In response to "NowWeAreTalking", a group of internet companies including iiNet, Internode, AAPT, Maquarie Telecoms and Westnet have launched a "public information" campaign called "Tell The Truth Telstra" aimed to inform MP's and the general public about how telstra deliberatley misleads the general public.

www.tellthetruthtelstra.com.au

- the thing that worries me is, if Telstra do get to build the next gen network, they will have a new monopoly. As the spokesperson for IPRIMUS says, We're getting a next-gen network, it only happens once in a generation, so we'd better do it right.

i dont want telstra molesting the new interweb speeds.

I don't know about anyone else.. but I just don't care about the Telstra bandwagon/vendetta anymore.

spin, spin, spin

round and round she goes

Australia is f***ed for its lack of competition. Telstra is a massive c***.

Woolworths and Coles are f***heads too and have a duopoly which screws everyone.

i wish jessica simpson and angelina jolie had a duopoly and were screwing everyone :(

Maybe not, but I heard your mum and sister do.

I'm personally quite happy with the speeds I get from Optus cable so I'm really not interested in Next Gen Super fast shizzle.......... it's just probably going to cost more.

Mind you, I am what I would consider a light user (in download traffic). All you web junkies must be stinging for the next high.

he thing that worries me is, if Telstra do get to build the next gen network, they will have a new monopoly

As they should, for putting in the huge investment in doing it. It'd be irresponsible of them to their shareholders if they put in massive infrastructure and didn't try to get the best returns out of it.

If the government wanted to control it, they shouldn't have sold it.

hi5 Trog.

trog - Or we could have all the major ISPs in Australia contributing equally to the cost of a next gen network, with all ISPs being able to use said network. Which is exactly what Telstra have rejected in favour of building a Telstra-only network.

Why give up market share and power just to make other people money?

Trog is right, that's what privatising means.

imo they should have kept the infrastructure and NDC in the national interest, then sold off the retail bits. Then sell the use of their infrastructure to everyone. But they didn't. The Liberal government can't have their cake and eat it to.

bah so over telstra optus intraweb ftw

that website should have pointed its fingers elsewhere, i think its just some marketing bright spark who thought of that to contra the telstra website ...

the government should realise that being the INFORMATION AGE communications should be supplied to people and made easy to access like products from utility companies ie. water and electricity. utility companies in the past were run by governments as well and only recently has it been feasible for these to be privatised, theyve just gone about privatising the telecomms utility in a strange way : (

Why give up market share and power just to make other people money?

Telstra aren't allowed to build a Telstra-only network under the Trade Practices Act.

What part of the trade practices act?

Or we could have all the major ISPs in Australia contributing equally to the cost of a next gen network, with all ISPs being able to use said network

This is the bit that really s***s me. These 11 Telco's, which all up have more capital then Telstra, are not willing to invest in their own FTTN network unless Telstra is either forced to be part of it or restricted from then making one to compete with theirs

And they cry about Telstra having a monopoly..

last edited by ara at 22:28:25 11/Apr/07

the thing that worries me is, if Telstra do get to build the next gen network, they will have a new monopoly

actually that's not correct. under the Trade Practices Act, the ACCC can declare certain infrastructure as being of national interest and order the owner to provide access at reasonable prices. this can be ultimately determined by the Federal Court.

This can apply to railways or information superhigways. I would expect that if Telstra build something prohibitively expensive that is pointless duplication, they can expect to have it "declared" by the ACCC.

last edited by infi at 22:26:28 11/Apr/07

Were they the same telcos that made an offer to buy the telstra copper network for 1/10 its value then wondered why telstra didn't sell? Also I found the TPA section that applied, and thats probably why we wont be getting fttn.

I'm a telstra shareholder and I f***in hate the c***s

we should all just get wrt54g's & link them together to make one massive FREE internet.

fyi whoop, that'd be a WIRELESS network, you still need to get your internets from somewhere....

anywho all in favour of a company making profit/return on investment for its shareholders PROVIDED it aint a monopoly... if Telstra get what they want the inerweb would be s***ty in Aus... but it's not economically viable at this stage to have more then one FTTN network

dunno it's a hard one.

As a few people have said you can't sell the big T off and then want to control it, now that it's privatised it has to make bling bling for it's shareholders.

Oh dear, you guys are almost as bad as Telstra.

I know this is backwards order, but it makes sense this way.

@Infi

actually that's not correct. under the Trade Practices Act, the ACCC can declare certain infrastructure as being of national interest and order the owner to provide access at reasonable prices. this can be ultimately determined by the Federal Court.

This can apply to railways or information superhigways. I would expect that if Telstra build something prohibitively expensive that is pointless duplication, they can expect to have it "declared" by the ACCC.

Its all well and good to declare something "National Interest" but what Telstra are trying to do (and have a history of doing) is making things dificult for their competitors.

The government is involved because it has every intention of making this a "National network" that will service the entire country, through whichever service provider you may chose. Telstra are holding the government to ransom, by saying that "If you want us to build the network, you basically need to change the TPA how we want it, so we can get ~30% return on our investment."

And don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Telstra investing and wanting to make a profit form their investment, but lets look at the facts.

If we use the example of ADSL2+, Telstra are currently only providing the service where their competitors are already, because they do not want to provide the service at a wholesale level. Its all because Telstra want more money than the ACCC will let them charge.

When we have FTTN, Telstra will again own the Network, and due to the changes they wish to make to the TPA, Telstra will have even greater controls on how they set prices for competitors. They are effectivley saying "Ok, we're sick of the ACCC ruling on the coax network, we'll just build another one and write our own rules... since we're the only company big enough to fund one."

@Trog

As they should, for putting in the huge investment in doing it. It'd be irresponsible of them to their shareholders if they put in massive infrastructure and didn't try to get the best returns out of it.

If the government wanted to control it, they shouldn't have sold it.

Thats Telstra's view, but when you are at the Tendering stage, why would we as a nation chose the tender where wholesale prices are least regulated and destined to cause less competition in the broadband market?

The G9 have said they could offer their sollution at around $21-24 wholesale cost per client. Telstra will almost definatley be much higher than that.

The really bad part for me is that the Government (Coonan) appears to have already chosen to go with Telstra and is acting as if it is the only option we have available.



last edited by mongie at 09:37:55 12/Apr/07

Thats Telstra's view, but when you are at the Tendering stage, why would we as a nation chose the tender where wholesale prices are least regulated and destined to cause less competition in the broadband market?

I don't understand what you're saying here

The G9 have said they could offer their sollution at around $21-24 wholesale cost per client. Telstra will almost definatley be much higher than that.

... or here.

Or maybe, I just don't see what it has to do anything.

The facts are, the people voted in a government that they knew was going to sell our major telco. Our major telco has now been substantially sold off. It is now a private entity that MUST operate in a way to benefit its shareholders.

I think we would have been better off if it had stayed completely government owned and operated as a public service. If it was well managed and given realistic prices (ie, not making $2 billion a quarter) then it would have been an awesome service for all Australians. But when there's that much money floating around they'd probably have been crazy not to sell it.

i think any of us that are slightly net savy should be concerned

we all need better internets, and i dont want to see us get screwed

we deserve better

I don't need better internet! I only had 1500kbit ADSL until recently - I only changed to the faster ADSL (8mbit) because it was exactly the same price and quota. If it hadn't been I wouldn't have bothered changing.

This can apply to railways or information superhigways. I would expect that if Telstra build something prohibitively expensive that is pointless duplication, they can expect to have it "declared" by the ACCC.

why is it pointless to duplicate?

Duplication gets rid of the need for these guys to buy wholesale off Telstra. They can lay their own fibre to the node and run it in COMPETITION to Telstra. Isn't that we all really want instead of just competition based on bundling, value adds and court rulings.

Sure they would need the ULL still, but they have got the rate they want on that from the ACCC already.

Because fibre to the node costs ~ 4-5 billion dollars?

To answer the things you didin't understand about my post trog.

The Government has basically said "We want someone (Telstra) to build a next-gen fibre to the node network, and Telstra, G9 and another consortium or two have given information on how they could do it. The government has shown support for the Telstra idea, while not ruling out any of the proposals altogether.

Telstra are looking to CHANGE THE TPA so that they can basically do as they like. I don't understand why we would have a TPA if it wasn't to control companies. Obvioulsly Telstra have decided that if they can't get what they want, they just bribe the government into giving it to them.

I don't see how you can not be scared about what this might mean. Some of you have said "I don't need faster net" but look 10 years down the track to when this network will actually be opperating properly, and do you still think that 10-20mbit connections will be enough? Considering Japan, Korea etc are already building FTTH networks (Korea are going 100% FTTH). We need a new network that doesn't rely on the old copper lines, but we don't want to have the same issue we have had for years with Telstra and the ACCC constantly arguing over wholesale access.

Duplication gets rid of the need for these guys to buy wholesale off Telstra. They can lay their own fibre to the node and run it in COMPETITION to Telstra. Isn't that we all really want instead of just competition based on bundling, value adds and court rulings.

A alternative network would be a good thing, but its unlikely considering how much it would cost the companies involved. Remember, they're all offering to do this because the government has a massive broadband infrastructure fund to assist them.

The whole court and arbitration issue is because Telstra are devious in their dealings with the ACCC. Its almost quite funny the things they do in order to get what they want.

last edited by mongie at 09:48:59 12/Apr/07

It may not be pointless to duplicate, but it's gross waste of resources. Whether Telstra is the evil factor in all of this is kind of irrelevant for me, from my point of view the government needs to control the infastructure not a private company (just like they do with the roads) and I see the laying a new fibre network as a way they can regain that control since the sale of Telstra. I just see a FTTN network as an invesment in the countries future and don't understand why the government doesn't foot the bill for private companies to build and maintain it. Of course I have no knowledge of the econonmics of all of this so it's probably completely financially unviable.

It is certainly the ideal solution, but they're looking pretty close to making a deal with Telstra...

I seriously doubt seeing the TPA amended to accommodate Telstra, all hell would break loose. The most likely outcome for me is to see some sort of private equity consortium or Macquarie Bank style JV to steal Telstra's thunder partnering up with the other major providers, and then they will be really f***ed.

And then everyone on QGL will cry hi5!

I just see a FTTN network as an invesment in the countries future and don't understand why the government doesn't foot the bill for private companies to build and maintain it.

That would be a gross interference in the free market worse than any preferencing of telstra could achieve. The free market should really sort this out, because if customers are not willing to pay the amounts necessary to make such a huge piece of infrastructure economical why build it in the first place?

Optus and Vodaphone built their own mobile networks so I am sure someone will fill the void (dare I say vacuum, IT'S NOT A VACUUM) eventually.

This may sound stupid, but I thought T3 was for Telstra, not Telstra Wholesale which I believe is now a seperate entity from Telstra, one which the government still has an input into...

I could be wrong however.

Telstra = Telstra Retail + Telstra Wholesale, you're correct that they're seperate, but the whole thing was sold to the public.

this sums it up pretty well... This is from the Australian...

He [Rod Bruem, Telstra Spokesperson] said Telstra wants a guarantee it will make a commercial rate of return, to lock in third-party access terms and conditions, and to negotiate a system that recognises people in rural and remote Australia need to be looked after through cross-subsidies.

Translation...

He said Telstra wants to charge inflated prices to make lots of money, to force its wholesale customers to either pay through the nose, or not use its network, and to negotiate a system that allows them to charge much higher rates for customers in rural and remote australia, and then have HiBIS pay the difference.

i don't mind companies making a fair return on their investments. but when telstra charges me $30 a month just to have their s***ty (and yes they are s***ty) 40 year old copper telephone cables active at my house, that is baad mkay. They have made good on their investment a hundred times over.

When telstra makes a brazillionty dollar profit and normal users in the street are paying exorbidant prices for old technology, thats where it s***s me.

If customers are not willing to pay the amounts necessary to make such a huge piece of infrastructure economical why build it in the first place?

Because it needs to be economical, but not necessarily profitible. A private company only has interest in it if it can make them money. For the government this should be about an investment in the benifit that it provides to the country and not a revenue stream.

What?
So Telstra is bringing in new internets speeds so you can blow your 1mb cap SIX TIMES FASTER!@14!! zomgz.

f*** faster internets, more D/L cap is where it's at ~_~

urr... no. This isn't for us, specifically.

This is for businesses, tripleplay services (voice, data and tv through the one net connection) and for future conectivity needs.

I should also mention that Telstra are now saying they'll use 50/50mbit VDSL2. I just wonder, how will they get the international bandwidth to support it?

That does sound like a marvelous idea, and i wish the G9 would follow suit, its just Telstra know they have a lot of money invested in their own ADSL2+ hardware and it would cost them a fortune to just get rid of it and rebuild vdsl2 gear.

last edited by mongie at 11:31:14 12/Apr/07

What?
So Telstra is bringing in new internets speeds so you can blow your 1mb cap SIX TIMES FASTER!@14!! zomgz.

f*** faster internets, more D/L cap is where it's at ~_~

So having a V8 gives you faster speeds that makes you blow your fuel SIX TIMES FASTER.

f*** faster cars, better fuel economy is where it's at


i'm having a go Loki, just trying to point out that some users would prefer speed over distance/downloads

I just wonder, how will they get the international bandwidth to support it?

I wonder...

Telstra to lay cable to US
March 28, 2007 12:00am

AUSTRALIA'S biggest telco Telstra Corp Ltd will lay its own submarine cable to the United States carrying a full range of telecommunication services.

...

The cable, which will provide 1.28 terabits of capacity, will offer customers who use data-rich services such as telecommuting, video-conferencing and mobile video applications a more seamless and reliable service through the increased network capacity.

I forgot about that...

They were going to stop using the southern cross cable as well... oh my memory.

this sums it up pretty well... This is from the Australian...

He [Rod Bruem, Telstra Spokesperson] said Telstra wants a guarantee it will make a commercial rate of return, to lock in third-party access terms and conditions, and to negotiate a system that recognises people in rural and remote Australia need to be looked after through cross-subsidies.

Translation...

He said Telstra wants to charge inflated prices to make lots of money, to force its wholesale customers to either pay through the nose, or not use its network, and to negotiate a system that allows them to charge much higher rates for customers in rural and remote australia, and then have HiBIS pay the difference.

No. Look at the current situation. Telstra has to provide ports for ADSL to wholesale customers regardless of location all over the country. When those wholesale customers reach critical mass at a particular exchange, they then put in their own kit and move their customers off onto ADSL2/2+ enabled DSLAMs.

This enables the wholesale customers to select the particular exchanges that they can "enable" with their kit while leaving Telstra to deal with the ones with one or two users on them.

Cool for the users, but what about Telstra who had to put in those ports at the demand of wholesale customers, and now those ports are empty generating no revenue. Due to the ACCC's rulings Telstra can't charge high enough port rental rates to gather a sufficent return on these ports before the wholesale customers move them off to their own equipment.

This is the exact issue they want to avoid when it comes to FTTN.

Nobody forces Telstra to install dslams at exchanges with little to no demand. So if Telstra don't have DSLAM/Backhaul etc... the wholesale customers can't either.

edit: this is shown by exchanges where ADSL is still unavailable. Telstra don't offer ADSL, and neither can the wholesalers.

I don't really understand your point there.


last edited by mongie at 12:55:26 12/Apr/07

Nobody forces Telstra to install dslams at exchanges with little to no demand. So if Telstra don't have DSLAM/Backhaul etc... the wholesale customers can't either.

Isn't this the point of the whole labour party drive for broadband at the moment? So broadband is accessible to 99% of the Australian customer base instead of ~80%?

Fact - Australia is massive.

Pretty much, except that Labour is funding half of their $9bn plan with taxpayers money

Nobody forces Telstra to install dslams at exchanges with little to no demand.

Before the final installment of Telstra was sold it was a requirement that the availablilty of broadband reached 98% or so of the population. Ergo there are plenty of exchanges with DSLAMs out there with little to no DSL users on them due to this. An expense no other telco in Australia was forced to pay.

The point is, all Telstra are requesting is that if they are going to put their own money into building a FTTN network, then THEY should be able to decide when and how other parties have access to it. They have been burned during their roll out of current DSL equipment by the ACCC setting prices below the a rate at which they believe is required to cover the cost of deploying and maintaining the infrastructure and they don't want it to happen again.

Pretty much, except that Labour is funding half of their $9bn plan with taxpayers money

Right - so is that a good idea?

I'm sure as f*** not voting for them. $9bn so farmers can check their email faster? I know it sucks if you can't get broadband, but its a f***ing luxury, not a necessity. I'd rather 9 billion dollars so farmers can water their crops so I don't have to pay $15 a kilo for bananas. Or $9 billion more going into water recycling or something so I know when I turn on my tap at home, actual water will come out. Or $9 billion going into, well, basically anything else that is going to benefit more than 19% of Australia in a completely and utterly trivial way.

I don't see how an investment of th is magnitude is actually going to increase productivity in the bush in the same amounts.

The tyranny of distance is a reality to the Australian outback and they have learned to cope with it very well over the years (my sister is a cocky and to be honest they love the isolation, I mean why the f*** would you move out there in the first place).

This is just one of Rudd's chameleon policies to make the electorate think he's a nice guy. He made this policy on the run without even consulting his caucus. It is bad policy, and the market should be left to sort it out. Most importantly it shouldn't be done using the public servants' superannuation.

The public servants superannuation should already have been paid.. a private company has to put money into a super fund every 3 months or get fined... The "Future fund" looks like the government didn't pay anything into a supper fund ever to cover there over infalted rate, and had to sell an asset to cover there arse, that of course being a little more of Telstra.

Of course it was sold in the guise of a "conflict of interest" with regulating a private company that they owned more then 50% in.

Ok, that aside... The FTTN network is more then supplying broadband to the bush, in fact I believe it has very very little to do with the bush what so ever.. It's more to do with building a telecommunication network capable of meeting and maintaining this countries current and future ITC needs.

These "needs" are not downloading porn at supersonic speeds, but providing video phone technology, fast data servers, larger datasets (Gigabytes instead of Megabytes), huge voice bandwidth for call centers (so it's not cheaper to go overseas, ignoring the cheaper wages argument of course ;) ) , Digital TV, Photo storage (flickr), document storage, Software on demand servers (think Office over the web) etc... Just to name a few off the top of my head.

These may seem as "luxuries" to some, by on the international business stage, these high speed services are fundamental to this countries success or failure.

Made up in the not so distant future example: Competing against a company based in the Canada (who has had a FTTN netork since the late 90's i think) who uses a cheaper "MS Office on Demand" technology because they have the bandwidth allowing them too which lets them tender significantly lower then an Australian company who has to buy 500 full licenses of MS Office because we don't have the high speed network... Would not be good...

It's about the government providing the necessary infrastructure to keep Australia competitive in international markets. Just like ports, roads and rail networks are used for moving "real" goods fast and efficiently and making the goods affordable to the businesses and citizens of Australia... There is a need to move "virtual" goods, fast and efficiently to make it affordable to compete and live.

It not all about fast gaming and MP3 download speeds...

You need to think from a Federal Government point of view... There is more then just the local end user market to consider.. there is a real need for international competitiveness...

Hi-5 Metrix.

You sold me.

But it still will result in faster porn, won't it?

It not all about fast gaming and MP3 download speeds...

its about PORN AND WAREZ!(^$!*^$

These may seem as "luxuries" to some, by on the international business stage, these high speed services are fundamental to this countries success or failure.

I find this to be a bit of a bold claim.

Competing against a company based in the Canada (who has had a FTTN netork since the late 90's i think) who uses a cheaper "MS Office on Demand" technology because they have the bandwidth allowing them too which lets them tender significantly lower then an Australian company who has to buy 500 full licenses of MS Office because we don't have the high speed network... Would not be good...

I am routinely dishing out multi-gigabytes files to thousands of Australians quite happily on our current infrastructure. You could quite happily use internationally-purchased bandwidth to do something else, too. Sure, it sucks that the money is going overseas - but does it justify a $9b taxpayer funded improvement? I don't think so.

Trog, I think that the Labour plan has good aspects to it... but overall I think the best thing that can happen out of the options on the table at the moment, is that G9 build their network.

The public servants superannuation should already have been paid.. a private company has to put money into a super fund every 3 months or get fined... The "Future fund" looks like the government didn't pay anything into a supper fund ever to cover there over infalted rate, and had to sell an asset to cover there arse, that of course being a little more of Telstra.

Of course it was sold in the guise of a "conflict of interest" with regulating a private company that they owned more then 50% in.

incorrect. Federal superannuation has been paid out of the budget on a year by year basic since superannuation came about and the current government came in. What this government has done is invest a lump of money into a fund because the year by year liability was spiraling out of control as more and more public service people retire due to an aging population. The only arses they are covering are the arses of retiring federal public service people.

Telstra was always going to be sold off completely. If you think from day1 that wasn't the plan you are kidding yourself. There was always going to be conflict of interest problems in with Telstra because the major shareholder was the one making and enforcing the rules and the T1 and T2 investors were passengers along for the ride.

I don't deny the need for a FTTN network but for the opposition to then put forth a policy where by they take money out of a fund created and placed out of reach to isolate it's assets from the Government of the day is reckless and short sighted. The assumption that this money can be used nad returned to the fund with the growth that it would have accumulated if untouched is fanciful. If the creation of a FTTN was that profitable we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.

Furthermore, I don't believe people in all parts of Australia have a given right to superfast broadband. Sure it would be nice but people who are in remote locations have to understand that in a free market economy it isn't viable for companies to make their services available to everyone at the same price. If the government wants to take on that role that is up to them but they shouldn't be legislating and/or forcing companies down that path.

but overall I think the best thing that can happen out of the options on the table at the moment, is that G9 build their network.

g9 won't build their own network unless Telstra is forced to be a part of it OR Telstra is stopped from then rolling out their own.

Both of those options require legislation to be created and/or changed and is anti-competative behaviour which shouldn't exist in a free market economy.

I actually think broadband is something we should invest in. Or should we just go back to a telegraph in the bush ? (bush being anything that doesn't have 100,000 in an urban population)?

ara what ever spin you put on it... future fund is a nice way of saying the federal super was not fully funded.

future fund is a nice way of saying the federal super was not fully funded.

exactly. and now that the problem has been fixed the Opposition leader wants to pillage the funds set aside to fix that problem.

federal super has never been fully funded under either labor or coalition. but is it better to start now while we can keep control of it, or to delay further and spend this bunch of money on the internets.

the government by selling down telstra has single handedly done the best thing for the company since T1.

since the announcement that the government has gone below 50% holding the T3 receipt have increased in value 50% and general shares 30%.

Telstra is still highly regulated and all you need is for one serious international player to decide it is coming to Australia for the next 100 years and they don't care if they make or lose a squillion. Telstra will be well and truly f***ed because it is such a goddamn awful company.

The only thing that will improve telecommunication services in this country is competition. Not some fantasy of raiding the government purse.

--- PART 1 - Supper and Future Fund ----

i don't understand how a superannuation fund can be underfunded if all the funds have been paid yearly...

My understanding (and this is where my argument may fall over :) )A superannuation fund is a forced savings for retirement.. you get back what you put in + a percentage of any profit raised using your funds for investing (- fees)...

You don't get back more then your money + your proportion of profits...

Why is more money required to "meet the debt" of the fund... it simply can not be underfunded if all monies owed had been paid on time when the income was earned by the public servant... No money paid, no profits made, no sharing of profit required...

So it has to mean that the public servants super has not been paid on time.

Or do public servants get a guaranteed interest on there super contribution, unlike us private sector plebes who get interest only if the investments are successful...

I can remember one year where there was a negative growth on most supers meaning smaller payouts figures for all members...

--- PART 2 - Telstra's Sudo Monopoly of Australian Telecom Infrastructure ----

Anyway back to Telstra bashing.. umm debate...

These may seem as "luxuries" to some, by on the international business stage, these high speed services are fundamental to this countries success or failure.

I find this to be a bit of a bold claim.

I agree, bold claim. I am trying to predict the future. I am trying to learn from what has occurred and been said in the past and make a prediction for the future requirements of bandwidth to serve this country (Like a federal politician is charged to do)

The argument of.. I am using an XYZ connection now and I am seving up XYZ bytes to #### clients is all sweet and dandy right now so I don't need more, is like someone saying:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
- IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943
or
"640K ought to be enough for anybody"
- Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, 1981

Lets not look at what we have now, and what our requirements are now, but try an imagine (predict perhaps?) what the country will need in 5, 10, or 20 years...

FTTN technology can potential serve us for 100 years, unless someone discovered a medium that travels faster then light of course. I fully expect that light will be the medium of data transfer for quite a while. ( see above quotes for my disclaimer :) )

Copper wire is not good enough and will not be good enough to support the coming needs. I think we can all agree that the copper network is on it's last legs... and one would assume Telstra knows this very well...

If someone other then Telstra builds the FTTN network, the copper network becomes redundant.

Telstra currently has a monopoly on copper infrastructure, a regulated one at that, but a monopoly none the less.

It's how Telstra make Billions of $ each year out of 20 million people. It's the only way they can make the sort of money out of the populace.

It a business sense, Telstra must maintain it's sudo monopoly of Australian infrastructure to remain as profitable a company as it is today, and it's their right to argue it. Anything short of the monopoly and Telstra will lose profits and share value and well you can guess where they will end up...

However the Federal government must provide for the future needs of this country for the best benefit of the country and it's people, not a single company. They should not be concerned with the outcome for Telstra, a company they have a financial stake in of course makes that near impossible.

If Telstra loses it's battle to be the main stake holder of the FTTN network, sell your shares ppl :)

The G9 could quite possibly build their network. If Telstra don't co-operate and the ACCC do get sick of their mucking around, they could quite easily get backing from the government and build their network.

I was however talking hypothetically... I realise the most probable outcome for us at this point is that Telstra get their regulatory changes passed, build a network that is excellent, but we get stuck with them being a monopoly provider for the next x00 years. No thanks. I think I'd rather move to korea.

ara, turns out there will be lots of change left after you fund the super. ATM that money is probably ear marked for porkbarreling pregnant teenagers or something.

I agree, bold claim. I am trying to predict the future. I am trying to learn from what has occurred and been said in the past and make a prediction for the future requirements of bandwidth to serve this country (Like a federal politician is charged to do)

Don't get me wrong, I think that's a great idea. But I think the government should stay the f*** out of it now that they've sold Telstra.

You can either have a proper deregulated privatised industry that will manage itself in a capitalist market, or you can have a government-funded and influenced one. Having both just won't work because you'll constantly have bickering (as we've seen) on every level.

The argument of.. I am using an XYZ connection now and I am seving up XYZ bytes to #### clients is all sweet and dandy right now so I don't need more

Well, that's not what I'm saying, actually - I'm saying that for the forseeable future, at least in my industry, I can't see any major improvements that are required core-infrastructure wise. And I'm not dealing in piddly amounts of bandwidth, either. Sure, it'd be nice to have 100mbit for the last mile, but at the end of the day I'm not going to lose any sleep if gamers have to wait 10 minutes to download a demo or a digitally purchased game, and neither should anyone else.

FTTN technology can potential serve us for 100 years, unless someone discovered a medium that travels faster then light of course. I fully expect that light will be the medium of data transfer for quite a while. ( see above quotes for my disclaimer :) )

... or, unless our data needs increase exponentially. It's quite possible that someone will invent something that means everyone needs 120391039102Gbit/sec to transfer which will make FTTN just as redundant!

Copper wire is not good enough and will not be good enough to support the coming needs. I think we can all agree that the copper network is on it's last legs... and one would assume Telstra knows this very well...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't ADSL2+ provide speeds of greater than 24MBit/sec?

Telstra currently has a monopoly on copper infrastructure, a regulated one at that, but a monopoly none the less.

As they should, because they paid for it!!!@@@

It's how Telstra make Billions of $ each year out of 20 million people. It's the only way they can make the sort of money out of the populace.

Yes - that's why the government should have kept it. A company that can make that sort of bling out of such a small population is either just incredibly awesome, or charging far too much. A couple years of profits could have been funneled into a FTTN network YEARS ago. Or they could have just halved the price of everything, or whatever.

However the Federal government must provide for the future needs of this country for the best benefit of the country and it's people, not a single company. They should not be concerned with the outcome for Telstra, a company they have a financial stake in of course makes that near impossible.

Again, the federal government has, in my opinion, lost any rights they had to influence this. They should provide some incentives for PRIVATE companies to expand infrastructure (via tax breaks or whatever) but they've bowed out of the telco business by selling Telstra and I want them to stay the f*** out of it and focus on spending all our tax dollars on something that's a) actually their job to run and b) useful to the majority of taxpayers.

We're not going to need FTTN in 20 years if we're out of oil, or drowning because of global warming, or whatever. Let's fix the important s*** first, then come back and work on luxury items.

If Telstra loses it's battle to be the main stake holder of the FTTN network, sell your shares ppl :)

I am far from an economist, but I can't see any future positive outlook in a deregulated telco market where Telstra are forced by law to share their hard-earned infrastructure with any Johnny-come-lately ISP.

i don't understand how a superannuation fund can be underfunded if all the funds have been paid yearly...

their liability was paid, not money paid into some fund. The government has no superannuation fund as such, they have a fixed rate at which they payout their employee's superannuation upon their retirement. So no money is invested, when their employees retire they just pay them out of the yearly budget.

The future fund is putting aside a pile of money to be invested and managed by an independant body to fund this liability because if they continued doing what they are currently doing, the liability would become unmanageable as more and federal employees retire as the population ages.

FTTN technology can potential serve us for 100 years, unless someone discovered a medium that travels faster then light of course. I fully expect that light will be the medium of data transfer for quite a while. ( see above quotes for my disclaimer :) )

You are completely confusing FTTN (fibre to the NODE) with FTTH (fibre to the HOME)

If someone other then Telstra builds the FTTN network, the copper network becomes redundant.

Telstra currently has a monopoly on copper infrastructure, a regulated one at that, but a monopoly none the less.

You have missed the mark. FTTN still uses the copper network. The last mile is still used and is still owned by Telstra. Regardless of who builds a FTTN network, unless they lay their own copper from the NODE to the HOME, they will still be reliant on Telstra infrastructure.

Everything else you said in redundant because you completely missed these points.

ara, turns out there will be lots of change left after you fund the super.

how do you figure that?

ATM that money is probably ear marked for porkbarreling pregnant teenagers or something.

the money has been placed out of reach of the government for a reason. only a fly-by-night economic cowboy would suggest pass taking money out of it to fund policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't ADSL2+ provide speeds of greater than 24MBit/sec?

Telstra a proposing VDSL2 for their FTTN which supports speeds upto 100Mbits up and down stream.

Telstra didn't pay for the copper network. They inherited it as part of the preprivatisation heritage. Telstra is not PMG or Telecom.

Forcing or even encouraging multiple replicated infrastructures is completely stupid in our country. I can get Optus or Foxtel here ... And there is 2 seperate cables to do it, it didn't need 2 cables. Yet there are parts of Brisbane that can't get cable at all.

As for the node to home stretch... twisted pair has a limited long term life. Optus has cable in a a sizeable ammount of metro place. Energex has a cable to everywhere! I would have thought Telstra would actively look to be on selling their precious copper with long term contracts, tie them into it before the government realizes they could sell that energex connection to bidders. (Assuming the Nortel project ever makes it a reality, its been a bit quite since 2004)

Telstra didn't pay for the copper network. They inherited it as part of the preprivatisation heritage. Telstra is not PMG or Telecom.

Telecom may have build it, but when Telecom was sold and became Telstra it came with the copper. Hence, Telstra's shareholders paid for the copper network by buying shares.

Forcing or even encouraging multiple replicated infrastructures is completely stupid in our country.

You say this, but do you own a mobile phone? Do you enjoy the cheap rates for mobile phone calls now that we have 3 different telcos with their own mobile networks competing against each other. My guess is you do and you are a hypocrit.

The only way we will have cheap broadband in Australia is if we have competing telco's using their own infrastructure.

last edited by ara at 22:31:49 12/Apr/07

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't ADSL2+ provide speeds of greater than 24MBit/sec?

Copper speeds will also drop pretty drastically the further you are from the exchange.

Copper speeds will also drop pretty drastically the further you are from the exchange.

That is the idea behind FTTN. The nodes are like "sub exchanges" around the neighbour hood to make the distance between the node and the home short enough to be able to use ADSL2+ or VDSL (dependant on who's planned FTTN network gets made) at a higher throughput.

Forcing or even encouraging multiple replicated infrastructures is completely stupid in our country. I can get Optus or Foxtel here ... And there is 2 seperate cables to do it, it didn't need 2 cables. Yet there are parts of Brisbane that can't get cable at all.

The latter certainly sucks. I'm in one of those parts, both for home and office. But that's just a deployment limitation and hopefully one day it'll be fixed.

I'd LOVE to live in an area where I had two (or more) pipes from different providers running past my house. Double the bandwidth in your area!

I'm saying that for the forseeable future, at least in my industry, I can't see any major improvements that are required core-infrastructure wise. And I'm not dealing in piddly amounts of bandwidth, either. Sure, it'd be nice to have 100mbit for the last mile, but at the end of the day I'm not going to lose any sleep if gamers have to wait 10 minutes to download a demo or a digitally purchased game, and neither should anyone else.

You != Australia. There are, believe it or not, more uses for the internet than serving websites.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't ADSL2+ provide speeds of greater than 24MBit/sec?

You're wrong, its max is 24/2.5 (with annexe M), as ara said though, there are other types of internet that can be run over copper lines that are faster. (eg. VDSL2)

Telstra currently has a monopoly on copper infrastructure, a regulated one at that, but a monopoly none the less.

As they should, because they paid for it!!!@@@

I agree with Obes, they didn't really pay for it.

You have missed the mark. FTTN still uses the copper network. The last mile is still used and is still owned by Telstra. Regardless of who builds a FTTN network, unless they lay their own copper from the NODE to the HOME, they will still be reliant on Telstra infrastructure.

Average length from node to home is between 300-800m, depending on what tech they intend to use.

FTTN technology can potential serve us for 100 years, unless someone discovered a medium that travels faster then light of course. I fully expect that light will be the medium of data transfer for quite a while. ( see above quotes for my disclaimer :) )

You are completely confusing FTTN (fibre to the NODE) with FTTH (fibre to the HOME)

Am I not correct in saying that the conversion from FTTN to FTTH could utilise the pre-existing FTTN network?

Docsis (1 at least) has a theoretical max of 42.88 (38) Mbit/s down and 10.24 (9) Mbit/s up.

I don't believe that it is possible to run two cable services over the one line. It would obviously be possible to resell the same service, but I don't think Telstra and Optus could both make use of that one line, but have seperate network backbones.

Cable is also prone to saturation... ie. It loses speed the more people are using it.

just for interests sake, the proposed docsis3 standards (mind you, we're still on 1.1) offers 160+mbit down and 120+mbit up

Am I not correct in saying that the conversion from FTTN to FTTH could utilise the pre-existing FTTN network?

Yes, but as i indicated in my previous reply, he had missed that FTTN still uses copper and therefore is likely to be confusing FTTN with FTTH.

Using a deployed FTTN network to roll out FTTH is an obvious senario. In the future it could be a simple matter of entering a contract for a fixed period to offset the cost of the installation, similar with how cable and adsl installs originated.

It appears that stupidity runs rampant in QGL.

Telstra are no different from any other private telco, except that they are bigger, and that they own the majority of the communications infrastructure in this country. The ACCC control every aspect of Telstra's existence. Every decision made, or word that comes out of a Telstra employees mouth, is usually dictated by ACCC constraints and legal requirement.

Some of you kids probably grew up with the Internet already in existence, and most likely have no experience of slower Internet services. I have been involved in computers for 17 years, and I have marvelled at the way the Internet has developed. I am not in a Metropolitan area, so we don't get the latest technology when the cities get them. However, I am experienced enough to know that our present Internet services travel along an infrastructure that was put in place years ago. Many of you wouldn't have any idea how data is sent through the communication infrastructure, so you wouldn't appreciate the fact that Telstra are not ripping up roads to replace infrastructure every time that they upgrade their services. Most upgrades these days are done at exchanges, so enough planning was done years ago to ensure that today's ever expanding traffic requirements could travel along yesterdays telecommunications infrastructure. Also, if you go and sign up with another provider, do you see them laying new lines into your house or business? The answer is No. In most cases they use the existing infrastructure, which are owned by Telstra. Therefore, the present infrastructure not only supports Telstra traffic, it also supplies the traffic of its competitors.

If you owned a food business, and had the best refrigeration facilities in town, what would you do if the shop next door asked to store their food in your fridge? You would most likely tell them to get stuffed. However, what if that store took you to court, and you were forced to share it for a fee. You would do it grudgingly, but in that back of your mind you would be pissed that you spent all the dollars to get a good fridge and the other guy gets off cheap by renting yours. Does this make it a little clearer?

Has anybody connected the dots yet? How is it that other providers using Telstra's infrastructure can offer faster rates or cheaper plans? As a Government corporation, it was dragged through the courts and forced to allow smaller companies to compete with it. Because it owned the infrastructure, it was also TOLD not only to share, but it was warned not to flex its might to the point where it would hurt its competition. It was forced into this position BECAUSE it was a Government owned Corporation. Can you imagine the courts forcing a private business into the same position? It wouldn't happen. Just imagine what could happen in the future if Telstra used its private position to shed some of the government constraints that were force upon it years ago.

What would happen if all of the other providers were told that they couldn't use Telstra's infrastructure? They would cease to exist overnight. They wouldn't have the money to install the same level of infrastructure. Therefore, when considering infrastructure upgrades, why should anybody take notice of organisations that have no infrastructure of their own? More importantly, why would you put yourself in a position where they can buy into your existing infrastructure? That would create more problems that its worth. Some of these providers are piss poor companies who use inferior, if not pathetic, service facilities. Many provide good services, but others can only be described as being pathetic. If you let one of the good ones in the front door, then you would have the pathetic ones crawling over each other to be a part of it.

Just some food for thought ^_^

FB

Yet there are parts of Brisbane that can't get cable at all.

I think you will find that these areas fall into two catagories.

1. Councils commenced legal action against Optus and Telstra about the highly visable cables being strung along the power polls (Yes, Telstra started hanging their cables instead of using their copper line trenches because it was a cheaper method of rolling out the hybrid network).

2. Areas that have LOS to a certain building in the city which houses the a satelite transmitter. In Sydney it is centerpoint tower. People in these areas can use dishes to get payTV and that was the purpose of the original roll out.

Furybear is obviously a telstra shareholder...

Far out... Talk about being one eyed... The government owned PMG/Telecom/Telstra, being a government entity, they paid for the phone network with taxpayer's money.


I wonder, just to give everyone some MORE food for thought, whether Telstra are better off selling data wholesale, as well as retail, or.. would make more money if they did have exclusive rights to use their phone lines.

Basically, we would be left with Optus Cable, and the Mobile/Wireless networks of Vodafone/Optus and 3. (note: this is assuming it happened tomorrow)

They would have far less customers if you include wholesale/retail. But then, a lot of the current wholesale customers would become retail customers.

I wonder.

sorry ara you'd be wrong. Brisbane is a single council (its a massive city). 1300km^2 and $1.6b budget. The biggest local government in Australia and probably one of the largest in the world in area. Sydney is 38 Local government authorities. Melbourne is 30. Brisbane is 1. Parts of Brisbane didn't have overhead cables, and Telstra wouldn't let people use "their" channels. So in some places there is a single cable.

When I say some parts have 2 cables while some have none, I am talking about parts of the same suburb, and not new suburbs or estates. Most of the places that have LOS to the city have 2 cables.

I agree with Obes, they didn't really pay for it.

and

The government owned PMG/Telecom/Telstra, being a government entity, they paid for the phone network with taxpayer's money.

What do you mean they didn't really pay for it? Say you build a house with a garage and I come along and buy your property. Are you going to come along the next day saying the Garage is yours because you built it?

The government/telecom built the network and Telstra shareholders payed the Government for it. They bought Telecom from the government including the infrastructure. To now say that "they didn't really pay for it" or "they don't own it" is ridiculous.

last edited by ara at 11:01:59 13/Apr/07

last edited by ara at 11:02:08 13/Apr/07

Sorry, I was trying to fish a little... I thought the "Obviously a telstra shareholder" comment would be a dead giveaway. But you're right, Telstra do own their network, I'd be interested to know exactly what rights they have with it...

I think thats a bit off topic anyway, I originaly started the thread about Telstra trying to force the ACCC to change the TPA so that they can ensure ongoing returns if they choose to invest in the FTTN network they've been talking about.

I think that any government relaxation of the rules is completely wrong, and I wholeheartedly hope that telstra should be made to stick to the existing rules, just like everybody else.

Edit: Also, Obes... The BCC did have major issues with the overhead cabling, especially due to it being so low.

Shrapse was, for a long time (may still be) one of the few with underground optus. They did a pilot at Springfield and i don't think it ever actually took off.

last edited by mongie at 11:09:20 13/Apr/07

What do you mean they didn't really pay for it? Say you build a house with a garage and I come along and buy your property. Are you going to come along the next day saying the Garage is yours because you built it?

The government paid Telecom to provide infrastructure, ie. the government paid for the house to be built on their land. And all of a sudden because there is new owner for the builder they get the house ! (yes I am away that is not accurate, but neither is ara's simplification).

It is a bit of a grey area exactly how much right telstra has to do what they want with the phone network.

The government paid Telecom to provide infrastructure

No it didn't. Telecom was given/assigned/allocated money to subsidise the cost of deploying a telecommunication network for the population of Australia.

Telecom always owned the infrastructure. It isn't like NDC which was created for the sole purpose of deploying infrastructure for Telstra and Reach.

Furthermore, the point is moot. When Telecom was sold it was sold with the infrastructure so no matter how much you cry about it now, it isn't going to change who owns it.

last edited by ara at 11:31:31 13/Apr/07

How is it that other providers using Telstra's infrastructure can offer faster rates or cheaper plans?

They're only using part of the infrastructure, numerous companies now have their own equipment installed in the same exchanges that allows much faster rates.

Most upgrades these days are done at exchanges, so enough planning was done years ago to ensure that today's ever expanding traffic requirements could travel along yesterdays telecommunications infrastructure.

The technology was designed with that in mind, knowing companies won't incorporate it if it isn't cost effective to do so. It's the reason why we're still using petrol, why Australia is burning coal and so forth.

I think you will find that these areas fall into two catagories.

3. Telstra and Optus ended up coming to an agreement that halted the deployment of said network.

The proposed government funding is causing more of a headache than anything else, it's like watching 10 school kids fighting over one marble.

The BCC did have major issues with the overhead cabling, especially due to it being so low

True, They stopped it at a point in time. How much of that was due to Telstra campaigning tho (put on the tin foil hat, since they owned the channels it helped them create a nice little monopoly on Brisbane cable roll outs). And even tho it got stopped after a period of time, if they hadn't double covered certain areas they could have covered a lot more area.

Are they even bothering to roll out the cable networks any more ?

The government sold off the infrastructure to a new company funded by all sorts of investors (shareholders). Telstra as a private company has the objective of making money for its shareholders. That is why people invest.

And you wonder why Telstra drags its feet every time the government/ACCC/whoever wants to interfere?

Perhaps it was a mistake to privatise the whole telecommuications company vertically. The delivery/transmission system (copper) could have remained government owned but turned into a GOC. This is what is done in the electricity industry - the high voltage transmission system is government owned whereas generation and retail are private (not always, but there at least is this separation).

I'm not a supporter of Telstra at all, but you can lay the blame squarely at the feet of the government for anything unfair you think Telstra does, as they're the ones that sold it off in order to make a bucketload of cash under the premise of reducing costs/wasteage - which privatisation typically does.

last edited by orbitor at 11:42:48 13/Apr/07

What we need is a _NOT-FOR-PROFIT_, open, single wholesale priced network accessible to all retailers (Telstra Retail, Optus etc..) at an equal and fair price.

With all line rental being pumped back into the network infrastructure to fund administration, maintenance, further enhancements, roll outs, technology upgrades and repay the original finance (be it the Future Fund or a Macquarie Bank Loan ) :)

This would create the perfect 100% transparent free market in the Telecom Retail Industry right?

And the infrastructure would be forever upgraded to the benefit of all it's users

I don't think Telstra would be interested in a "Not for Profit" network, or G9/G11 for that matter... Perhaps this is the fundamental problem with all this... Companies are trying to make a profit from it...

But then again we live in a capitalist society don't we, someone always needs to make money :(

Met

What we need is a _NOT-FOR-PROFIT_, open, single wholesale priced network accessible to all retailers (Telstra Retail, Optus etc..) at an equal and fair price.

sounds a bit like communism to me.... didn't that fail? even the mutual societies like NRMA and now the private health funds are demutualising. They have come to realise that unless someone is cracking the whip to make a profits, these not-for-profits grow fat and lazy.

The whole idea of the G9 idea is to basically do what Metrix said, but have it as a publicly listed company... haven't any of you read about it?

Like a privately owned tollroad... Contracted for public use for x number of years... It really seems to be the best way forwards I think.

last edited by mongie at 12:27:00 13/Apr/07

when i was writing that i thought.. "sounds like communism" ... but thats a whole other thread :)

But are not roads, bridges, water infrastructure (not sure on that one) and the regulatory control of Telstra's copper network a "bit like communism" ?

If it working there (not so smoothly for the copper network, but it works), whats the difference with the Fibre network?

I'm not a fan of privatisation, but then again, thats no suprise I am a lefty. i feel that there are some aspects of society that need to have governemnt controls in place. ie, schools, hospitals, telecomunications, water, power, and prisions. that way there is some measure of public accountability. you can bet your ass we would not have heard about doctor death if it had been a private hospital. and it sucks that private schools get the majority of governemnt funding, when they are not bound to teach a states curriculum. and oh yeh, neone remember a few years ago when the privatized power company in south australia was forced to pump in power from NSW, the largest government owned power generator in aus? poor planning and no money spent on upgrading infrastructure crippled South aus's power system. i can see the same thing happening nationally with telstra. this is the problem with a private entity that puts more money into its shareholders and profit margins then into matanince.

Clicky

Just in case you missed it the first time around, this is the G9 origninal proposal.

so when do i get my faster internets?
HD media takes too long to dl :(

you are

Mongie... nice read there...

you are right it basically mirrors my "beliefs" and quantifies them with some real facts :)

Now all we need is the government, Telstra and G9/G11 to play nice and do something beneficial for everyone.

Thanks for the thread :)

and i agree to disagree with everyone who disagrees with me :)

Met

You != Australia. There are, believe it or not, more uses for the internet than serving websites.

Really? Everyone keeps saying that but noone can actually provide any examples other than OMGZ VOIP AND VIDEO CONFERENCING.

The stuff I work in is real world actual s*** that people use every day, and will keep using for the foreseeable future.

You're wrong, its max is 24/2.5 (with annexe M), as ara said though, there are other types of internet that can be run over copper lines that are faster. (eg. VDSL2)

Well I actually meant up to, not more than - the point being that 24mbit is f***ing fast, IMO.

It appears that stupidity runs rampant in QGL.

You say this, then you sort of ramble on for a bit, then end with this:

Just some food for thought ^_^

which is a bit of a disconnect. I can't figure out who you're referring to as stupid?

The uses for faster net...

Video Conferencing is a big one, at work we have a proper video conferencing system where we're able to conference with our other offices all around australia and the world... I was talking to the IT people in London the other day, but we're currently using ISDN. Newer systems use the net for their connections, and our staff are always wanting better quality, to the point where in the near future we'll be looking to get a HD sollution. thats like 4-6mbit per channel, and we need at least 4, but ideally 8+ channels, and thats more than 24mbit.

IPTV and Triple Play services... This is the most obvious, I remember watching a movie from SBC in America showing their first gen systems, Triple play is HDTV+Voice+Data through the one pipe, and generally they have 2 HD streams, which can be up to 20 or so mbit, a voice stream, which is voip and doesn't really use much, maybe 1mbit and then data, which is variable, this also really needs higher bandwidth than what adsl2+ can provide.

That being said, one of the main reasons why ADSL2+ is not ideal AT THE MOMENt, is because a lot of people, myself included can't get anywhere near 24mbit. I currently sync at about 3-4mbit, which is ~ 300k/s. I'm not going to be getting triple play on my net anytime soon. (FTTN Will fix this because in my case, I'm a fair way from my exchange, enter FTTN, i'll be less than a km away.)

There are several other uses, but the point is its being built with our future needs in mind. So in 10 years time, we'll already have the FTTN network, and when triple play and other like products become commonplace, we'll have the infrastructure to use them.

I do understand what you're saying about priorities, but you must see the government's view that the economy is very important to the overall running of the country, and as the world of business becomes more IT based, having a national FTTN network will allow businesses to conduct their business in new and better ways.

Video Conferencing is a big one, at work

I'll stop you right there - that's not something that needs fibre to the home!

to the point where in the near future we'll be looking to get a HD sollution

HD videoconferencing? Why not build GOLD TOILETS while we're at it. Seriously, how many pores on someone's face do you want to see when you're talking to them?

IPTV and Triple Play services...

HD TV certainly requires more bandwidth, there's no denying that.

I do understand what you're saying about priorities, but you must see the government's view that the economy is very important to the overall running of the country, and as the world of business becomes more IT based, having a national FTTN network will allow businesses to conduct their business in new and better ways.

I do see that. My points about the government offering tax breaks to people that want to invest in our economy still stand. Pretty much everything you've mentioned there is a luxury item though - how many Australians are going to suffer if they can't download a HD movie in less than an hour vs how many Australians are going to suffer if wheat prices skyrocket because we have no water because we spent all our money laying fibre instead of pipes to steal water from, say New Zealand?

Just to add - I don't want to trivialise increasing bandwidth. Obviously I think it's a good thing. I'd love to have a squiggabit pipe into my house so I never have to see the word "buffering" ever again.

But I just don't see how any Australian can look at the state of play with all the problems that plague us on a daily basis and go "yes, I think spending billions of dollars of tax payers money on something that is a privatised, commercial industry is a good idea".

I love stuff like this from the G9

Telstra will "cherry pick" the most profitable metropolitan areas leaving the rest of Australia unserved by high quality broadband, because it will be uneconomic for other carriers to serve these areas on a stand alone basis. By contrast, it would be economically efficient for the owner of a more widespread broadband infrastructure to sell wholesale broadband access to carriers who may seek to serve the national market, or more specialised
regional markets.

This coming from a group of ISPs that only install DSLAMs in exchanges that make it viable. It is common sense for a company to invest in installing infrastructure where they will get a return on that investment, so why can't Telstra follow their lead?

Can a competitor build a second node next to Telstraís node?

1. Technical limitations on duplicate access to the copper pairs "no double adaptor" possible at the level of the node
2. Physical `street furnitureí limitations at local council level
3. Even if the above were overcome, the economics of installing a duplicate node sare not justified

1. part of the installation of a FTTN is going to be running new cable from the pillars to the nodes. If a second FTTN was setup it would need to connect to the pillars anyway where the patching to either FTTN would be facilitated.

2. That is something to take up with councils, but if they allow one company the ACCC can force them to allow another company.

3. Sure they are. It enables competition which is what everyone wants. If they can roll out their G9 FTTN and it can compete with Telstra's FTTN and then everyone benifits.

From that G9 PDF:

It would enhance Telstra's capacity to sabotage its competitors.

heh, what

hay what's going on in this thread

teehehe

trog - Telstra can cripple other ISPs with unfair increases in prices, which can take years for the ACCC to fix. Take a look here for a good example.

Just found NowWeAreTalking.com.au, Telstra's response site with their POV.

this is pretty funny:

Here are all their boxes neatly in a row leeching off the network in the Telstra exchange.

ROFL, from that site:

It is manually intensive (the Telstra technicians that can make all this work are amazing), cumbersome and costly.

First time I read it as:

It is manually intensive (the Telstra technicians that can make all this work are amazing, cumbersome and costly.