to attempt to bring Daveo and RS back to some degree of sensibility"...

Your reaction to my one pro and one anti Telstra comments simply but obviously proves 2 things. My impartiality and your relentless bias, doesn't it?

Yes... RS -- 30/10/09 (in reply to #320390194)

Jamie, interestsing angle and food for thought. Thanks.

Although heresay and without foundation, in my opinion, as you have supplied nothing to support any of your claims. Conversely, the High Court clearly spelled it all out - so I guess we can agree to disagree.

Here is the condensed information to support my claims -

High Court March 2008 ..."The public switched telephone network [PSTN] which Telstra now owns (and of which the local loops form part) was originally a public asset owned and operated as a monopoly since Federation by the Commonwealth"...

And...

..."In 1992, when the assets of the PSTN were vested in Telstra, Telstra was wholly owned by the Commonwealth"...

We can argue over dollars coming from here or going there, but the above High Court details PSTN origins, previous Commonwealth ownership (and obvious entitlement to earnings) and that it was vested to (not bought by) Telstra in 1992 and now owned by Telstra - but with strict access rules/regs, which Telstra have broken, outlined in the entire ruling.

As for inferring you a shareholder, I didn't. I suggested that you were from the Telstra side, as your comment appeared to display! In the context written by me, I actually meant as a compliment.

However, if that is incorrect and I have offended (understandably so, you obviously aren't wanting to be likened to some of the loose cannon TLS shareholders herein) my apologies.

Cheers.