So, today is the day that bids must be lodged for the National Broadband Network project that has been going on for the past year. Terria, TransAct, Acacia, Axia and Telstra are the parties who would be expected to bid... and it gets very interesting, Telstra's moves before 12pm today could really affect the direction of broadband in Australia for at least the next 10 years.

Separation is still the biggest subject for debate, on the Pro separation side, we have Terria and Axia (and Acacia I believe), while on the Anti separation side, we have our good friends Telstra.

Personally, I'm hanging out for a Terria / Axia win, as I think that will be best for me, and everyone else. Axia don't sell retail products.

What are your thoughts on the issue? Telstra have until midday to lodge their bid, so it will be interesting to see if they stand up and stick to what they have been saying (they won't bid).

Yes i am hoping Axia get it.. but dont know the whole details.... i just want FTTH

There will be no FTTH.

There will be no FTTH.

9600 baud is all you will ever need.

Who needs stupid ISP's anyway. bring back BBS's with internet portals.

what is FTTH ?

Fibre to the home

In the current economic climate, there is no way a company is going to raise the 30 billion dollars needed to build FTTH (and the figure is probably way higher than that).

It will be FTTN, cities will be rolled out before country areas, and the technology will be either ADSL2+ or VDSL2. (24mbit up to maybe 50-100mbit).

FTTH won't be coming for at least another 10 years. Another more responsible Government can worry about that.

i think whoever wins the bid doesn't matter. Telstra will still win.

if they win the bid they make it according to their rules.
if they win the bid and government doesn't let them make it to their rules they pull out then make a competing network.
if they don't win the bid, they make their own competing solution.

all 3 scenarios have Telstra winning, 4.whatever billion is a drop in the bucket for what the total cost of the network will end up being.

Another more responsible Government can worry about that.

you make it sound like having fibre cable internet at every persons house is some kind of necessity

people need their ISOs yesterday!

you're exactly right ara. Telstra won't ever let anyone 'telstra' them.

So... Telstra have submitted a 12 page letter to Senator Conroy, outlining their plans for a network to cover 80-90% of the population. It is a non-compliant bid. The Government had mandated 98% coverage.

The network was to cost $10bn - $5bn from Telstra, and $4.7 from the Government provided as a loan.

A basic plan of 1mbit / 200MB per month would be available for $30/month for Telstra phone customers. (Which is 4x the speed of their current offering). Telstra's network will support 50-25Mbit for 65-75% of users, and 12-20mbit for the rest of their footprint.

If the Government has any balls, the Telstra proposal should be laughed out of the running, and the ONI, Axia, TransACT and Acacia bids should be the only bids considered.

ONI - Optus Network Investments have also submitted a bid, with the backing of TERRiA. Considering the lack of credibility that Terria had towards the end of this process, it is hardly suprising they would revert to an Optus bid.

The Optus proposal is said to be over 1000 pages (compared to the 12 pages of the Telstra bid).

Optus Press Release

Telstra Submission

whats seperation? is that like when the seatbelt gets betwixt teh booblies?

The Optus proposal is said to be over 1000 pages (compared to the 12 pages of the Telstra bid).

it's prolly mostly bribes... that's the singtel way! makes perfect sense to give it to singapore's telecom rather than our own telecom :/

is it really likely that another company will promise greater coverage than telstra? seems unlikely to me. (because of the unprofitability of servicing outback areas.)

it's prolly mostly bribes... that's the singtel way! makes perfect sense to give it to singapore's telecom rather than our own telecom :/

is it really likely that another company will promise greater coverage than telstra? seems unlikely to me. (because of the unprofitability of servicing outback areas.)

Its your attitude that allows Telstra to hold the anti-competitive position they do today.

If a company is not performing, why keep it? Telstra isn't owned by the government... why should we protect it when they are clearly not interested in following the guidelines set by the Government?

mongie has a point... its like saying 'buy holdens not anything else because its our own.' but i still hate singtel.

Its your attitude that allows Telstra to hold the anti-competitive position they do today.

no it isn't. it's the fact telstra have been doing telecommunications in this country for the longest time, have the most infrastructure, have the widest rural coverage & the most experience. my attitude, awesome though it is, does f*** all except annoy rampantly tautologous nimrods :D

mongie has a point... its like saying 'buy holdens not anything else because its our own.'

no. it's nothing like that.

mobile voice does not equal data over landline.

telstra are only good at it because they were once owned by the government.. so all they have to do is maintain what they have...

The canadian company looks interesting as they have similar experience we have here with rural and outback places..

Who actually gets to choose which bid wins?

It'd be good if the public could vote on it since we're stuck with it for the next however many years.

I'll be happy with anyone but Telstra because no matter how good people say they are, they're ripping Australia off and it's sad to see people accepting it like it's normal and ok.

it's the fact Telstra have been doing telecommunications in this country for the longest time

That is fair enough, but is no reason to hand them what they want on a platter. You can't base everything on past performance (and past performance in Broadband regulation is as bad as you can get).

have the most infrastructure

I agree.... They have the most infrastructure between the mainland and Tasmania too, and the extort the average user because of it

have the widest rural coverage

A great example of this is waiting for years to enable ADSL2+ in all of their exchanges, for no other reason than to avoid having to wholesale. They then decided that they wanted to wholesale after all...

Also funny that Telstra's proposal only covers 90% of the population, while Optus's proposal is said to include a combination of 75,224 nodes, two satellites, 1360 new wireless base stations and 100,000km of fibre which should allow it to hit 98% of the population.

& the most experience.

Most experience at what?

• Telstra have built 0 National FTTN networks.


• Singtel are building the FTTH network in Singapore in co-operation with Axia.


• Axia NetMedia have built the Alberta Supernet (Canada) as well as a FTTN in France, and will be assisting Singtel in Singapore.

• Telstra was founded in 1993 - or 1901 if you count the PMG


• Singtel was founded in 1871.

last edited by mongie at 16:53:39 26/Nov/08

Oh... and FYI... The regulations that were required for Axia in Singapore.

Their proposal creates an open access network with 4 distinct layers of ownership, to separate competitive interests from monopoly aspects of the network. SingTel (the national incumbent) will transfer existing ducts, manholes and exchanges to be used for the NBN into an independent asset company by mid-2011 and sell down its stake in that entity by 2014. The fibre will belong to OpenNet. The electronics will be offered to “operating companies” (Opco licensees) who will operate the electronics—Layers 2 and 3— of the network - and the operating companies will resell to retail providers.

see above points.

It doesn't matter who wins the bid, Telstra are in a position through existing infrastructure that isn't open to ACCC regulation (NextG and HFC) to stop the winner of the bid, if it isn't Telstra, from obtaining a monopoly.

You can cheer all you want for the non-Telstra players but their bid's finances are reliant on obtaining a monopoly. The exact thing that all these Telstra haters have been crying about for years. And when they don't achieve that monopoly I think their banks will pull the pin.

Cheap mobile phone plans/rates only came about once there were more than 1-2 players in the market. The more players joined the more competition was created. If you think some entity building a single network that everyone has equal access to is going to somehow create competition in the marketplace I think you are mistaken. It will create a cookie cutter approach to internet plans.

Competing delivery methods and infrastructure models are what is going to create competitive internet plan pricing. Not regulation and monopolies.

Ara, I appreciate your position on this, but I beg to differ.

You can cheer all you want for the non-Telstra players but their bid's finances are reliant on obtaining a monopoly.

For starters... Terria/Optus are the only party to request overbuild protection. Acacia, TransACT and Axia have not mentioned this at all.

I should also mention, that Optus wanted provisions to block any type of competing network, not just another FTTN. I don't know if i agree with that.

You should also be aware that the overbuild protection was a clause that was in the original G9 SAU. It is unknown whether it is in the current proposal as the proposal has yet to be made public.

It'd be good if the public could vote on it since we're stuck with it for the next however many years.

I really can't agree with this.

Having the general public put to vote on something like this just doesn't make sense.

Your average person on a technology forum doesn't know enough about the intricacies of implementing something like this, let alone the unwashed masses. Do you seriously think we would benefit from your average soccer mum having a say in how a national broadband network is deployed?

The best we can do is vote for the people that we think can do the best job at making those kind of informed decisions.

an E-vote then, perhaps

internets and plasmas, serious business

The 2009-2010 pricing scheme in that Telstra document is such a joke, $29.95/$39.95 for a 1mbps connection with 200 Mb quota?

I can think of a few ISPs that offer ADSL1/2+ connections with several GB of data for that price.

telstra have a good chance of winning. they are proposing to only borrow the 5bil from the gov for the network, and pay it back over time. the other proposals just take the 5 bil and spend it.

i take the view that the 5bil is a solid investment in the countries future and would be happy to spend it if it means fast affordable internet access for more australias moving forward, but in these 'troubled times' economically maybe they'll take the cheap option :)

they are proposing to only borrow the 5bil from the gov for the network, and pay it back over time. the other proposals just take the 5 bil and spend it.

The Government is offering the $5bn as Debt or Equity. Its either a loan, or it owns part of the network.

The best we can do is vote for the people that we think can do the best job at making those kind of informed decisions.

Shame Conroy and Minchin are such c*******s.

s***, i agree with mongie

Another more responsible Government can worry about that.

you make it sound like having fibre cable internet at every persons house is some kind of necessity

It's a necessary if they want to IPTV (maybe 15~20 years into the future.) and that's what I've been seeing advertised recently on all the commercial stations

"In 2009 Digital TV is coming... look at us, look at us..." - sure, that's great. But at the end of the day everyone wants a filter cause the internet filtering software didn't work. (pardon my irony)

Bit Torrent - cause once Pandora's Box is open, they knew they were f***ed.

See this film: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-7943417698180428255&ei=JZItSdq3AZnWqAPc4JihBg&q=%22The+Future+Of+Bit+Torrent%22&hl=en

They've always f***ING KNOWN that they had to do it (upgrade the internet connections) sooner or later and that's not counting the electricity and the fans (heat exchange) required to keep up with the demand for newer technologies and upgrading existing phone /cable/wireless infrastructure.

Let Telstra manage the fiber and 'only the fiber and have Internode, iiNet, OzForces, etc managed the billing and tell Sam Trojillo to stop conquering the poor innocent people in the bush. Telstra as a 'service provider' doesn't seem to work (or sucks in the masses of every day persons who don't view the internet or are starting out on the internet.)

Better yet to a Telstra private and public joint venture to bring the network up to scratch. Let the other internet providers do the plans and downloads and people can choose. The phone network used to be owned by the Post Master General. That's why all the concrete maintainence hatches have "PMG" on them. But once again that was a long time ago.

Another more responsible Government can worry about that.

you make it sound like having fibre cable internet at every persons house is some kind of necessity

It's a necessary if they want to IPTV (maybe 15~20 years into the future.) and that's what I've been seeing advertised recently on all the commercial stations

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21893/127/

"In 2009 Digital TV is coming... look at us, look at us..." - sure, that's great. But at the end of the day everyone wants a filter cause the internet filtering software didn't work. (pardon my irony)

Bit Torrent - cause once Pandora's Box is open, they knew they were f***ed.

See this film: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-7943417698180428255&ei=JZItSdq3AZnWqAPc4JihBg&q=%22The+Future+Of+Bit+Torrent%22&hl=en

They've always f***ING KNOWN that they had to do it (upgrade the internet connections) sooner or later and that's not counting the electricity and the fans (heat exchange) required to keep up with the demand for newer technologies and upgrading existing phone /cable/wireless infrastructure.

Let Telstra manage the fiber and 'only the fiber and have Internode, iiNet, OzForces, etc managed the billing and tell Sam Trojillo to stop conquering the poor innocent people in the bush. Telstra as a 'service provider' doesn't seem to work (or sucks in the masses of every day persons who don't view the internet or are starting out on the internet.)

Better yet to a Telstra private and public joint venture to bring the network up to scratch. Let the other internet providers do the plans and downloads and people can choose. The phone network used to be owned by the Post Master General. That's why all the concrete maintainence hatches have "PMG" on them. But once again that was a long time ago.

gamearena is leaaaaaaaaaaaking

Jesus, to think the T was literally foaming at the mouth to sign this gig off a year ago, when they had horrible bargaining position.

Let Telstra manage the fiber and 'only the fiber and have Internode, iiNet, OzForces, etc managed the billing and tell Sam Trojillo to stop conquering the poor innocent people in the bush. Telstra as a 'service provider' doesn't seem to work (or sucks in the masses of every day persons who don't view the internet or are starting out on the internet.)

That is the whole problem Telstra is refusing to Split their company up into Wholesale and Retail.... they want to do both and that is where the problem is...

Sam Trojillo

lol

Let Telstra manage the fiber and 'only the fiber and have Internode, iiNet, OzForces, etc managed the billing and tell Sam Trojillo to stop conquering the poor innocent people in the bush.

how about you stop living in fairy land and come back to reality.

If any of the non-Telstra ISPs you listed above wanted to provide services in the bush they could. It might not be economic for them, just like it isn't for Telstra, but they could if they wanted to.

You rant on about people in the bush being abused by Telstra but no one else is out there laying services out to them. Where are the rants against the other ISPs for not even trying?

Where are iinet/internode's DSLAMS in bumbf*** idaho? Where is PIPE/powertel's fibre out to whothef***cares vill (population: 10)?

last edited by ara at 13:54:28 27/Nov/08

ah Internode has tried.... check out SA rural!

NOTE TO ARA - ITS CALLED THE USO - UNIVERSAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

TELSTRA ARE OBLIGED TO PROVIDE A TELEPHONY SERVICE TO EVERY POTENTIAL CUSTOMER IN AUSTRALIA.

LOSSES MADE FROM THE SERVICES ARE PAID FOR BY ALL ISP'S DEPENDING ON THEIR SIZE.

SO, TELSTRA GET PAID BY INTERNODE, OPTUS ETC TO PROVIDE A PHONE LINE TO ALL CUSTOMERS.

THE PHONE LINE IS THEN USED FOR BROADBAND SERVICES.

last edited by mongie at 14:14:00 27/Nov/08

telephony doesn't mean 12megabit synchronous broadband last time i checked, it doesn't mean adsl2, it doesn't mean 3G wireless services, it doesn't mean fibre to the hub or fibre to the node.



last edited by ara at 14:17:49 27/Nov/08

The requirement is for the network to be open access... which means and ISP can access the network on a level playing field.

What EVERYONE except for you, and any other Telstra shareholdes can see is that based on past performance - Telstra can not be trusted to operate fairly, with the current separation system.

Axia are the best group to read about for this topic - Thats all they do - they don't sell retail products on their networks. They will also tell you that vertically integrated carriers are notorious for trying to kill competition.

You can't just fall back on the NWAT arguments forever you know.

The whole separation issue revolves around trust and regulation.

Effectivley - can Telstra be trusted to operate fairly, and follow the ACCC's regulation, or does the government need to legislate to enforce this (structural separation).

There is no argument on whether Telstra or whoever the successful bidder may be would be forced to wholesale to other companies, but the issue is absolutley whether the company who owns the network should be allowed to compete with their wholesale customers.

Telstra is in a monopoly position, and it does what every business does in a monopoly position, profit from it.

If you think that any of these other companies once in a monopoly position wouldn't protect their profit margin over customers you are in a dream world.

I own no Telstra shares, nor am I an employee of Telstra. Also, I noticed you complete glossed over your USO fail. Nice work.

the fact that Telstra have to provide a voice service to customers means they need phone lines in the bush.

Lets also completely "gloss over" the fact that Telstra haven't built any infrastructure in the bush...

Telstra is in a monopoly position, and it does what every business does in a monopoly position, profit from it.

Under the current access regime, Telstra are allowed to profit from being having a monopoly, but they aren't allowed to be anti-competitive.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say to be honest...

Telstra have submitted a proposal, as requested by the Government, to supply broadband services at a speed of 12mbit or higher, to 98% of the population.

They have instead chosen to submit a 12 page letter to the Minister, outlining a plan to build a network that will service 80-90% of the population. They requested the 4.7bn be delivered as a loan, at marginal interest rates - and that if the Government wants more of the country to be covered by this FTTN, they will have to contribute more money.

How is that Telstra helping out the bush? They are cherry picking the best customers and leaving the most remote users with no extra services.

Optus and Acacia have both planned to provide over 98% coverage. That is, they are planning to build broadband infrastructure for the bush.

What were you even talking about?

Lets also completely "gloss over" the fact that Telstra haven't built any infrastructure in the bush...

Yes, those fibre loops to each exchange appeared by themselves, just around the same time the ADSL DSLAMS appeared.

Wake up mongie. If you think that all the kit in the exchanges, the 3G gear and towers, the microwave links linking cell sites back to exchanges and the fibre loops back to metro existed back when Telstra was Telecom Australia you have been spending too much time on whirlpool.

Only copper phone lines are relevant to this discussion. Why do Telstra's 3G towers have anything to do with a national FTTN network?

What were you even talking about?

look at the post i replied to. I am no fanboi of Telstra but neither am I running around in a blind rage flaming them and ignoring the good things they do accomplish.

Telstra are the best organisation to run this network. People, like yourself, rehash things they have done in the past to predict what they would do the the future, that is your prerogative, but I believe everything they have done others, such as Optus, would have done if they where in the same position. They are all doing the same thing, looking to earn maximum revenue and return for their shareholders.

The idea that the non-Optus non-Telstra proposals will get accepted are a dream. These guys can't do it themselves.

I doubt Optus could even do it themselves, there is an $8B black hole in their financing, in addition to which they, unlike Telstra, have next to no existing infrastructure outside the metro areas.

Telstra did everyone a favour by stating what has been obvious to most informed observers for months– that the government’s RFP goals are admirable but unsustainable in a real, commercial world, especially in a once-in-50 years economic crisis.

So Telstra has basically said that to make this work, it will cap the overall spend at under $10 billion. Offer VDSL2-derived speeds to about two-thirds of the population, which, by my reckoning, gets you to about the Albury-Wodonga or Launceston level. ADSL2+ speeds will suffice for the next 20-25%, getting you to the sub-10,000 town population level. HSPA and, in a few years, LTE, which Telstra chairman Donald McGauchie thinks will give FTTN a run for its money in the low density areas, will do for the last 10%.

Keeping costs down allows Telstra to promise something that was always going to be the NBN Achilles’ heel—ensure that entry-level broadband is affordable at a time when household budgets are under real pressure. Significantly, Telstra executives told an analyst meeting yesterday that they could finance their half of their build bill through organic cashflow.

The proposed $9.7 billion spend also cuts across what should have been a Terria/Optus advantage on price. Instead, the Optus bid now finds itself with a 50% higher $15 billion cost base and a requirement for more expensive capital. With Optus promising to contribute $1-2 billion and the government $4.7 billion, presumably it would need to find $8 billion from outside financiers.

from commsday.

Only copper phone lines are relevant to this discussion. Why do Telstra's 3G towers have anything to do with a national FTTN network?

Lets also completely "gloss over" the fact that Telstra haven't built any infrastructure in the bush...

I am just saying you are wrong and offering examples of infrastructure and the required backhaul they have built.

Furthermore, it isn't just about copper phone lines, if it was the ULL would have opened the flood gates for other ISPs offering services in the bush, but it hasn't because they know these areas are not profitable and ROI on kit deployment isn't going to happen at any reasonable rate.

Some ISPs don't even offer services in Tasmania FFS let alone to the bush.


last edited by ara at 14:54:16 27/Nov/08

And yet their base offering is still 1mbit / 200MB for $30/40 a month? They're all about the consumer.

They still require no further separation. That is not suitable to me, or anyone else that i know of - other than you.

Even my parents who are completely computer illiterate, understand the reasons why Telstra should not be allowed to sell a retail service when they are also the wholesale provider.

Why is it that you don't understand?

my attitude, awesome though it is, does f*** all except annoy rampantly tautologous nimrods :D

winnah
this is where the thread should've ended

mongie, you must be an interesting guy to have a conversation with, jumping around from one point to the next without having a dialog.

I don't think that pricing proposal is reasonable and I don't believe I have said that anywhere. I have said they are the people to build it.

I have also said that if they don't win the right to build it, that they will build their own network. This in my opinion is the best outcome for competition.

On the subject of separation, I think that horse has bolted. If the government wanted to separate them they should have done it when they owned it, not after they had flogged it off and share price raping that would occur is on someoneelse's balance sheet.

If they want to create another competing wholesale network and then privitise it so Telstra has some wholesale competition I am all for that but don't do it in a guise of a broadband rollout and don't stop Telstra from competing with it.

On the subject of wholesale/retail conflicting interests, this happens all over the place in many more industries than just the telco space. Regulation isn't the answer, competition is. If these other ISPs believe Telstra are padding out their bottom line with wholesale margins and that being a wholesaler is such a profitable business why don't they make the investment to compete in that space where competition is required instead of just whining about it?

The last mile has been unbundled. No one is expecting them to lay copper out to every bodies house, but how about fibre to every exchange? How about they actually build something in the bush instead of just making a lot of noise?

last edited by ara at 15:10:03 27/Nov/08

mongie, you must be an interesting guy to have a conversation with, jumping around from one point to the next without having a dialog

i thought his passion for the internet made him interesting enough

it's just the internet mingie, it's not the end of the world

There may be a business case in Telstra re-cycling it's existing BRAS stock in rural areas.

To cater for VDSL they will have to replace their existing metro BRAS network with something which will scale for that iteration of CPE technology.

FTTN will also initiate a large augmentation of existing DSLAM infrastructure which has six, seven, eight years of investment in systems, people and infrastructure. Why not keep it and move it to any of the vast, overwhelming majority of rural exchanges which don't have any ADSL gear? I mean how cheap can a UDSL line card be?

just thinking out ideas..

If they want to create another competing wholesale network and then privitise it so Telstra has some wholesale competition I am all for that but don't do it in a guise of a broadband rollout and don't stop Telstra from competing with it.

a) The Government wants 1 broadband network nationally... thats why they are offering 4.7 Billion dollars.

b) Spending $10bn+ on a national network, and then expecting someone else to spend the same to overbuild it is ridiculous. It should be considered the same as the power grid, as the water pipes. Someone owns the network, and they then resell to the retailers who sell on to end users.

Even companies who have had structural separation enforced on them, have enjoyed it.

The Terria consortium, which backs structural separation of Telstra, yesterday found an ally in British telco BT. BT Asia Pacific president Allen Ma argues competition is flourishing in the UK after BT had undergone a similar split.

It improves competition.

I don't see how ensuring (at least the) network is separated from the retailers is such a big deal.

See, this is where you are conflicted.

You want competition, but only as long as it isn't in the wholesale space. In the wholesale space you want regulation. Your argument for that is that you think it is ridiculous to expect someone to come along and build a second network but Telstra have already said they will if they aren't successful in their bid for FTTN. You then support preventing Telstra from doing this, stifling competition.

You say incumbents benefit from structural separation enforced on them and back it up with a quote saying it lead to increased competition, not to any tangible benefit to the incumbent. In addition to ignoring the issue of eroding the investment made in Telstra shares by Australian taxpayers and voters.

What I was saying regarding the government building their own wholesale network was in regard to structural separation. If the government isn't happy with Telstra being the only wholesaler and also being a retailer instead of splitting them up, it should create another wholesaler, ie create competition in that space and then privatise it to reclaim their money. Regulation, or the threat thereof, is what has prevented Telstra from already building a FTTN network.

last edited by ara at 17:29:12 27/Nov/08

If Telstra lose, and want to build another network... they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. For the "National Broadband Network" to which the Government is contributing 4.7 billion dollars, I think that it is fair to require certain regulations to improve the end result for the average Australian.

Could you please explain how structurally separating a the network would erode value for Telstra shareholders? Obviously it would be aranged in a way that Telstra would "sell" the network to another company - just like in Singapore.

You are floating in and out of structural separation of Telstra's wholesale and retail divisions and structural separation of Telstra's wholesale and retail revisions for the NBN. So let me answer both.

Structural separation of Telstra as a whole.
- bad for shareholders as they now have to treat their retail division like they treat everyone else which is pretty poorly.
- bad for shareholders as forecasting of back haul and floor space in exchanges is no longer accessible to the Bigpond.
- bad for shareholders as synergies and resources that exist now have to be split amongst two different and diverse companies.

Structural seperation of Telstra's NBN network
- first, if this is a requirement they will give back the $4.7B and build it completely out of their own pocket.
- bad for shareholders, unable to leverage existing links and infrastructure such as exchange floor space and existing back haul and dark fiber.
- bad for shareholders, no point in building it themselves just hand it over to the competition with no benefit or advantage.

- first, if this is a requirement they will give back the $4.7B and build it completely out of their own pocket.

Their proposal is to use the $4.7B as a loan. If they pull out of the NBN, then the point is irrelevant.

- bad for shareholders, unable to leverage existing links and infrastructure such as exchange floor space and existing back haul and dark fiber.

In Singapore, SingTel will sell their relevant assets to a new company, the new company will also be the owner of the NBN

- bad for shareholders, no point in building it themselves just hand it over to the competition with no benefit or advantage.

The benefit is in the fact that they can charge their wholesale customers for the wholesale services that they provide. The whole point of the regulated prices that Terria/ONI are proposing is that no company should get preferential treatment in pricing.

You keep writing as if I'm saying that "if Telstra build the network - they should be forced to separate - because its Telstra" when really I'm trying to say that "The owner of the NBN should not be allowed to sell retail services on the network." I would expect the same thing if it is Optus, Axia or Acacia who win the build. The difference is - They have all already stated that the network will be structurally separated... so its not an issue for any of them.

Maybe it is easier for them to say that because if they build the NBN it will be completely separate to their other infrastructure, as they have next to none.

Telstra, if they build it, will leverage their extensive existing investments to enable a faster rollout while costing less money and providing a better network.

How is using old technology / equipment going to provide a better network?

It's retard vs retard in a retarded boring discussion all the way to the bitter retarded conclusion.

It's retard vs retard in a retarded boring discussion all the way to the bitter retarded conclusion.

don't you get it fpot

IT'S MONGIE'S INTERNETS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE

Ara's knowledge and experience with telco's and network-related stuff is insane, so I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

fpot calling the kettle black

How is using old technology / equipment going to provide a better network?

I didn't say old tech or equipment. I said existing infrastructure and investments. Like lit fibre loops, dark fibre waiting to be lit in the ground, existing trench space, existing exchange space in otherwise full exchanges, existing fibre runs out to RIMs.

It is all there waiting to be further leveraged.

fpot calling the kettle black

racist

The comebacks people are making against me are pretty uninspiring of late. KEKEKE U R RETARDED TOO FPOT I WIN LOL.

Ara's knowledge and experience with telco's and network-related stuff is insane, so I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

Just because he has some asperges syndrome knowledge of telstra doesn't stop him from being retarded.

last edited by fpot at 11:13:59 28/Nov/08

I don't think the word comeback means what you think it means

Well response/retort/rebuttal/dismissal/ whatever.

yeh cos my goal was to inspire you
I like going around trying to inspire useless oxygen thieving sk's, it's fooly sik bro

slugman, as a well known xbox humper & checkout chick, surely knows more about telco infrastructure than people that have worked in the telecommunications industry or office furniture salesmen... i mean c'mon! :D

^snap

See that is more like it.

office furniture salesmen

Thanks..

I actually work in IT support. I also haven't sold furniture for about 7 years.

Ara, just do me a favour.

Read this Clicky and tell me whether you think Donald McGauchie has a f***ing clue what hes talking about.

lol.

So if you’ve got no money and on the technology side they were going to run Opel on WiMAX and it fell apart because WiMAX was not a credible technology for what they were proposing.

Xohm anyone?

last edited by mongie at 17:05:44 28/Nov/08

I read all those brisbanespectator interviews and they all seemed pretty informative.

I really liked the attitude of the Acacia rep they really seem to have the best interests of the country at heart. But yeah, I personally know dick about the semantics of broadband deployment so I don't feel like I can really form a valid opinion on the matter.

I've seen so many internet warriors raging each other over who they support on this and I really wonder why it is that so many of them think they know enough to have such a passionate stance (posters in this thread included). Regardless, it's still going to be interesting to see what unfolds.

Why all the talk about Telstra Shareholders?
Are the government Shareholders any more?
What does Telstra shareholders have to do with whats best for the Australian Public? Unless there is a hell of a lot of people with private Telstra shares.

I dont care enough to read through the tenders, because really, it's not going to be much different whomever wins. They'll all try to make a buck at the end-user's expense anyway. They're a company, thats what they do.

We will only see a benefit if 2 or 3 of them decide to build their own network anyway.