Telstra hits back at ADSL2+ chicken jibes

By Jo Best, ZDNet.com.au

07 February 2008 04:27 PM

Tags: telstra, primus, exchange, broadband, adsl2+, conroy, coonan, government

Telstra has hit back at accusations from rivals that its decision to turn on ADSL2+ in 900 exchanges across Australia was the latest example of the telco "losing a game of chicken with the government".

Telstra announced the switch-on of the exchanges at an event in Canberra yesterday, with Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in attendance. While the exchanges in question had been ADSL2+ enabled for some time, the telco had not switched them on, saying it believed the ACCC might mandate that its rivals be allowed to resell the service.

Yesterday, the telco said it had received assurances from the government that the regulator would not force it to open its network. Rivals, however, said there has been no change in government policy and that Telstra changed its mind in order to rebuild its relationship with the government ahead of the impending fibre-to-the-node rollout.

Want to know more?

For all the latest news, analysis and opinion on broadband, click here

A spokesperson for the telco said that Telstra had sought assurances from the former Communications Minister, Helen Coonan but had not received them and is now satisfied with the government's position on the matter.

"There is a big difference between being given an assurance by a bureaucrat and by a Minister and that's our point. We asked the former Minister to give us the assurance we were wanting and that was not forthcoming. To have a Minister come out with a Prime Minister in attendance and give you that assurance is a massive difference," the spokesperson said.

David Kennedy, research director for Ovum, said that yesterday's announcement could mark the start of better relationship between the government and Telstra.

"The new government is determined to promote wider access to fast broadband, and is prepared to directly address some of Telstra's concerns to achieve this result. The focus is on outcomes, not processes. The fact that Telstra felt compelled to seek this government assurance, and that the government responded, could reflect a new and more positive relationship between Telstra and the government," Kennedy said in a research note.

However, one of Telstra's rivals had already contacted the ACCC to request the regulator "declare" the services -- that is, mandate Telstra wholesale the service to other broadband players. Primus CEO Ravi Bhatia said that the declaration of the services was necessary to boost competition in the marketplace and said he will be writing to Minister Conroy on the matter.

Talkback (39)
Print
E-mail
Share
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Reddit
- Slashdot
- StumbleUpon

Talkback 39 comments

Add your opinion

But does not back Telstra Anonymous -- 07/02/08 (in reply to #320095136)

You have got to be kidding.

Telstra is not the great and wonderful company that some seem to think it is, I've worked for them, and I've worked in the industry, Telstra want's one thing, all it's competitors to go away, you may like paying the huge prices that they want to charge, but I don't!

Telstra drag their heels on everything, they care about one thing, money, not you or I.

And about to be screwed Anonymous -- 07/02/08 (in reply to #320095136)

Either the original poster must be really wealthy or had not done proper comparison of price with other ISPs.

TLS has got to be the most expensive telco I've ever met and quite frankly, Aus doesn't back Telstra if it not because it owns the majority infrastructure.

Australia backs Conroy. Anonymous -- 07/02/08 (in reply to #320095136)

Sydney - given that you have a major involvement in Telstra's NWAT site, and act as an 'unofficial' promoter of Telstra's goals, your views are understandable. However I would suggest you ask yourself these questions....
Has Telstra never been 'bombastic' to the Federal Govt?
What 'cunningly devious methods' have been employed by the 'companies'?
And how have these 'methods' been detrimental to Australia?
I would further ask you to consider how Telstra can justify withholding from it's shareholders the additional value under the false pretences of self-imposed 'road blocks'. (Telstra shares rose 3% on the back of the announcement) regarding the enabling of ADSL2+. Please refer to Senator Conroy's letter here.... http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/81223/senator_conroys_letter_to_telstra.pdf
paying particular attention to references to the ACCC.

Cunning, devious and self serving Daniel Crowe -- 07/02/08 (in reply to #320095136)

"for years have cunningly used devious methods to further their own ambitions"

To catch a thief, one must think like a thief

Disagree with Ravi Jason Torrento -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095136)

I absolutely disagree with Ravi of Primus.

The DSL services are quiet capable of being installed by competitors, and they should simply go ahead and do so.

Telstra can have it's own 'premium' priced crap, and the competitors can add their own DSL services alongside, and let the customer choose the better valued competitor product over Telstra.

The point is to encourage investment, how will making resale Telstra services cheaper / easier / etc, go anywhere towards encouraging competitors to open wallets and spend dollars?

Sorry, but I said from the word go that I would absolutely stand by Telstra on the decision that ADSL2+ should not be wholesaled, and I now do agree, it should not be.

They've done it themselves, they can continue to do so, they've removed road blocks before, they can continue to do so.
If backhaul is expensive, pay for your own new cable.
If space is 404, then get some more.

There doesn't seem to be a compelling case at all for forcing Telstra into ADSL2+ wholesale.

Telstra Blocking competitive ADSL installs Anonymous -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095169)

Except what should Primus (& others) do when Telstra simply refuses to allow them to install new equipment on the basis of 'space constraints' - even when there are vast areas of space being occupied by obsolete, no-longer-used Telstra equipment. Even when said competitor has offered to pay to have it removed, Telstra still refuses to free the space in the exchange.

Telstra will do anything they can to prevent competitors from installing their own DSLAMs, and I agree with Ravi that in such a case they should be forced to wholesale their ADSL2+ services.

That is what the ACCC is for Carlos -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095175)

If Telstra's reason for denying access is not valid then they can complain to the ACCC but they seem to prefer to go to the media and argue to the court of public opinion.

F T In the A F T In the A -- 07/02/08

F T In the A

F T in the A Anonymous -- 07/02/08 (in reply to #320095141)

despite the fact "F T in the A" is an immature and completely unproductive thing to say, it's an opinion of Telstra that's a lot more representative of the Australian public than Sydney Lawrence's rhetoric.

Stick to the facts Fair go for Telstra -- 08/02/08

Some of you may want to blindly put obscene one line comments, others may want to pretend they know how the entire country feels about Telstra. When you consider the fact that Telstra is a private company and has an obligation to it's shareholders first and foremost how could you blame them for holding back a service if they will simply be forced to sell it at a price that does not return value to the shareholders.

Other then the copper network, including the cable in the ground and the exchanges they terminate in they should have free reign to overlay any product they wish without limitations or regulation from the government.

There are currently around 500 exchanges that have ADSL2+ enabled which are in highly populated areas, an average of over 10,000 premises per exchange. This is the market that all of the companies you all like to support are targeting. They can install one or two devices, connect hundreds of people, have short connections back to a point of presence and ultimately have a much lower per user cost basis. The rest they ride on Telstra's back paying $3 to $9 per month and not much else while Telstra has to pay for the maintenance, technicians, building operational costs, activation, deactivation and service costs around them.

When you look at the 900 newly announced ADSL2+ exchanges the reality is completely different.
370 exchanges with an average of 4865 premises each, 230 at 1743 each and finally 405 with only an average of 815 each.

What other company is willing to equip these exchanges, pay technicians to be on hand for ongoing maintenance as well as ad-hoc repairs? The reason you love their competitors is they have a cheap service built around high margin metropolitan locations as well as constantly blaming Telstra for their own inadequacies and because you seem to hate Telstra you will believe anything they feed you.

I for one know the company, know how their network runs, know the reality of the industry and know that paying $100,000 to deliver one $30 per month phone service 100km from nowhere is something none of your wonderful companies will ever do.

You seem to forget that not too long ago Optus won a tender to supply and maintain regional services called the Universal Service Obligation (USO), as soon as they won it and realised it was not economically viable and would not make their shareholders a profit they politely handed it back and Telstra was not given an option but to take over the USO again. Funny how the media was all over it when they took it on but not mentioned when they handed it back. This is now the same company that you are happy to have build a network based on a lot of air, a lot of hot air.

You seem to say that nothing has changed and this is a political stunt, the simple fact is that now the ACCC not only has to contend with the wishes of a company they openly and often unevenly target but the request of the countries Prime Minister and Communications Minister.

I look for ward to your nonsensical one liners and attempted rebuttal.

Attempted Rebuttal Daniel Crowe -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095165)

The issue I have with Telstra is the fact they now own a massive network that was paid for by the taxpayers, and are treating it as if it's they had paid for it out of their own pockets.

I agree that this is entirely the fault of the Government that sold Telstra off, but the reality is that Telstra is currently a monopoly, and therefore has to have many/some/all of its actions monitored and mandated by an entity such as the ACCC.

Myself being the casual pedant who reply's to comments on news articles, I'd like to pull you up on a couple of things:

1) Since you titled your comment "Stick to the facts" I find it somewhat hypocritical for you to have made this comment:

"This is now the same company that you are happy to have build a network based on a lot of air, a lot of hot air. "

No one commenting here mentioned Optus or OPEL or being happy with them winning the tender.

2) Which one liner did you find nonsensical?
F T in the A
or
To catch a thief, one must think like a thief

Think about it a bit harder and you're likely to work it out. You write grammatically correctly, and use paragraphs (which is highly uncommon on a comment forum), so you're obviously not the kind of dimwit who'd write F T in the A. Come on, don't make me have to explain it to you.

Correction Matt -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095167)

"The issue I have with Telstra is the fact they now own a massive network that was paid for by the taxpayers, and are treating it as if it's they had paid for it out of their own pockets."

This is a mute point as yes, paid for by taxpayers & also SOLD by the taxpayers at a very large profit via the previous Fed Gov't. In addition to this much of the funding for the current network was via Gov't loans that had to be repaid @ commercial interest rates, a fact often forgotten or dismissed by diehard anti-Telstra individuals.

However, I absolutely agree that the current mess was the making of the Howard Gov't. Talstra are simply operating within the enviroment created for them.

Partial agreement Daniel Crowe -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095203)

I'm not sure I entirely agree with what you've said Matt (other than where you agree with me :), but I do know I haven't done enough research to say that you're even partially wrong.

It doesn't "feel" right, but when did that ever make any difference?

And, by the way, it's "moot", not "mute", lots of people get that wrong.

Telstra senior management posting? Telstra is bad news -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095165)

Fair go for Telstra wrote:
"370 exchanges with an average of 4865 premises each, 230 at 1743 each and finally 405 with only an average of 815 each. "

Strange that you should have so much detailed information when "Telstra has declined to reveal its full schedule, claiming commercial reasons" http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/broadband-speeds-to-be-boosted/2008/02/06/1202233951299.html

And you might want to read Senator Conroys 'letter again
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/81223/senator_conroys_letter_to_telstra.pdf
Specifically the bits about:
"Mr Samuel has informed me that this position has been reiterated publicly on several occasions" and then went on to detail three specific occasions when that happened over a period of 15 months.

And lets not forget this bit:
"I agree [with the ACCC] that a compelling case for the declaration of wholesale xDSL services has not been made at this time"

The only thing that has changed is Telstra's about face in this matter after steadfastly refusing to give in for 18 months.

Billion dollar handouts are finished. Sydney Lawrence -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095170)

I may be a simple person but to read the childish exchanges of some of the Anti-Telstra Brigade diminishes my estimation of the human mind with reference to it's power of understanding and dissemination of fact.

Cannot people understand that Telstra was sold to the Australian public. The Australian people now own Telstra and expect a return on their investment. That is the way the world works, and is expected to work in the free enterprise capitalistic system Australia has.

Opponents of Telstra have seen an avenue for opportunity and advantage over Telstra by clever manipulation of pressure groups and Government lackeys (Howard /Coonan) under the guise of competition, to freeload on Telstra.

With the election of a new Government Australia now has a chance to challenge the restrictive self defeating and outdated thinking of the Howard Government. We see this ably demonstrated by the refreshing decision of Senator Conroy with ADSL2+ switch-on.

The ACCC did not guarantee Telstra non Declaration for ADSL2+ but simply told Telsta a decision would be made after switch-on. An answer not acceptable to Telstra. However, the notification by the Prime Minister of Australia and a Minister of the Crown that they considered Declaration unnecessary is an entirely different matter.

We will now see frantic panic by the parasites as they fight to maintain their freeloading position on Telstra but the Australian people awake in growing numbers and we thank Almighty God that we finally have a Government in Australia that will act quickly to bring a sensible conclusion to this situation to the advantage of all Australians.

Resolution of childish exchanges Daniel Crowe -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095180)

Quoting Sydney Lawrence:
"I may be a simple person but to read the childish exchanges of some of the Anti-Telstra Brigade diminishes my estimation of the human mind with reference to it's power of understanding and dissemination of fact."

Also quoting Sydney Lawrence:
"We will now see frantic panic by the parasites as they fight to maintain their freeloading position on Telstra"

I would consider it childish to refer to Telstra's competitors as parasites. I would also consider it childish to refer to opinions that you disagree with as childish.

You make your points, but I disagree. I, and others, make our points, but you disagree. Shall we shake hands on agreeing to disagree?

Democracy is safe Sydney Lawrence -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095183)

Exceptionally well put Daniel, in fact in a manner one would expect from the likes of the eloquent and intelligent Abraham Lincoln. Agreed and thanks.

The divide is a mirror Daniel Crowe -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095184)

The people we see on the "other" side are merely ourselves but with different opinions.

Thanks for the kind words, and I look forward to coming to an impasse with you again in the future.

"Obligation to it's shareholders first and foremost " Ferrice Farquar -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095165)

Telstra clearly does not give a damn about it's shareholders, as they proved at the last AGM where the 'valued' shareholders voted against the proposed executives remuneration with an overwhelming majority, and they simply said 'stuff you, we're having it anyway'.

Executive Salaries? I doubt this is relevant Steve McArthur -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095196)

Firstly, before I state my opinion, I am not a Telstra shareholder, and hence was not at the AGM, and I don't know the specific details of Telstra's executive salaries.

However, if I'm even close, I seem to recall Sol's salary being somewhere between about $10-$15 Million? I'm sure someone will correct me, but at even 5 times that figure, my point is the same.

Since Ziggy moved on, hasn't Telstra built a new mobile network? A very big and very fast network in fact.
And haven't they turned on more internet services and made their existing itnernet services faster?
And aren't they pulling all their products and applications apart and streamlining their operations, with the intention of making it more efficient and customer friendly or something? (I don't think this is finished, but I think it has started).

These are the results of Telstra's current executives. God only knows how much money they have made out of those three things alone, I'm sure it would be an astronomical figure.

So on that rationale, surely they are entitled to some performance based financial incentives, just like the rest of us, and secondly, whatever they are paying themselves would be a drop in the ocean compared to the companies worth, and costings.

On my calculations, 50,000 employees with an average salary of $50k (it's probably higher), that's $2500M. So what if they give themselves 10 mil of it? It's so relatively small it certainly doesn't affect the share price, and hence their decision to overule the shareholders vote.

Don't you want executives finacially motivated to stay with a company to get things like new networks built? Makes sense to me.

If you don't like it, sell your shares.

"Sell your shares" Ted Bolton -- 11/02/08 (in reply to #320095205)

I've sold all mine and my wife's sold all hers except for the partially paid TLSCAs which she'll sell in May.

We want no part of this devious, corrupt brigade.

I'll keep mine thanks Ted 2 Bolts Just Behind My Ears -- 11/02/08 (in reply to #320095365)

Are you selling them because you have made a nice profit (90c appreciation since T3)?

I see a bright future for the company and shares and am happy to keep increasing my holdings (as I have every year for the past decade), I love the fact I can now also do a dividend reinvestment.

See how easy it is for someone to post a comment that is completely irrelevant in relation to the story at hand.

Return to the facts Fair go for Telstra -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095196)

As the person who posted the above "Stick to the facts", I am a Telstra employee but work in the network design area and posted this purely out of frustration reading some of the incomprehensible gibberish posted on this site, I have no association with sales, marketing and was not prompted by anyone within or outside of Telstra to write this. I am a shareholder just like Sydney, have a mortgage, pay my phone line rental and have a choice of mobile supplier and can sleep well at night knowing I love my job, have a wonderful employer and am achieving something with my life.

Daniel, I tried to stick to the facts but please allow me some liberty to add 26 words not associated with the heading, have you ever complained about the writers of these articles for mentioning something that has no association with the story at hand or heading? I would also like to thank you for your nice comment regarding my grammar although your roundabout accusation is quite disappointing, after a great deal of document writing and understand the importance of clarity when it comes to capturing the reader's attention.

Making a claim that this is a senior management posting is a clear attempt to discredit an individual's opinion, the detail you talk about is freely available on the NWAT site (http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/Home/Page.aspx?mid=215#06Feb08), all you need is a calculator to work out the average. As stated above the ACCC gave a very open determination and I would consider the "at this time" closing a complete failure to provide any assurance they will not change their mind after Telstra activates ADSL2+ on the exchanges. How would your wife feel if you said to her "I am not cheating on you ... at this time"?

Ferrice, This is very much like politicians voting themselves a pay increase. No one is happy with this situation but they have the ultimate control as we voted them in to power to make the hard decisions on our behalf and if we consider they have failed us with these decisions then we have an opportunity to vote them out. I do somewhat agree that Sol can earn my annual salary in a matter of hours but when comparing Sol's salary to the CEO's of the other major companies in Australia his salary is not very different.

I have also noted that there has been no real response to the true substance of my comments, people have made comments and claims in relation to who I am and how I have access to information but not in relation to they real heart of the story or response. I am glad that the quality of your responses from Ferrice, Daniel and Sydney was a little more sophisticated then I expected although I am sure the regulars will pop up soon.

Well put Steve Fair go for Telstra -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095214)

Sorry I missed thanking you in my above response but it looks like we were typing at the same time.

Its good that you defend your boss vigorously. Anonymous -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095214)

The thing is though, Telstra is ripping of Australians and our future by blocking a future FTTN deal unless they can blackmail the government into overpriced broadband charges under their own heinous FTTN plan.

Australians are smart and proud and thats why they are deserting Telstra who kick loyal customers in the teeth daily with poor service and overpriced on every service they offer.

I pay a third for my internet and phone calls than I would under a Telstra plan. Thats because Optus have installed most of their own equipment. The less Telstra infrastructure used the cheaper every provider becomes....its not hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Dont be a sucker and prop up telstras flagging profits under poor leadership, switch to a decent provider today! I save hundreds every year.

You are lucky you live in the city Anna Watts -- 08/02/08 (in reply to #320095233)

I have to agree about the fact that many rural areas are not big population and profit areas, last year I bought a magazine that had an Optus ad and I thought the rates looked good if I switched my home phone, mobile and internet to them they could save me money. I called them and after half an hour waiting the sales girl asked for my details and when she realised where I was from (Nth West Vic) she told me Optus couldn't help. They don't service my area and recommended speaking to locals who already have a mobile with them before I switch so I asked lots of people and no one uses Optus because there is no reception around town. Looks like as long as you are in the city and are easy and cheap to look after they want you otherwise I will need to stick to Telstra. Hate them if you want but when you want service and no one else other then Telstra will give it to you what do you do? The Optus girl actually told me that there are lots of areas they are not allowed to sell to because it is too far and too expensive to look after, this doesn't sound like a decent or even national provider to me. I reckon I could save hundreds if I switched yo Optus, can't make a call and have no internet to use my allowance.

Fair cop Daniel Crowe -- 09/02/08 (in reply to #320095214)

Fair go for Telstra,

Good reply, and yes, some of my wording sounded far more accusing than was warranted.

In regards to the content of your post:

"What other company is willing to equip these exchanges, pay technicians to be on hand for ongoing maintenance as well as ad-hoc repairs?"

This is a valid point, but a lot of Telstra's Australian-owned competitors (ie. non-multinationals) just don't have the resources to do it on the scale of Telstra. I believe this is why Telstra should be subject to special rules that force them to allow wholesaling to competitors. (Forcing to wholesale at below cost is a separate issue that would stir up a whole lot more uninspring commentary I'm sure).

"I for one know the company, know how their network runs, know the reality of the industry and know that paying $100,000 to deliver one $30 per month phone service 100km from nowhere is something none of your wonderful companies will ever do. "

This is merely postulation, but I'd wager that if Telstra didn't already have a lot of their infrastructure already in place from their Government-owned days, then they wouldn't be rushing to provide such a service either. If iiNet, AAPT, Internode, Primus (et al.) had their roles reversed with Telstra then they'd be providing the $100k infrastructure for a $30/month service (and be doing it equally begrudgingly - just remember I said it was postulation)

"constantly blaming Telstra for their own inadequacies and because you seem to hate Telstra you will believe anything they feed you."

I don't like to think that I, myself, believe everything bad I get told about Telstra, but make sure that you also don't believe everything Telstra tells you either.

I'm assuming the comment you made about Optus and the USO thing to be factual, but by ending that paragraph the way you did ("This is now the same company that you are happy to have build a network based on a lot of air, a lot of hot air") sounds like the kind of Optus bashing that you don't like when it's directed at Telstra. I'm not a fan of Optus either, but I won't bag them about something they "may" do, the same way I try to bag Telstra about what they "may" do - and I severely hope I haven't done that in any of my comments. If I have, please combine them with egg and launch it at me.

I'd also like to say that I'm done with this thread, my enthusiasm has moved on to other issues, though I'm interested as to what the ACCC does or tries to do down the track.

State true facts James Bell -- 09/02/08 (in reply to #320095165)

Fair go for Telstra,

I'm not going to disect everything you've written; however there is one component that stood out to me which I will comment on.

Your heading is 'Stick to the facts'; however one of your key arguments on the pricing Telstra is being forced to charge its wholesale customers is fundamentally wrong. No company is gaining access to Telstra lines at the prices you have quoted. Even ULL for which Telstra is only responsible for maintaining the last low-tech copper mile to a customer's premises has a rental charge of $14.30 for metropolitan band 2 services (where the bulk of Australians reside). Telstra was unsuccessful in convincing either the ACCC or ACT that maintenance costs are any higher. If the true costs were in fact higher I would assume this would have been relatively easy for Telstra to prove.

For a fully resold line Telstra charges significantly more and in fact not too long ago Telsra attempted to charge a higher wholesale rate that what it was charging retail customers. Subsequentally this resulted in the ACCC slapping Telstra with a Competition Notice.

I personally don't have a particularly strong view on whether ADSL 2+ should be a declared service or not. If however what Ravi Bhatia states is true, and that Telstra is turning on ADSL 2+ in exchanges where Primus have been refused access to install their own equipment, then I believe this does warrant some investigation

State teur facts or media hype? Edwin -- 10/02/08 (in reply to #320095291)

James,

To date I have not seen a list of which exchanges Primus is complaining about and what the specific reason was that caused them to be denied access. I would love to see a complete list from Primus, or anyone else, and have those fully and openly investigated.

Don't forget that if Telstra denies access when a request meets all guidelines the party has the ability to go and lodge a complaint through the regulator. It's nice to stand up in front of a bunch of reporters to cry poor but the truth only comes out through a clearly defined unbiased processes.

Correction noted Fair Go For Telstra -- 11/02/08 (in reply to #320095291)

James, As you are a regular poster on many different sites and always professional I will assume your statement about $14.30 is correct. I would like to know your source of information so I can further my own knowledge and understanding.

The following parragraph states "not too long ago", from my recollection this was over 2 years ago although I would accept a correction if I am wrong. Also from my recollection Telstra arguement was based on all call related revenue was lost to the wholesale client so there was no longer any other income derived from line. This ment that although the wholesale wholesale provider was not detrimented by this and the competition notice did not result in any penalties to Telstra.

In relation to Primus not being granted access in an anti-competitive manner, I await the aoucome of any ACCC investigation unless this is simply a media beat up.

Link for reference James Bell -- 11/02/08 (in reply to #320095359)

Fair Go For Telstra,

The $14.30 rate I quoted was obtained via the ACCC site at the following link:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/808346/fromItemId/233

The above ruling stemmed from Telstra changing their original pricing structure with a number of service providers (which were agreed upon without any previous ACCC involvement) and forcing them to pay an access rate of $30 per line regardless of its location. In some instances this resulted in a sudden price hike of over 200% from the original rates. Telstra continued to charge this new rate even following both the ACCC and ACTâ��s rulings that the pricing was unreasonable.

In relation to the competition notice in question you are correct it originated from December 2005, and although I do consider this quite recent myself admit 'recent' is somewhat subjective. The Competition Notice served its purpose however and resulted in Telstra reversing its charges. I used this as an example to demonstrate why it is still necessary in our current environment to have a regulatory watchdog in place to protect consumer interests. As stated previously I have nothing against Telstra being successful in their business or turning profits for shareholders, but as they have inherited a natural competitive advantage I see the ACCCâ��s role as being crucial in ensuring competition is not held to ransom.

What Primus is claiming may well be media hype and I certainly do not dispute this, and unless their claims can be proven I would agree thereâ��s no compelling argument for ADSL 2+ to be a declared service.

Running scared? Anonymous -- 08/02/08

I think the timing is very suspicious and the reasons given don't add up. I think Telstra is trying to remove some of the reasons for splitting them up which they know this government will do. Telstra knew the last govement had the most incompetant ICT miniser and Prime minister without a clue about IT. Telstra knew they would never actually 'do' anthing and Telstra showed its true contempt for its customers within the safety of that situtation. Now they're running scared.

All the exchanges already capable of ADSL2+ with customers everywhere screaming for better broadband? Cleary what customers want has nothing to do with Telstra provision of services. I hope the Rudd government takes a chainsaw to Telstra and removes their ability to impede Aus growth as they have for the last 10+ years.

Scarey. Sydney Lawrence -- 09/02/08 (in reply to #320095182)

Agree somebody is running scared but I don't think it's Telstra.

Running? Malcolm -- 09/02/08 (in reply to #320095182)

The only thing running is everyone playing catch up.

I am certain one of these days there will be one or two highly regulated infrastructure providers and around 3-10 major retail vendors who buy infrastructure from the 1 or 2 above.

The thing is:
ADSL2+, internet access in general, streaming movies & music, TV on demand, the e-mail I send to my mates in Byron and 24/7 365 support are all value added services that overlay across the infrastructure. If someone wants to invest they could offer all of these things but the reality is they will not invest.

Just look at the Optus HFC network, built at the same time as the Telstra / Foxtel network. I was run along side power lines whereas Telstra run theirs in the ground. Telstra upgraded the network to cater for digital TV and 3 years later Optus followed suit. Telstra upgraded the internet speeds, Optus reluctantly followed suit.

When it is a level playing field Telstra still wins so stop using the 'big bad monopoly is hurting us and the country' argument to shif much of the blame away from the shortcomings of the Telstra competitors.

Yes running? James Bell -- 09/02/08 (in reply to #320095271)

Malcolm,

Optus invested billions and also lost billions on their HFC investment. This is why you are unlikely to ever see again in your lifetime another company investing in such expensive infrastructure in this country unless they have the regulatory certainty that no other company will be able to create a competing network.

When it was announced Optus would be building a HFC network Telstra decided to duplicate Optus' rollout street for street. For Telstra these rollout costs were significantly less because as you mentioned Telstra already had their underground cabling ducts to place a large proportion of their network. Once Optus decided to pull the plug on the remainder of their rollout to Adelaide and certain parts of Brisbane, surprise, surprise Telstra also ceased their rollout. Note I am using this to show you that competition is the only reason we have a HFC network to begin with, let alone the choice of two networks to choose from!

In relation to digital TV I believe Optus actually provided digital TV prior to Foxtel; however it didn't perform a full commercial rollout as the Foxtel-Optus content sharing deal eventuated which resulted in Optus purchasing Foxtelâ��s content instead. For the record I don't believe Foxtel digital is even 3 years old yet and the Telstra & Optus speed upgrades were only weeks apart so I don't believe either company had the opportunity to 'reluctantly' follow the other?

The fact remains there never has been a level playing field in the fixed world. Mobile is a different story and this is why competition has flourished.

At the end of the day.... Anonymous -- 13/08/08

... my dollars wil lgo to who can give me hte service.

Been waiting forever for Telstra to get me off their restrictive 3GB nextG paying about $50 extra per month (on top of $119) and get ADSL via their RIMs.

5 minutes application online with another provider and 3 days later, I'm on ADSL with 150GB allowance for $69 per month.

All these discussions to me are irrelevent. I know who delivered at the end of the day.

Don't get me started on how long I've been trying to sort out mistakes in usage either and how I wasted a half day bouncing around department to department, getting disconnected and finally giving up!

And... ha -- 13/08/08 (in reply to #320109695)

The first thing you do when you get online is write this load of crap...

Go and surf for porn you loser.

Get back to bed anonymous -- 13/08/08 (in reply to #320109708)

Phil's calling you and he's hungry!

I won't keep you waiting mych longer Anonymous -- 13/08/08 (in reply to #320109717)

just keep it warm for me