why our BB is such a MESS

Discussion in 'Computing' started by z1, Dec 8, 2007.

  1. z1

    z1 Guest


    Telstra keeps rivals out of the loop

    December 07, 2007

    IT's hard to describe, even if you really wanted to, the dreadful mess
    in which Australia's $34 billion a year telecommunications sector is mired.

    The sector is increasingly critical to the economy and we don't need a
    paternalistic Telstra to tell us that. But the competitive landscape in
    Australia's telecommunications sector is increasingly dire and provides
    one of the big early challenges to Kevin Rudd's new Government.

    Let's mention quickly, and then put to one side, the elephant in the
    corner. Last night Telstra chief Sol Trujillo told the financial market
    what was already clear - that the telco had no interest in a joint
    venture with the Government. It does not want a bean of its $4.7 billion
    if it means any type of joint venture or public private partnership. Nada.

    It's a key issue for the future, but in some ways also a subsidiary
    issue to the central problem facing the industry as the neglect and poor
    policy-making of the Howard government's 11 years play out.

    It's been said often enough but it's worth repeating: for most of its
    tenure the Coalition had one policy for telecommunications - sell
    Telstra. In the dying years of the Howard Government, it became clear
    that the competition blueprint developed by Paul Keating's government in
    about 1995, and adopted more or less holus-bolus by Howard, was failing
    badly. But enough history. Let's take a quick look at what's happening
    to the non-Telstra side of the sector.

    Apart from Optus and the recently merged AAPT/Powertel, just about
    everything else is for sale, and not because they are making buckets of
    money at the top of the bull market.

    Commander Communications, with revenues of more than $1 billion, can't
    find a buyer. Its chairman, Elizabeth Nosworthy, claims it's not a fire
    sale. Fire, for sure, as debts mount and losses continue, but no sale.
    No one wants it. Soul Pattinson's SP Telemedia is on the block, Steve
    Picton has put a float of his GoTalk on hold as he canvasses the market
    for buyers, and the stumbling Primus is a perennial sale item.

    In mobiles, where there is better growth, either Vodafone or Hutchison
    would happily do a deal, but the prices run into the billions - and who
    wants to run up against Telstra or Optus, which control 75 per cent of
    the market between them?

    A the heart of the problem in the fixed-line sector, particularly the
    tortuous process involved in dealing with Telstra to try to get access
    to its monopoly network.

    This involves months of negotiation and arbitration which is embedded in
    legislation. Once the competition regulator "determines" a service, the
    parties - Telstra and a rival that wants network access - must
    negotiate. When they can't reach a settlement, only then does the
    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have a role.

    It is a fantasy to imagine that there is somehow or other an incentive
    for Telstra to reach a negotiated outcome when it knows no one else can
    supply the service.

    How this plays out in the real world is that operators ask for the
    service, but Telstra, knowing no one else can supply it, demands often
    ridiculous prices or terms. Then after many months, sometimes years, of
    "negotiations", Telstra - quelle surprise - says no.

    Only then can the ACCC step in. This is because when another telco goes
    to the ACCC it must have an explanation as to how it has "negotiated".
    Delay, obfuscation, dragging out - whatever you might what to call it.
    Then the arbitration process starts. Get the picture? Complex and close
    to never-ending.

    The best example is the pricing to rent Telstra's raw copper wires,
    known as the unbundled local loop, or ULL - the key element to broadband
    competition today, using ADSL technology.

    There is still no final price set despite the service being "declared"
    in 1999. That's right - eight years on.

    It's all legal, it's all in system. In fact it is the system, and it's a
    big, big problem and one that's slowly sending the rest of the industry

    Clearly, this was not the intention of deregulating the sector, but it's
    what is happening. At the end of the day the ACCC will eventually
    produce a list of access prices, so why go through this process? Let the
    umpire decide and Telstra can test the decision in court. Cut out the
    middlemen, cut out the lawyers. Speed it all up.

    Every day a decision is delayed maintains the status quo and holds back
    new investment because of lack of certainty. It's a case of who has
    deepest pockets wins. It suits Telstra just fine.

    Frankly, it's an embarrassment when most other developed nations have
    simply set prices and moved on. The purpose of the act is to allow, nay
    direct, the ACCC to "expeditiously" resolve disputes. Fat chance. At
    present there are over 50 arbitrations in train with the commission -
    all with Telstra.

    Stephen Conroy has plenty to do, apart from throwing $4.7 billion at a
    better broadband network.
    z1, Dec 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. It can be stated much simpler

    Telstra, is only interested if it Creates, Owns and Operates the
    Fast Broadband Monopoly.
    son of a bitch, Dec 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. z1

    Moses Lim Guest

    I don't get it. The Australian Government, in conjunction with Telstra,
    should build an infrastructure and rent it out at a price, to competitors
    of Telstra, which will allow those competitors to make good profits on?

    I would have tort that any business which creates an infrastructure, would
    want to own it and be the one who operates it. That would logically give
    that business an advantage in the market, wouldn't it?
    Moses Lim, Dec 8, 2007
  4. z1

    z1 Guest

    The problem is that the hardware side of Telstra should never have been
    And it's ridiculous to expect that Telstra would be happy sharing it's
    It's the craziest concept of competition I have ever heard of.
    It's a cartel of one.
    And all this nonsense in a population of 21 million folk.
    What a joke.
    z1, Dec 8, 2007
  5. If sol has anything to do with it, telstra will end charging other ISPs
    the same price as Telstras own customers. No different to ADSL1 and
    still playing Monopoly.

    Five years from Now, still be having the same conversation.
    son of a bitch, Dec 8, 2007
  6. z1

    Rod Speed Guest

    Telstra has just said that it aint interested in that approach.
    And the previous labor govt, Keating, decided that it wouldnt
    allow that, essentially because that would allow telstra to stomp
    all competition into the ground very comprehensively indeed.
    Rod Speed, Dec 8, 2007
  7. z1

    Rod Speed Guest

    Pity Telstra doesnt get any say on that.
    Nope, we'd have an even worse abortion now if it had not been.
    Its irrelevant what its happy with, it gets to do what the legislation requires.
    You need to get out more.
    Nope, its nothing like a cartel when telstra is forced to resell and
    doesnt even get to decide the price of what its forced to resell.
    Nope, its the only way to get real competition when you start from a legislated monopoly.
    You're the joke.
    Rod Speed, Dec 8, 2007
  8. z1

    Rod Speed Guest

    Its fine, you stupid journo twit.

    They cant, and have just got shafted by the previous govt with Opel on that.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy.
    The sector is fine with real competition.
    Telstra hasnt been anything like that for decades.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy.
    Then it could well get fucked over very comprehensively indeed,
    just like it was with Opel.

    Great, the more telstra gets fucked over the better.
    Nope, the current broadband is doing fine.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy. Pity about Opel.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy. It was doing fine.
    Not possible for fools like you, you've clearly wanked yourself completely blind.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy.
    Thats what real competition produces, fool.
    Its a fart in the bath.
    Corse it aint.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy.
    Because the debts mount and losses continue, fool.
    Hardly surprising given that its not very profitable.
    Pity about all the rest that arent.
    Because they are duds that have never made much money.

    Hutchison only survives because Telstra was actually stupid
    enough to toss it a lifeline with its stupid approach to 3G.
    Yep, the third mobile telco never did have a hope of making real money.

    Thats what real competition produces, stupid. Like it or lump it.
    Nope. And that will be true in spades of what the new govt does with FTTN.
    You've mangled the story utterly on what really happens in practice most of the time.
    We aint discussing a telstra supplied service, fool.
    We aint discussing a telstra supplied service, fool.
    We aint discussing a telstra supplied service, fool.
    They cant.
    Yep, that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
    Have fun explaining all the telstra resellers, fool.
    And you can buy broadband using it anyway.
    The rest of the industry aint anything like broke, fool.
    Not on that stupid broke claim it aint anything like what is happening.
    Because it works fine some of the time.
    Mindlessly silly. Thats not cutting out the lawyers, fool.
    How odd that we have seen so much investment in infrastructure, fool.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy.
    Like Opel did eh ? Yeah, right.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy.
    Just another pig ignorant silly little journo fantasy.
    We'll see...
    Rod Speed, Dec 8, 2007
  9. z1

    z1 Guest

    And that is the problem Rod.
    Telstra owns it all. So if I want to do some retail stuff, I rent the
    gear from them and away we go.
    But the ACCC wants to tell Telstra what it can charge. Telstra [it owns
    it all] is not happy with that of course.

    If we allow Telstra to charge what it likes without the ACCC having a
    say, you can kiss goodbye the competition - who would want to set up a
    retail shop?

    It's the legislation that's wrong Rod.

    The only way to compete with Telstra is to build new exchanges, optic
    cables, copper wire. In other words a whole new hardware infrastructure.
    Why? because Telstra owns the present one, otherwise give it to the ACCC.

    It's like you owning a warehouse, and then having to let out some of the
    space in it when you really want it all for yourself.
    You get the picture?
    z1, Dec 9, 2007
  10. z1

    Terryc Guest

    Then you could kiss goodbye to a lot of customers. I've lived in the PMG
    monopoly period.
    Terryc, Dec 9, 2007
  11. z1

    Rod Speed Guest

    No problem, just force telstra to resell what it owns and
    force them to charge reasonable prices when they do.

    There is no other viable way to operate when you start from a legislated monopoly.
    You can also put your own dslams in their exchanges too.
    Nope, the govt of the day decided that the ACCC gets to tell telstra
    what it can charge, because otherwise telstra would just stomp any
    competition into the ground by charging the competitors more than
    they charge telstra's retail customers and even you should have
    noticed that no one would be buying a resold product from a
    competitor if its going to cost more than buying it from telstra.
    Like I said, there is no other viable way to operate
    when you start from a legislated monopoly.

    And it aint viable to stay with a legislated monopoly either.
    Nope, there is no other viable way to operate when you start from a legislated monopoly.
    Pity no one is going to spend the immense amount of money required to do that
    when they would be competing with Telstra who did that decades ago now and
    so can charge much less than that competitor would be able to charge.
    No reason why it cant be forced to resell what it owns and
    to allow others to install dslams in their exchanges too.
    No thanks, the ACCC cant run telecoms infrastructure.
    There is no other viable way to operate when you start from a legislated monopoly.
    Yep, that you dont actually have a clue about what is feasible when you start with a legislated monopoly.
    Rod Speed, Dec 9, 2007
  12. z1

    Michael Guest

    In mobiles, where there is better growth, either Vodafone or Hutchison
    Thats funny, tell XYZed Pty Ltd who are happily reselling it and have been
    for years
    Michael, Dec 9, 2007
  13. z1

    Rod Speed Guest

    Have fun explaining how come only Optarse and Telstra
    have made any real money out of mobiles in this country.

    No one else has ever been able to build a big enough network to have
    any real hope of anything like the coverage those two have, and so have
    to put up with whats left after those two have lunched on the market.
    Rod Speed, Dec 9, 2007
  14. z1

    MisterE Guest

    The government should take Telstra back, then let it go again, this time
    WITHOUT all the hardware infrastructure it got for a bargain price (ie
    MisterE, Dec 10, 2007
  15. z1

    Rod Speed Guest

    Insane waste of our money.

    And telstra didnt get the hardware infrastructure for nothing either.

    And the last thing we need is the govt owning the hardware infrastructure again.
    Rod Speed, Dec 10, 2007
  16. z1

    Michael Guest

    You: "3rd op never could make money"
    Me: "I disagree"
    You: "3rd op hasn't made money, therefore I'm right"

    Your logic is a bit off, Roddles.

    The 3rd operator could make money if they werent Vodafone
    Michael, Dec 10, 2007
  17. z1

    Rod Speed Guest

    Thats not a quote of mine, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
    You wouldnt know what logic was if it bit you on your lard
    arse, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
    Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

    Odd that Hutchison couldnt manage it either. Neither could one.tel, or anyone else.

    Funny that.

    There might just be a reason for that, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning
    fuckwit child. It costs an immense amount of money to have anything like a
    viable network, and with Optarse and Telstra already having that, a 3rd
    mobile telco has **** all prospect of getting enough revenue on a third
    network to pay for that, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit child.

    All of Vodafone, Hutchison, one.tel tried it and failed very dismally indeed.

    Vodafone in fact has been the most successful attempt and still failed to produce
    anything like enough profit to be viable and only continues because Vodafone
    world wide is prepared to keep tipping lots of money down that rat hole.
    Rod Speed, Dec 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.