Telstra must split if it wins FTTN bid: States

update Commonwealth, state and local government representatives have agreed to work on a unified approach to Australia's broadband infrastructure — as pressure mounts on the Federal government to insist on a structural separation of Telstra.

Federal Communications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, announced the agreement yesterday at the fifteenth meeting of the Online and Communications Council in Canberra yesterday, saying the development of the framework will mark another shift in Australia's move towards becoming a "knowledge-based" economy.

"For the first time, all three levels of government have agreed to work together to develop a unified vision for broadband in Australia," said Conroy.

Representatives from the Australian Local Government Association and state and territory ministers agreed at the meeting — chaired by Conroy — that the framework should include the development of the national fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) network, the provision of digital content in areas such as health and education, the redevelopment of the country's e-government platform, and directing the capability of the FTTN network to services for indigenous Australians.

The meeting was also used by state government ministers to express their desire to see a structural separation of Telstra should it win the bid for the national FTTN network.

Tasmanian Treasurer Michael Aird said the states and territories wanted to ensure consumers were able to use the network for the cheapest possible prices.

"We can't interfere with the course of action undertaken by the federal government in terms of who they select," Aird told reporters in Canberra.

"But we can say quite clearly that we believe [with] the present structures of some companies there is profiteering going on, by having the integrated model."

Senator Conroy has previously said he is willing to consider regulatory reform which may include further operational separation of Telstra, possibly modelled on arrangements adopted in other countries.

"Our ambition is to get the structure of the national broadband network right," Senator Conroy. "If we don't get the optimal outcome then we do have to revisit issues like the operational separation regime that currently exists."

"We're absolutely drowning in frameworks at the moment right now. What we need is some action and someone to make the hard decisions, namely the structural separation of Telstra," said industry analyst Bruce McCabe of S2 Intelligence.

"I've seen maybe five dozen statements just like this over the last few years from the previous Federal government and now this one. If Stephen Conroy really wants to do something worthwhile, and I think he does, then he needs to make a decision on Telstra that will ensure an enduring investment in Australia's broadband capability," he said.

McCabe told ZDNet.com.au today that the government has been trapped into thinking the national fibre-to-the-node network is a one-off spend, "but they forget that we'll need further upgrades to it in only a few years, it's not something that's standing still".

According to the analyst, the proliferation of high-quality video content likely to emerge over the next few years — particularly in relation to IP television as well as e-government and health initiatives — will "soak up" a significant proportion of the network's bandwidth.

"Right now we're stuck in a position where we either have to bribe or use a big regulatory stick to get Telstra to invest in continuing upgrades to network infrastructure, neither of these options are popular with voters, so structural separation is the only real answer," he said.

AAP contributed to this report.

Talkback 61 comments

    Great Simon -- 22/05/08

    Great to hear the voice of reason entering the public arena. Keeping the infrastruture wholesaler separate from any retail operation is a must for the positive future outcomes of all Australians. Not just Telstra either, but which ever organisation wins the FTTN contract.

    Good news Matt Reid -- 22/05/08

    Great to see Conroy still opting for a structural seperation of Telstra if they win the contract. This should have been done prior to the sale by the Howard Government to save the Australian people the current pain we face from this 800 pound gorilla.

    I smell sweet change on the wind, but i fear it's mixed with the stench of drawn out Telstra law suits.

    Respect please Sydney Lawrence -- 22/05/08

    Please do not be so discourtious as to put words into Senator Conroys mouth.

    He has said that he will look at every angle of the situation and decide what is best for Australia and Australians.

    Writing on the wall Matt Reid -- 22/05/08 (in reply to #320102282)

    Keeping the infrastructure wholesaler separate from any retail division is a core part of the tender. Telstra already knows this, but has stated that they will walk away from the process if this is enforced.

    We're not putting words into Senator Conroys mouth, we just need him to keep to his word and ensure he plays by his own rules.

    If the conditions of the tender are adhered to, Telstra stands to be structurally separated by default. Any new network will become the core of Australian data services of which Telstra will have no choice but to utilise. If Telstra wins they will be forced to separate under the terms of the tender; and if they lose, their copper and backhaul monopoly will go the way of the dodo.

    It's win/win for the Australian consumer no matter which way you look at it, and regardless of which party wins the tender. Now we have to wait and see if Conroy has the gumption to live up to his promises.

    No DEMERGER JON -- 03/06/08 (in reply to #320102286)

    "Demerger my $%&*%$!!!! Give the shareholders what they deserve...a truckload of cash for the network they own (or more!!!!!!!).

    Telstra is the only vertically intergrated Telco in the land. Why should Telsra be "whittled" down to accomodate OPTUS??

    Kate McKenzie has returned from Europe where they are doing the exact opposite to what YOU suggest.

    The Separation of Telstra is being "pushed" by OPTUS who stand to gain the most & once again at the expense of the Taxpayer (remember the OPEL saga!!!)

    Why should DROPTUS get a gravy train ride at their expense of Telstra shareholders (& the Taxpayers)who have paid "in full" & own their network.

    A demerger will ony screw the shareholders over& public!!!

    Do your homework first buddy!!!"

    The gospel Lord Watchdog -- 22/05/08 (in reply to #320102282)

    "He has said that he will look at every angle of the situation and decide what is best for Australia and Australians."

    And you believe him, of course?

    Beleive what? Trey -- 22/05/08 (in reply to #320102288)

    Its not that I dont beleive Sen. Conroy, its that I dont beleive he has the skill set to make the best choice.

    Structural separation of the '800 pound gorilla'. Anonymous -- 22/05/08

    "This should have been done prior to the sale by the Howard Government"

    Well said - I'm a Coalition supporter AND a Telstra shareholder buty I couldn't agree more

    "Monopoly Myth" Anonymous -- 22/05/08 (in reply to #320102291)

    Telstra the Gorilla I hear. Let's just have a look at the market capitalistaion of the Gorilla's competitors: Telstra Mrkt Cap: $48 bill., Vodafone: $211 bill., SingTel: $58 Bill.

    Now consider that each of these poor competitors have to deliver their superior services over Telstra's network, which the ACCC has handed over to them for a pittance.

    They profit from raping the encumbents network, take the cash overseas, constantly cry for more and more concessions and do not invest in new infrastructure.

    Whilst some Australians bag the hell out of Telstra, simply because they are totally ignorant of what is happening around them.

    Huh? Matt Reid -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102303)

    I would check your facts before posting again Mr Anonymous. A simple visit to the Vodafone website will inform you that they use their own network...for mobile phones, not cabled broadband.

    Optus (owned by Singtel) uses it's own equipment where it can, and also has a wholesale arm (just like Telstra). Most of the "leechers" you refer to are actually Australian owned companies who simply don't have the capital to build their own networks (although some actually do). These xenophobic comments are simple scaremongering, and quite frankly, they are becoming offensive.

    Before you cry about these people "raping the incumbents network" and "sending profits overseas", might i remind you that 35% of Telstra can be owned by foreign interests, and millions are already being funneled out of the country by an American CEO and his executive staff.

    Huh - pfft!! Anonymous -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102313)

    Yes thanks matt, perhaps you ought to check your facts, from a legit source rather tha T4.

    American CEO? Isn't Optus CEO O'Sullivan Irish? So what?

    Whose the racist now then.

    Dear Telstra Shareholder Matt Reid -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102389)

    The T4 site is a joke. NWAT is a joke. I choose to get my facts from industry and news sources which are not directly tied to any telco.

    Can you say the same?

    p.s: learn to spell

    Jokes all round! Anonymous -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102392)

    T4 is a joke, NWAT is a joke and you are a joke!

    Learn to spell - that was a typo brainwave! I'm sure you've done it too your perfectness!

    I can see you get your info from the industry, spoon fed by the T4.

    p.s grow up.

    ROFL Matt Reid -- 24/05/08 (in reply to #320102403)

    Mr Shareholder, degrading this discussion into a name calling match is not going to get us anywhere.

    I speak for the millions of consumers in Australia who will get a raw deal if Telstra is allowed to have it's way. No telco should have complete domination of the retail and wholesale sectors, no matter who they are.

    If your shares aren't performing as well as promised, that's life. Don't screw over the rest of us to fill your back pocket.

    Racist and sexist. Anonymous -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102443)

    Mr shareholder? Firstly you were racist, now sexist. Shareholder or not, who's says I'm a Mr?

    No apologies needed, bigot-chauvinist.

    The FACTS Matt????? SJT -- 24/05/08 (in reply to #320102313)

    Matt sorry to interrupt the little "mines bigger than your spat", you've been so easily roped into - lol! But you say they (Telstra's smaller competitors) don't have the capital to build their own network! So that's all the justification that's needed in allowing leeching from Telstra? No it's not my friend, that's business! If I can't afford to start my own business so be it! I cannot depend on milking someone else; I simply can't do it, that's reality everywhere in this cosmos - apart from telecoms, of course! And yes, I do realise there were access conditions prior to Telstra's privatisation - thank you. Bit as such, this clearly demonstrates the stupidity of these regulations, companies who you even admit, can't afford to and therefore shouldn't really be in business, are! Go figure?

    Then you say to anon, check you're FACTS. Well as usual you Telstra bashers like to think you know all the FACTS, but you clearly don't (and for the record, nor do I)! But as someone who is, or has been, a client of Telstra, Ozemail/iiNet, Optus, BDigital/Soul and who follows the telecoms saga daily via mainstream media, Whirlpool, NWAT, ASX and governmental websites, I have a pretty clear understanding of the situation, I believe. As such, I simply pass on the FACTS as determined by those who do actually know! Ergo, perhaps you also need to do a little research yourself before pointing the finger? You say, Optus uses its own equipment where it can! Well, is that a FACT?

    Quote from ULLS access dispute December 2007 Paragraph 831! "OPTUS ALSO SUBMITS THAT IT ALSO MAY NOT BE COMMERCIALLY ATTRACTIVE FOR OPTUS TO PROVIDE TELEPHONY SERVICES VIA ITS HFC NETWORK. Optus submits that even "prior to the emergence of the ULLS" as a viable alternative option, A BUSINESS CASE COULD NOT BE FOUND FOR MDU ACCESS VIA THE HFC. IN INACTIVE AREAS, ACTIVATING THESE AREAS CAN COST UP TO $[C-I-C] FOR EACH NODE. THESE INACTIVE AREAS TEND TO BE LOW DENSITY AREAS, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE ECONOMIES OF SCALE"!

    And paragraph 838: - "EVEN IF IN FUTURE OPTUS SUPPLIED A WHOLESALE BROADBAND SERVICE OVER THE HFC NETWORK, THE ACCC DOES NOT CONSIDER THAT SUCH SERVICES WOULD COMPRISE A CLOSE SUBSTITUTE TO EXISTING ULLS -BASED DSL AND VOICE SERVICES. In contrast to ULLS-based DSL services, the Optus HFC network does not pass the majority of end-user premises, not all premises within 'the footprint' are connected to the network, and different customer equipment is required when supplying cable broadband services. UPGRADES TO THE OPTUS HFC NETWORK MAY ALSO BE NECESSARY BEFORE AN EQUIVALENT QUALITY OF SERVICE COULD BE SUPPLIED OVER THAT NETWORK".

    In other words, Optus openly admit they can't make as much money from their own equipment as they can from Telstra's, so they aren't really interested in using their own equipment! Especially in rural areas because those pesky "country folk", just aren't profitable (commercially attractive)" enough! Also the ACCC have admitted that Optus' equipment is inferior to the existing ULLS (Telstra's) and needs to be upgraded to come up to scratch!

    I won't prolong you with the FACTS too much more, but further on the ACCC says that it will take Optus too long to bring their network up to speed and as such, admit the easy way out for both the ACCC and Optus, is just to continue to use Telstra's, equipment (even where they have their own) if/when they want!

    So to recap: Optus aren't interested in those darn hillbillies because they aren't profitable. They also installed cheap and nasty equipment in the more populous areas, which gives their customers an inferior product and aren't interested in upgrading, because they are simply allowed/encouraged by the ACCC, to use Telstra's!

    Once again, another sterling decision by the ACCC to promote investment - NOT and that's a FACT!

    FACTS minus.. facts James Bell -- 24/05/08 (in reply to #320102450)

    SJT,

    You have this uncanny habit of posting things as "facts" whilst conveniently leaving out key.."facts". I'm fairly certain you would know that the dispute you have quoted from is one where Telstra has tried to force Optus from being able to use its own ADSL 2+ equipment where it also has HFC coverage. The "facts" are that if you are a customer who happens to move to an area covered by both HFC and ADSL 2+ then whenever possible Optus will connect to HFC over ADSL. ADSL is only used ever used when it's simply not feasible (i.e multi dwellings, apartment buildings etc.). How do I know this? I just connected a service a short while ago and specifically asked if I could connect to ADSL 2+ (knowing my location from the exchange was ideal) and Optus wouldn't let me because HFC was available. Telstra apply the same logic with regard to its own HFC network.

    So "in other words" Optus doesn't openly admit they can't make as much money from "their own" HFC equipment as "their own" ADSL equipment (with the last copper mile purchased from Telstra at a price deemed suitable by the ACCC and the ACT which all competitors should have access to according to the High Court of Australia), but will only use it when it's not feasible. And guess what? Telstra get to profit from it when this happens as well ;)

    Ah the facts as dreamt up by our friend! SJT -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102465)

    Hello James welcome back!

    As usual, I provided proof to back me up! But you my friend have an uncanny knack of not suppling any proof at all (a link to an expert, rather than James Bell, just once would be nice)? You query my copy/paste of actaul events, without any substantiation? Hellooo...

    So once again for those who claim to know Optus better than Optus. Here's a few more facts (for you to pretend don't exist): - In relation to Optus' 3rd quarter results: -

    SMH - 6/2:..."Optus' overall business also had to absorb lower mobile termination rates - the price a carrier charges callers to reach a phone on 'its network' - and a shift away from reselling fixed-line services using Telstra's network. In July the rates fell from 15c a minute to 9c"...

    Now add that to this. Once again from above, paragraph 831 - "Optus also submits that it also may not be commercially attractive for Optus to provide telephony services via it's HFC network". It's quite clear!

    I'm not saying Optus don't use their own equipment at all, but it's quite clear it cheaper for them to use Telstra's. So as a "blind competition" disciple, surely you'd agree that the ACCC dissuading investment, by encouraging further usage of Telstra's network is not good for any of us (apart from SingTel shareholders, of course)? Wouldn't you?

    Plus did you dream up an excuse for Optus' completely admitted contempt for those unprofitable hillbillies (i.e. our country friends)?

    Ooh, also as a sideline, don't you think it a little odd that after months/years of the G9/TERRiA telling everyone Telstra aren't the ony company ready, willing and able, the first thing the new boy Egan says is "TERRiA would be happy as Larry NOT to win" - lol. Then within days submit their $5m bond to bid? I believe Optus also submitted their own separate bond. They're not going to "do the dirty on their own team mates" are they? Particularly after Internode's littlle Tassie stunt seems to have worked, by getting some vote hungry state Premiers on TERRiA's side, even though TERRiA don't want to win - lol!

    The contempt is obvious Matt Reid -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102483)

    Regional areas will always be low/no-profit, regardless of the telco. The USO is the only reason Telstra is still in my area. It's going to be a long time before regional services stop being propped up by Government funding.

    If you want to talk about contempt for regional areas, why don't you ask Telstra why it continuously slashes the numbers of it's technical staff out here in the bush, when service quality was already bordering on pathetic?

    All we hear from the Telstra zealots is Optus this, Singtel that. It's getting old guys, and they are far from the only telco interested in the FTTN tender. I personally hope that Macquarie Bank makes it over the line. At least we'll have an independent body with no retail arm running things. Sure, we can't trust the banks not to make excessive profits, but they can't be any worse than Telstra, and they can only do it on one front. ;-)

    Macquarie - lol! SJT -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102488)

    Righto Matt, I gave you clear proof from Optus, where they cleary said you "low density area's make it difficult to achieve economies of scale", (i.e. they don't care about you) but you still want to attack Telstra. So go right ahead.

    In that case, I hope Macquarie makes it too, that way you will then see first hand how the all mighty dollar takes precedent, when you become a victim of "not profitable" (think the banks).

    So enjoy your 2 Macquarie labelled cans and string. I hope you get what you truly deserve!

    Selective quotation methodology James Bell -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102483)

    SJT, so are you implying anything from my previous post was incorrect? If so I'm intrigued to know which part exactly you'd like to question? Just because you've been selective with your quotes from an ACCC access dispute it does not make your arguments any more credible. I apologise for not following the SJT selective quote methodology as a means to twist my arguments.

    How exactly has the ACCC dissuaded investment again? To my understanding ULL has allowed many smaller players to invest by laying their own fibre to exchanges and install their own equipment. Just because they rent the last copper mile is this still not investment? Has this not benefited many millions of Australians already by providing choice and variance in service offerings?

    In relation to servicing the "unprofitable hillbillies" you speak of I believe a large number of them to this day still do not have affordable broadband available to them, so it is quite apparent that no company (Telstra included) is prepared to service them without some form of government assistance.

    AGAIN where's your proof???? SJT -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102489)

    James I didn't imply anything.

    (Picture me now standing next to you, knocking on your skull asking, hello is anyone in there?).
    I copied and pasted facts x 2, from the ACCC and SMH. It's really not that difficult to comprehend!

    Yet you come here, once again without any facts whatsoever, (surprise, surprise) to back up your ridiculous comments, and wish to ridicule me. So go right ahead. There are many herein who can see your vagueness and lack of any basis!

    Mate really, even a 6 year old could work out that investment won't occur if competitors are encouraged to use Telstra's equipment. So if you see a 6 year old walking past on the way home from school tomorrow, ask them to explain it to you, it's quite simple!

    As such, again here's something (yes more FACTS - you should try finding some, even once. Although I guess it's impossible to find facts to back up pure BS) for you and Matt (you guys weren't twins to a brother and sister were you - lol) to read, or the six year old to read to you, in relation to competition and investment.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23718830-7583,00.h

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23081674-20501,00.html

    You also harp on about the "high court decision" - lol! The only good piece of news for your desperate little agenda, since Rudd came to power so enjoy it. However, as you accuse me of hand picking certain aspects and omitting others (which incidentally simply means that we don't have all day to write about every occurrence since 1901) what about the ACCC ruling since? The ACCC have finally realised where multiple competitors now have equipment installed these regulations (which are 10 years old or so and weren't meant to be there forever) are now becoming obsolete and have declared that Telstra will no longer have to suffer the leeches? Oh, you selectively omitted that did you?

    Ooh BTW, 5/5 ZDNet article/blog - you went to all lengths (as usual without any basis) to attack Stephen Smith who said "Tassie to Vic backhaul is regulated. You said, no it's not, blah, blah, stamped your feet, waved your arms, facts this facts that. But guess what? ZDNet 16/5: - "Tasmania-Melbourne backhaul is a regulated service according to the ACCC, and will remain so when Basslink goes live. "People would remain able to seek an arbitrated price from anyone offering transmission on the route," a spokesperson said - LMFAO (but I'm sure in your mind you are still right, aren't you)!!!!

    Plus you also side-stepped my question about TERRiA not wanting to win (how convenient)!

    David believes in such instances you vanish! I don't, I see you just have no idea, do you?

    I look forward to your usual bland and futile, response where you vainly attempt to again ridicule my FACTS when you have NONE - lol!

    Got to laugh Bass player -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102503)

    As a fence sitter watching and reading SJT & James and at times having a giggle at them both, it seems to me you people have a problem. But looking at it all, SJT keeps claiming that he or she uses links to prove their comments and James doesn't? So after checking, it seems to me that SJT does seem to have a point and the links supplied do make sense. Whereas James says a lot but doesn't really have any proof. Just my 2c.

    The sources speak for themselves James Bell -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102520)

    Bass Player,

    SJT occasionally uses quotes from links; however (as I am regularly forced to point out) he is quite selective in what he chooses to make use of, puts it out of context and then claims his arguments to be factual. You only need to go to the sources he quotes from to see this which I strongly recommend you do. e.g. The very ACCC access dispute he most recently used as a source. If his arguments were indeed factual then I believe you'd find the independant regulatory body would have ruled in Telstra's favour.

    Sorry for daring to comment Bass Player -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102529)

    I can now see why you get into so many different arguments James. Can no one ever have a different opinion to you without argument? I was only adding my 2 cents and you carry on like a spoilt schoolkid. As a fence sitter, you have now turned me Telstras way.

    Feel free. SJT -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102520)

    Thanks Bass Player, feel free to have a giggle at my expense, especially since I'm not paid to comment!

    Seems I am the poor, dummy after all - lol!

    Please forward that 2c you spoke of, to "you know who" - he's used to it apparently?

    Regards SJT (he).

    What proof are you after exactly? James Bell -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102503)

    "I copied and pasted facts x 2, from the ACCC and SMH. It's really not that difficult to comprehend!"

    You posted elements of an ACCC dispute and an SMH article and then used these out of context.. well done. I'm sure I could achieve the same result picking quotes from NWAT or Phil Burgess speeches. As per my post below to David I believe if what you had posted relating to the ACCC access dispute was in fact correct then the ACCC would rule in Telstra's favour which I very confident is never going to happen.

    "Yet you come here, once again without any facts whatsoever, (surprise, surprise) to back up your ridiculous comments, and wish to ridicule me."

    To make it simple for you what exactly have I posted to you in my previous couple of posts to you that you would consider to be incorrect? All I did was include additional information to your so called "facts" which you neglected to mention.

    "Mate really, even a 6 year old could work out that investment won't occur if competitors are encouraged to use Telstra's equipment."

    But investment has occurred and hundreds of exchanges have been enabled with ADSL 2+ in the past 12 months with many more exchanges scheduled to be enabled over the next couple of years? Where exactly is this lack of investment you speak of? If you're alluding to the country areas well I hate to break it to you but Telstra also doesn't invest out there without government handouts (http://www.minister.dcita.gov.au/coonan/media/media_releases/telstra_signs_agreement_with_government_to_switch_on_adsl_broadband_in_more_than_200_communities)

    "The ACCC have finally realised where multiple competitors now have equipment installed these regulations (which are 10 years old or so and weren't meant to be there forever) are now becoming obsolete and have declared that Telstra will no longer have to suffer the leeches?"

    For once we seem to agree as I also believe the ACCC's decision in this instance was fair, but as you already mentioned the determination was relating to competitors FULLY reselling Telstra services when the exchanges already have 3 or more ULL based competitors (i.e. many of the medium-larger players have already invested in these exchanges and hence are not impacted) and the exchange still has room to accommodate additional DSLAMS. I might also highlight that many competitors now no longer proactively sell fully resold Telstra ADSL in any case, so I'm not really sure what the point you were trying to make about Telstra "suffering" was when we consider Telstra sell fully resold lines at almost exactly the same price they charge retail. In fact they charge a ULL Band 2 wholesale rate only $5.95 below their retail rates!

    "Ooh BTW, 5/5 ZDNet article/blog - you went to all lengths (as usual without any basis) to attack Stephen Smith who said "Tassie to Vic backhaul is regulated...."

    As I pointed out in that discussion contrary to what Steve Smith said the backhaul Telstra currently charges is not and has never been set by the ACCC. Yes it turns out the regulatory body may in fact have jurisdiction to set prices in this scenario; however the final pricing has still yet to be determined and is unlikely to be available to prospective companies any time soon, especially when we account for the high odds of Telstra taking the determined rates through our courts.

    "Plus you also side-stepped my question about TERRiA not wanting to win (how convenient)!"

    Not even worth responding to because you know that's simply not true.

    How do I get my snout in the anti-Telstra $ trough too? SJT -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102533)

    Dear jamesbell@tellthetruthtelstra.com.au.

    This is the biggest scandal in Oz telecoms since the great Sydney Lawrence does/doesn't have shares debate! Maybe bigger. Ooooohhh!

    I'm so jealous, I forward comments simply because I want to and for no monetary reward whatsoever ! But I've just found out that you only comment, becasue you are paid to! Whose the dummy now then - perhaps I should jump ship, who do I contact?

    Age 22/5: Former NSW Treasurer Michael Egan, recruited as the figurehead for the coalition of Telstra's rivals, said the group - renamed Terria yesterday - would be "happy as Larry" if a bidder other than Telstra or Terria won the $4.7 billion tender to build the national fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) network.

    "None of the companies associated with Terria are all that fussed about owning and operating a monopoly network," Mr Egan said. "Their core business is in competitive markets - not running regulated monopolies.

    Now be pedantic all you like, and say Egan didn't actually come out and say TERRiA didn't want to win! But they'd be "happy as Larry not to win" and "not that fussed about owning/operating", to normal people who don't want to twist every word around to suit their paymasters, means the same! Perhaps it's best to continue your unusual silence on the subject.

    So please feel free to continue your desperate little play on words, out of context, blah, blah to try to save your minimal credibility. Like you have again done above with the Vic-Tas backhaul! What part of the ACCC's spokesperson's comment can't you understand?

    "Tasmania-Melbourne backhaul is a regulated service according to the ACCC, and will remain so".

    At the end of many of your paid spiels, you end by saying: p.s The offer still stands where if you find a strong argument that you believe I ran away from be sure to let me know. Or if you can supply facts to prove me wrong, blah, blah.

    We do it all the time (as per above Tas-Vic), but you simply aren't man enough to admit it. Or perhaps more to the point, with this new info, the cheque may not be forthcoming if you admit it, so fair enough - lol!

    So just go on blindly arguing that black is white until you are blue in the face! Because you do truly believe you know more about Telstra than Telstra. More than Optus about Optus. More than the ACCC about the ACCC (obviously refer above). So how about we settle on jamesbell@tellthetruthtelstra.com.au, knows more about everything than everybody and just be done with it!

    Again, let me make it clear, (unlike you) I do not claim to know everything, I am simply a messenger who (again unlike you) uses factual links to support my comments. Nothing more!

    But of course you know everything jamesbell@... after all, you are getting your paid cues from Telstra hate group, TTTT and they're never wrong either are they - NOT!

    As such, you really aren't worth corresponding with are you?

    Oh silly me, I guess I just helped you obtain yet another cheque - how about half?

    "Telstra Bashers" "The Truth" -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102543)

    Well that pretty well somes up this whole debate and how a bunch of hyprocrites the Anti-Telstra brigade are!!!

    They have the hide to drag poor old Sydney through the mud for being a shareholder and yet thay are being actually "paid" to be a part of the "Anti-Telstra" lobby group.

    And Egans comments thaey "terria" would not be bothered if thaey lost the bid are of great concern aswell!!

    Cobblers Simon -- 27/05/08 (in reply to #320102560)

    This pro/anti telstra stuff is just painful. What's the point? I don't see this in any other industry segment. The Govt controls ULL as part of the privitisation model and the pricing model is monitored by the ACCC. How can any business using this utility be a leech? Using this logic, anyone who uses a toll road would be a leech.
    Please discuss the articles and not your weird views on Telstra and endless character assasinations

    To the contrary Anonymous -- 30/05/08 (in reply to #320102720)

    To the contrary these points of view have indeed added a bit of balance to the debate...and if peolple are indeed educated as to the free ride these foreign owned Telcos have had under the Howard/Connan years!!!

    Lets hope Conroy does not fall for the "poor little OPTUS" three card trick at the expense of Telstra & the Australian Taxpayer(Remember the OPEL scandal??)

    The humble messenger James Bell -- 27/05/08 (in reply to #320102543)

    Wow, I don't post for a couple of days and look at what happens! Conspiracy theories of vested interests and accusations galore.

    SJT, it doesn't really bother me to be honest if you think those addresses are mine, so go ahead and e-mail "me" at both my Telstra and TellTheTruthTelstra e-mail addresses if you like because if you do get a response it's certainly not going to be from me. I concede it is odd, but a coincidence nonetheless.

    Back topic of discussion you posted comments from The Age where apparently the newly formed alliance don't want to win the NBN tender. Michael Egan also added "The reason they're putting together a bid is that they've got no guarantee that if they don't (that) someone else will come up with a satisfactory structure." In the Australian Eagan also went on to say "The cause excited me. It's a fight worth fighting... It's all about getting a competitive market structure -- I think that is an important mission and a great goal to achieve". So since you appear to be incapable of comprehending the meaning behind Eagan's "happy as Larry" comment I'll clarify it for you. The members of the Terria group's primary concern is that the successful bidder (Terria or not) provides the necessary framework which will allow everyone to compete effectively (i.e. If an applicant other than Terria wins, but the result is a structurally separated network & a competitive environment then the members of Terria will be satisfied and may not necessarily need to win the tender themselves for this outcome to be achieved). See SJT it's not that hard, no truth bending or quoting out of context there. You should try it!

    "What part of the ACCC's spokesperson's comment can't you understand?"

    My last comment on this matter. The backhaul pricing Telstra is currently charging for the bass-straight has not been set by the ACCC! Yes the ACCC has the ability to regulate pricing and most likely will set pricing at some point, but to date it hasn't! I've noticed another poster has even compared the prices Telstra currently charges vs the ACCC's proposed Transmissions Cost model and you may have noticed the ACCC's model costs are significantly lower. How hard is this to understand? Do you choose to only take in the information you want to believe on purpose or is it just out of habit?

    And you accuse me of sidestepping arguments when you've failed to respond to my questions on where this lack of investment is occurring to which you often refer? If you go back even 3-5 years the majority of Australians did not have the same number competitive options or speeds that we benefit from today. Many smaller companies have now created and continue to expand multiple fibre networks linking to exchanges and only require the use Telstra's last copper mile; a declared asset which everyone is entitled to have access to in order to provide their services. What is wrong with this and where exactly has it failed? Before you attempt to misquote me I'm not saying we have the best infrastructure in the world, but this does not mean we haven't been seeing a significant amount of investment or change over the past decade.

    Oh and The Australian also quoted Eagan as saying "Most people know the role Telstra has played over the last 10 or 15 years. It's not good for competition. It's not good for price competition, it's not good for service innovation." Although I agree with this as an opinion, using your methodology of cutting and pasting quotes from articles must make it factual I suppose?

    You don't claim to know everything? No of course you don't SJT, after all you're just the humble Telstra messenger... who appears to go to obscenely great lengths to defend it.

    Unpaid messenger! SJT -- 27/05/08 (in reply to #320102688)

    Welcome back, after everyone else has moved on, how convenient!

    As I do regularly, I could pick you childish argument to pieces and have already done so on most of the topics.

    So I'll just keep it to one new aspect. Of course Egan is enthusiastic about TERRiA, he's getting "paid" to be enthusiastic - lol.

    Sounds familiar doesn't it ..TTTJ

    Unpaid messenger indeed James Bell -- 27/05/08 (in reply to #320102698)

    STJ, The only thing you ever manage to pick to pieces are the articles you selectively quote from to use in your fallacy of false attributions.

    Next you'll be telling us that your selfless acts of defending a multi-billion dollar, monopolistic corporation is philanthropic.

    Take it from an Optus worker Optus Wokrer -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102483)

    QUOTE SJT

    "Now add that to this. Once again from above, paragraph 831 - "Optus also submits that it also may not be commercially attractive for Optus to provide telephony services via it's HFC network". It's quite clear! "

    This may be stated but James is correct, if you are in a HFC enabled area and a connection is possible ULL will never be chosen over HFC.

    Hmmm! SJT -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102596)

    Thanks for the "inside info".

    I will take what you say as being so, although Telstra employees wouldn't normally be offered the same level of decency by the other side and would simply be dismissed as being biased. So there's a bit of a compromise for you, Telstra employees wouldn't get.

    However, even if true, it still doesn't change what was said. James and you have either elaborated, or are you now perhaps suggesting Optus' legal eagles lied to the ACCC?

    Why even bother responding David -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102465)

    Why is it every time James Bell posts facts and they are conclusively refuted (which is very often) he vanishes and does not admit his inaccuracies whereas while he is attacking someone he is quick to write long winded unsubstantiated comments. For once I would like to see him write something that has no emotive bias, that is purely factual, no rhetoric, no sarcastic undertones and to stand by the comments instead of running away when proven wrong.

    Why bother even trying James Bell -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102485)

    David, unlike you who apparently has all the time in the world to post on forums I am not privileged with this abundance of spare time.

    Since you seem to have the time and believe I "run away" when proven wrong I welcome you to locate and point me in the direction of any reasonable post you'd care for me to respond to.

    Couldn't even do it once! SJT -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102493)

    Lol, James! You couldn't, even once, do what was asked.

    David asked you to simply post something without attacking someone or sarcasm and the first thing you did was attack him with sarcasm.

    Time for a long hard look at yourself.

    LMAO - Time to run away again James - Use the why bother excuse. David -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102493)

    Lets see who has lots of time...

    24/05/2008 9:32pm
    25/05/2008 12:24am
    25/05/2008 10:21am
    25/05/2008 10:47am
    25/05/2008 10:59am

    All from James Bell

    4 top people who post comments on this site are Lord Watchdog, Sydney Lawrence, James Bell & SJT based on the past few weeks worth of comments.

    254 posts in the past 11 months just on Google groups (all politics and telecommunications). I could add the other dozen or so sites you are paid to sit in front of a computer and post comments.

    A member of the TTTT group and paid employee of one of the G9 members.

    I will leave it there, you have no credibility, you accuse others of having a personal interest and are after financial gains without revealing anything about your motives.

    If any readers want to reach reach James directly his e-mail address is jamesbell@tellthe truthtelstra.com.au although he sometimes claims it is bellj@telstra.net or bellj@telstra.com.au

    "Clap clap" to David the private investigator James Bell -- 25/05/08 (in reply to #320102501)

    Well done David. You've shown real promising ability at entering words into google and clicking "search". Unfortunately for your sake your searching in vein seems to have located the wrong person as neither of these addresses you have posted belong to me.

    Rather than going to so much trouble trying to prove your conspiracy theories by working out who I am or what I do for a living why not actually contribute something of substance to these discussions?

    Better luck next time.

    p.s The offer still stands where if you find a strong argument that you believe I ran away from be sure to let me know.

    and might I add ... Anonymous -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102303)

    Gotta love the emotive side of things ...

    "profit from raping the encumbents network" , in response to this statement , if it is such a brutal act, why is wholesale Telstra's 2nd biggest profit making division?!? (as pulled from their own anual reports for the past 3 years) ...

    Anon2

    eg "raping the incumbents network" Anonymous -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102336)

    I will give you an example of the recent game internode was playing at in Tasmania to try and get a free ride across Bass Straight.

    Internode are free to choose alternative providers or pay ACCC regulated backhaul rates.

    People love to blame Telstra, when others do not wish to invest in the country themsleves they play political games to try and get the ACCC to enforce cheaper rates."

    Stop bagging telstra Anonymous -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102341)

    Look, where would we be without Telstra? Nowhere. WE should have respect for our mighty ancestors, and fight for their honour. Oh great lord Telstra, please wipe out these other inferior telcos that are too LAZY (that's right DODO, why don't you invest in infrastructure, huh huh huh) to put vital infrastracture into place. LAZY PEOPLE get what they DESERVE (higher backhaul prices)

    Myth busting Anonymous -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102303)

    "Whilst some Australians bag the hell out of Telstra, simply because they are totally ignorant of what is happening around them."

    Like you perhaps? How about you get your information from somewhere other than the Telstra Propaganda site "Now we are talking".

    Your entire post is offensive and reeks of the ignorance you acuse others of.

    Myth busting 2 Anonymous -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102356)

    Or like you perhaps?

    How about you get your information from elsewhere, other than T4!

    Should have! Anonymous -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102291)

    Should have but didn't. Accept reality and get over it!

    The copper was mine first Anonymous -- 23/05/08

    I am a fervent believer that Telstra should be split, it should have split before being sold off. As a tax payer for the last 20 odd years, the previous government had no right to give away my infrastructure. Telstra have the infrastructure monopoly because of this, yes I could have bought Telstra shares but the government was trying to sell me something that belonged to the people already. Telstra has caused nothing but problems so far and will continue to do so unless split.

    Sold/Given away? Anonymous -- 23/05/08 (in reply to #320102370)

    Before being sold off and no right to give it away, so which was it? Sold or given away?

    They didn't give away 'your' infrastructure, they sold the debt laden network for $50b - $60b, after being voted into government.

    Perhaps you you have voted more prudently?

    Realistic Anonymous -- 25/05/08

    If Telstra was split up into
    Telstra Infrastructure, Telstra Voice Communications and Telstra Internet, are we stupid enough to believe that Infrastructure would not lend a helping hand to Voice and Internet?
    Those that believe that they will be truly independant of one another probably also believe that if Westpac and St George merge there will be no job losses ( a Westpac statement)

    Fair go and competition. Sydney Lawrence -- 26/05/08

    David, it is with surprise, shock and horror that I read your expose' of James. I am saddened also, to think that a fellow Australian, whom I expected James to be, is exposed for the very devious tactic he has, at times, accused me of.

    My mind diverted to the Bible and the actions of Judas Iscariot who was a betrayer and did so for thirty pieces of silver. So it seems with James, pathetic, sad and to be condemned. A damming reflection on Telstra's opponents who would stoop to such low acts.

    This entire system of ACCC regulation to return profits and advantage to Telstra opponents under the false guise of delivery of competition, when in fact it destroys true competition, must be recognised, exposed and rejected.

    Devious indeed Matt Reid -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102547)

    Next you'll be telling us that this is a hoax: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/shareholder-stories/sydney-lawrence-from-manly-qld

    There are many paid (payroll or shareholders) "bloggers" on both sides of this argument. I'm happy to say i'm not one of them. ;-)

    Would any of those here (from either side) care to share with us if they own shares or work for a particular company (partners and family members also count in this)? By the numerous fake names and anonymous posts, i suspect not.

    You're all so quick to jump on James, but how many of you are a pot calling the kettle black?

    The old broken record - LMFAO! SJT -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102563)

    Lol - here we go again.

    Matt check your calendar now and you will see it's May 26 May 2008.

    Then check your ridiculous link - yes the very same one previously used (and already discredited -lol) by your twin James as well as Charles. You will find it says -

    16 August 2006.

    You are aware that shares can be sold aren't you? Which Sydney has again and again stated! Has nothing changed in your life in the past 18 months or so? Think about it!

    So going by your logic, if Sydney being a "former shareholder" made him biased, then now that he "no longer has shares he is no longer biased". Thank you for clearing that up (until the next desperate attempt, that is - lol).

    And i'm sure (like me) Sydney doesn't get paid to make comments, like we have been told TTTJ (tell the truth james) does!

    One more thing, you are also aware that SingTel, iiNet, SP Telemedia etc are also listed companies on the ASX. As such, do you think that just maybe some of these anti-Telstra comments are coming from shareholders of these companies? Hmmm!

    Ah the desperation - lame try my friend!

    So...? Matt Reid -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102568)

    I see no confirmation or denial on your part from that post. You only state you don't get paid to post here...which tells us nothing.

    Are you a Telstra shareholder, Active Supporter, or Telstra employee? Tell The Truth SJT ;-)

    I asked for both sides to come clean in my previous post, so maybe you need to stop glossing over the text that doesn't involve mind numbing, mouth foaming references to the "Evil Optus" and its affiliates. In my many years of experience (retail, corporate and Government IT), there are only a select few people who support Telstra's consumer rorting practices.

    a) Telstra Employees
    b) Telstra shareholders
    c) People who couldn't care less about consumer rights and protection

    Which one are you?

    No problem, but... SJT -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102588)

    No problem Matt.

    Funny thing is I have done so previously and more than once. You must have been childishly looking for dirt on Mr. Lawrence and not paying attention.

    So as soon as you apologise to Mr. Lawrence for your disgracefullly low act and admit you were wrong, I will oblige again, just for you.

    So off you go!

    But for a little tid-bit for you, I can guarantee that I am not a low life, paid antagonist, with no ethics or morals!

    You are just like James aren't you, you demand things of others - lol! But after your many years of experience in retail, corporrate and governmnet IT? Sounds like you are in the thick of things and have been for ages, to me - lol!

    Me too SJT -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102603)

    Yeah me too, I'm an Optus shareholder as well, you got me!

    Lol my friend.

    Perhaps it's time for the King to become involved again and have us all wake up to ourselves!

    So it's come to this? Matt Reid -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102603)

    So we have two Matt Reids posting here now do we?

    Impersonation of an individual is still an offence if i remember correctly.

    Nice ploy! SJT -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102614)

    Yes nice ploy?

    Time to move on.

    Everything old is new again. Sydney Lawrence -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102623)

    Great entertainment folks I am sure we could all have very profitable employment in the entertainment industry.

    Time for me to fess up. My financial advisor tells me that I have share interests in every major company in Australia so that should cover that.

    Yes Anonymous -- 26/05/08 (in reply to #320102625)

    Good point Sydney, its possible that every single person here has Telstra and maybe Optus shares in their super!

    Oh yeah money please Zembrachi yussef -- 27/05/08 (in reply to #320102627)

    If both sets of shares help grow my nest egg i'm all for that and any of you that deny that are kidding yourselves

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Brad Howarth The key Topik is always money
    One of the big problems of the internet is that is practically impossible to keep up-to-date on preferred topics. You can limit your sources, but this can mean missing a lot of valuable data.
  • Array Do we need the legislative blackmail?
    Virtually everyone in the telecommunications industry has their say in the Senate Standing Committee's public hearing into the pending legislation to split up Telstra, in this week's Twisted Wire podcast.
  • Array Give Tax a break for a Change
    Considering the circumstances the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) Change Program has been operating in over the last few years, it really hasn't been going too badly.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured