So, if you remember back to April, the G9 was formed, and the released a Special Access Undertaking to build a national FTTN network.

The ACCC has just rejected the plan based on pricing issues, mainly that the G9 have left pricing open after the initial 3 years that was specified in the plan.

The good part is, that the vertically integrated business model and the initial prices got the thumbs up, so its a win for the G9, with a little more work to be done before its green light.

Here is an article that is a REALLY good read on the issue, and I think they've hit the nail directly on the head.

Clicky

I think Telstra will come back to the table, but insist it is only viable to allow 3 GB of downloads per month. All they can possibly afford...

Telephony is an essential service. Why it should even be remotely above $30/month wholesale(!) is beyond me. Tell me, where is the $360/year in only provision of copper going anyway? Essential services should be provided at a cost so low that companies might even just have to make a loss on.

ahhh the 3gb/month bad ol days... *shudder*

Telephony is an essential service. Why it should even be remotely above $30/month wholesale(!) is beyond me. Tell me, where is the $360/year in only provision of copper going anyway? Essential services should be provided at a cost so low that companies might even just have to make a loss on.

The wholesale cost of a voice port as per the G9 SAU was $15 (IIRC)

Essential services should be provided at a cost so low that companies might even just have to make a loss on.

What is an "essential service"? Isn't supplying food to grocery stores an "essential service"?

Here's a tip - if you don't want your "essential services" to have high prices, if they have a monopoly on an "essential service", don't get the government turn them into a private company.

What I _think_ you're saying is, because it's an essential service it should be supplied by the government. But we're seeing the opposite trend happening with many government services, like the privatisation of energy supply, for example.

I don't know how to work around this - maybe we could identify a number of services that the community considers to be essential (power, water, telecoms? what else?) and making sure the core infrastructure to all of them is owned and managed by the government, and either provided by the government at decent cost (eg, telstra making $2billion profit a quarter would indicate that they might be over charging) or wholesaled to private entities to let them compete on services.

The Government wants to sell the company, but enforce regulations on how they operate privately.

Telstra are an exception to the rule, because their American management feel the rules don't apply to them, and insist on using tough-guy rhetoric and causing conflict with the ACCC and the Government.

Telstra need to realise that the Government make the rules, and while their lobbying might change things in the US, it won't make much of a difference here. Perhaps our politicians are too smart to be tricked into letting Telstra get what they want.

I don't understand what Raven was even talking about, where did you get all that rage from?

last edited by mongie at 12:04:59 18/Dec/07

And who says the government can do any better at supplying these services. The public service and NGOs are fat and bloated.

TBH I would trust the private sector over the government to provide my essential services any day of the week.

And who says the government can do any better at supplying these services.

thats why most government supplied services are handed to companys to do all the handling, well its a common trend anyway. a very common example is centrelink, not actually a government department but a private company working on behalf of the government to hand out welfare, but centrelink have been around for a good number of years now so its not like its a new thing.

its a tottally f***ed up thing because you have a company offering the government the lowest bid, and then the company has to cut cost and go into extremes to make a profit.

which is why you always have to wait atleast 30mins *on a very good day* to ever get someone to answer the phone at centrelink.

And who says the government can do any better at supplying these services. The public service and NGOs are fat and bloated.

Well, is the question "Can they do better?" or "Should they be responsible for providing essential services?"

I think frankly, either way, we're screwed. We either get the bloat of govt bureaucracy which means we pay more tax, or we have privatised industry reaming us for a profit. AMIRITE?

We either get the bloat of govt bureaucracy which means we pay more tax, or we have privatised industry reaming us for a profit. AMIRITE?

In the case in question, yes - but that's because Telstra owns all the copper. While we have a single private entity monopolising an 'essential' service framework then we are f***ed. The only real accountability that a private company has is our choice, and we don't have much in the way of choice atm.

If we are to properly privatise communications then we need to have viable disparate options as consumers. Its been said before but the sale of Telstra was flawed - the company should have been broken up Bell-style, at minimum seperating the properly in-competition retail arm from the monopolistic infrastructure arm, which IMO should have remained a public asset.

For now we have to wait for the copper monopoly to be broken by advances in communications delivery. Until phone lines can be replaced by an as-cheap alternative we have to take it in the ring from Telstra.

Essential services should be provided at a cost so low that companies might even just have to make a loss on.

i dunno about you, but i wouldn't like to be running a business at a loss

I think it's a huge huge huge misconception to think Telstra will go along with or be forced to participate in a separate open access network.
If forced, they will fight it, and with good merit, for years to come in the High Court.

Apart from the atom bomb proportions of bulls*** FUD both sides produce, when you boil it down imo both sides don't want anything to change, until they're absolutely forced to. For both sides, it's a familiar and predictable ecosystem.

The big issue is that Telstra is still making lots of money and can quite happily sit it out ad infinitum. Telstra also know their bargaining position strengthens as each month passes. The sooner Rudd makes a wholesale pricing deal with Telstra the better for all of us.

It's also FUD to think we will fall back under the vulture-like domain of the bad old telecom days. There are too many technological alternatives now!