Conroy mocks Telstra broadband "bid"

Send to a friend Print

Help more people find out about this story

Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon

Angus Kidman27 November 2008, 4:17 PM

"They describe it as a proposal... they believe it can be considered."


Telstra's non-compliant bid for building the National Broadband Network is yet another reminder that if you privatise a national resource like telephony but don't put sufficient regulatory measures on top of it, chaos will ensue.

After keeping the market guessing for weeks as to whether it would submit a bid at all, Telstra took an unexpected halfway step, submitting a warmed-over proposal that didn't meet the guidelines for submissions and which is conditional on various changes to the NBN scheme and a guarantee that operational separation (Telstra's ever-present nightmare — please don't take our massive profit advantage!) won't be imposed.

In its media statement announcing the "bid", Telstra emphasised that it wasn't interested in helping to contribute to national infrastructure unless it could also turn a massive profit.

"Telstra’s proposal is subject to a number of conditions for the life of the project, including no further separation of Telstra and regulatory certainty," said chairman Donald McGauchie, pointing also to Telstra's unwillingness to undergo a 12-month negotiation or provide information about its existing network structure. "Each of these unresolved issues causes unacceptable risk at a time of significant economic uncertainty, resulting in the Telstra Board deciding it is not in the interests of shareholders for Telstra to put forward a fully detailed bid at this time. With separation, the NBN simply cannot and will not be built. There is no business case."

The in-house memo sent to Telstra employees from CEO Sol Trujillo was even more aggressively capitalist. "This proposal has a sound business case," Trujillo wrote. "It would not be value-destroying for Telstra, its employees and its shareholders."

Once again, separation was the major bete noire. "You only have to look at the experience of other telecommunications companies around the world where separation has been implemented — BT, British Telecom, and Telecom New Zealand — and how their shareholder value has been dramatically eroded." Trujillo wrote. "The Board will not put employees or shareholders in that position."

Rudd government Broadband Minister, Senator Conroy, today hit back at Telstra's incomplete bid. "Obviously, Telstra has put in a proposal. They describe it as a proposal. They describe it as they believe it can be considered," he told Macquarie Southern Cross Radio network.

Telstra's bid is to provide capacity to just 90 per cent of the population, which is below the NBN goal of 98 per cent. That might not be a deal breaker (it's likely any proposal will have to fill in at least 10% of the network with point solutions like broadband), but the refusal to comply with the general terms of the tender could well be.

Conroy wasn't encouraging in his words about Telstra, today, though. "The perception that because one or other of the bidders has said ‘ah, look, on the available money all we can do is bid to 90’ is a misunderstanding of the process that we're involved in."

"Labor's election commitment is that we'll reach 98 per cent of Australians, and that's what we will deliver through this process. The fact that any of the bidders may be saying hey, we need more government money to reach 98 per cent is not a shock," he said.

"This is a competitive process. It's an open and transparent competitive process. And what you're seeing is some very hard-nosed commercial operators trying to put in bids and proposals that are actually designed to draw more money out of the Commonwealth. It's no surprise."

"The RFP's quite clear. We are committed to put in up to $4.7 billion. That's what the RFP says, not one dollar more," he said, in a stern rebuke to Telstra.

Telstra's plan proposes that an entry-level 1Mbps plan be made available for $29.95 a month. Telstra's statement emphasised that this would be four times faster than current plans at similar prices, but didn't say whether a similar 200MB monthly download would be imposed. (Frankly, if that's your limit, then you're probably better off with slower speeds to minimise the risk of going over.)

Again, Conroy didn't seem enthusistic about Telstra's proposed pricing and speeds. "Let me be clear," he told Macquarie Southern Cross Radio. "The two biggest arguments that will be holding up the discussions over the next eight weeks will be about the pricing and about the reach. And that's why I've got a competitive process, because what we - this country need - is fast, affordable broadband."

The government has received six bids from Telstra, Optus (as the face of the rival Terria consortium), Acacia and Axia -- a Canadian company that has done fibre rollouts in numerous countries, and two state-based bids from the Tasmanian government and ACT.

The government's expert panel will take eight weeks to assess the bids and make a recommendation to the government in January.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

In the Senate there was references from both sides to the tender process. Is this a tender or isn't it?

And if it is a tender, when did the rules change for government tenders whereby any submission which is anything other than fully compliant and submitted on time is null and void?

Conroy waffled on without saying anything through numerous exchanges, I'd say we can expect a lot more of that for a long time to come.

27 November 2008, 4:57 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Truckasauras (User):

Quoting Raindog:
And if it is a tender, when did the rules change for government tenders whereby any submission which is anything other than fully compliant and submitted on time is null and void?


I was thinking the same too. Generally tender submissions are so particular, for Commonwealth contracts, that they won't even accept it if the application proposal isn't stapled correctly (I'm serious). I just don't see how they can accept their proposal without retendering.

28 November 2008, 8:32 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

Why have they placed a man who clearly has little "technology intelligence" in charge of the Internet in Australia.

He wants to filter the Internet using opt-out black-lists and slow it down for everyone (as well as not actually working with false negatives AND positives), instead of a more logical white-list system with opt-in for parents who are concerned.

And he is talking about spending billions on a system that is slower than much of the rest of world before it has even been built.

Perhaps the best thing we can all do is make lots of phone calls to his office and voice our concerns - maybe then he will get the idea that people are “not happy Jan”!


27 November 2008, 5:01 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Advanced member):

Below are Conroy's contact details. They are quite readily available on the web.

Email: minister@dbcde.gov.au

Parliamentary office

Suite MG70
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Tel: 02 6277 7480
Fax: 02 6273 4154
Ministerial office

Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002

Tel: 03 9650 1188
Fax: 03 9650 3251
Electorate office

Suite 1B
494 High St
Epping Vic 3076

Tel: 03 9408 0190
Fax: 03 9408 0194

27 November 2008, 5:11 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

Quoting petert:

Replying to
petert Below are Conroy's contact details. They are quite readily available on the web.

Email: minister@dbcde.gov.au

Parliamentary office

Suite MG70
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Tel: 02 6277 7480
Fax: 02 6273 4154
Ministerial office

Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002

Tel: 03 9650 1188
Fax: 03 9650 3251
Electorate office

Suite 1B
494 High St
Epping Vic 3076

Tel: 03 9408 0190
Fax: 03 9408 0194


Good idea placing the details here.

One thing though, can I suggest people PHONE rather than email. Emails are quickly read and easily deleted; phone calls take far more person to person time and have the potential to be more memorable.

Imagine if the minister’s phone system went in to meltdown every day due to people calling to complain - it might give him an idea of what the internet could be like under his proposal...


27 November 2008, 5:43 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting itd:
One thing though, can I suggest people PHONE rather than email. Emails are quickly read and easily deleted; phone calls take far more person to person time and have the potential to be more memorable.

A better idea still is a written letter. But from the looks of it, listening isn't Conroy's special skill. Some well penned pressure on your local representative would be a good course of action.



27 November 2008, 6:13 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

Quoting Raindog:

A better idea still is a written letter. But from the looks of it, listening isn't Conroy's special skill. Some well penned pressure on your local representative would be a good course of action.

I think letters are good too Raindog, because they will take up physical space, but I still reckon phone calls are the best option. The minister could ignore letters (or send out boilerplate replies) and no-one would necessarily know if the letters had actually been read, but if he or his staff were to hang up on phone calls it would look really bad and it would be obvious they were not listening.

Ideally everybody could send an email, AND a fax, AND a letter AND then make follow-up phone calls. Engaging someone in conversation with a phone call (or speaking in person – but this is not feasible for many) is still the best way of taking up the minister’s time in my opinion. What do others think?


27 November 2008, 6:38 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

PS. If you wish to follow Raindog's suggestion and don't have the time to DIY, a quick search of the Internet will find ready made letters you could send to the senator!

27 November 2008, 6:42 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting itd:
Engaging someone in conversation with a phone call ......... is still the best way of taking up the minister’s time in my opinion.

Nice if you can achieve it, but it's doubtful you'd actually get to chat with Ccconroy in person, there are legions of party hacks all primed ready to fob your call off with hollow promises and even hollower pleasantries.




27 November 2008, 7:29 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

Quoting Raindog:
Nice if you can achieve it, but it's doubtful you'd actually get to chat with Ccconroy in person, there are legions of party hacks all primed ready to fob your call off with hollow promises and even hollower pleasantries.


Hence why I said "someone" in that quote, and "he or his staff" earlier in the post – surely you understand that what I am getting at is that tying up his office phone lines with calls of complaint could make it more difficult for him and his office to carry on business as usual and send a message that people are not happy with his proposal.

It is also doubtful that your idea of writing a letter would actually result in Conroy reading the letters himself but would be “Nice if you can achieve it”. As I already mentioned, in a previous post, it would probably result in a form letter. Or to put it in your own words the letter would be answered by “legions of party hacks all primed ready to fob your LETTER (call) off with hollow promises and even hollower pleasantries”, but once again it is a strategy that would result in a volume of paper that, as it piles up, would send a message.


27 November 2008, 10:47 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting itd:
surely you understand that what I am getting at

I understand entirely what you are getting at, and I don't question the motives for doing it. The simple reality is that for all their ineptitude at actually getting things done, political parties are pretty well versed at manipulation and suppression of popular opinion as suits their purposes.

Understand that a personally penned letter (that is legible, concise and free of profanity) is the most effective tool. Form letters are a cop-out and are smelt out a mile off.

There are no magic solutions and politicians away with what they do mostly through sheer unadulterated apathy on behalf of the public.
If there is not a considerable ground swell of public demand then there will not be a considerable amount of interest from any minister. Particularly an "L" plate minister bumbling from one disaster to their next.

Rattle comfort of those MPs in marginal seats (and there are plenty of them) and make your feelings known on in as many forums and letter columns possible.

I do understand what you are trying to do, but seriously calling government ministers offices without some clout behind you is a waste of 25c. But don't for a moment stop lobbying, pollies need to be made to earn their positions.

One third of the government electoral cycle has now expired and conroy is no further ahead on NBN than when he was granted the ministry. Thus far he's canned a Wimax network that would have well underway by now. The promises were bold and the clock is ticking.

All we've seen of this promised NBN are the sweeping statements and fanciful promises of 98%. The likelyhood of any actual NBN progress, and of a real world fast an affordable NBN being underway before the next election are diminishing considerably.

27 November 2008, 11:12 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

I guess it all depends on your phone personality and skills; if you are better with the pen (or word processor) than you are at verbalising your opinions and thoughts then use your strengths and more power to you.

But don't underestimate the results that can be obtained from a phone conversation - I have generally had far greater success and quicker results with phone calls (and not just with reference to Government ministers). In many cases where a letter or email went unanswered, a quick phone call was able to solve the problem or get my message across.

I think it would be great if people were to “make your feelings known on in as many forums and letter columns possible” and “rattle comfort of those MPs in marginal seats”. But I guess you will have to agree to disagree with me that phone calls could strengthen that initiative and in some cases prove equally or even more effective. To each his own.


27 November 2008, 11:54 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

Quoting Raindog:
"I do understand what you are trying to do, but seriously calling government ministers offices without some clout behind you is a waste of 25c"

BTW, on a lighter note can I facetiously suggest that you switch telecommunications providers for a better deal than 25c ? ;-)

28 November 2008, 12:00 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

Quoting Raindog:
"One third of the government electoral cycle has now expired and conroy is no further ahead on NBN than when he was granted the ministry."

Just reading the posts again and perhaps this statement of fact is one of the most comforting things I have read on the whole issue.

Raindog makes an excellent point which gives me a great deal of hope; maybe if senator Conroy stays “on the job” we will having nothing to fear when it comes to Internet filtering or wasting billions on the NBN, because he will continue wasting time and doing nothing at all…


28 November 2008, 12:09 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

David Neiger (APC staff):

It will be interesting to see how the proposals address service level guarantees in terms of actual speed and actual availability. Love or hate Telstra, they generally deliver what they promise (albeit at a premium price) whereas other telcos promise the world and deliver a postcard.

If you look at the 3G roll out by each of the carrier so far only Telstra has delivered a reasonably robust network with good coverage and true broadband like speeds. 3's network is patchy to say the least - when it works it's good but it does not always work. Optus can't even get their 3G rollout working properly (or a reliable phone network that is immune to one cable being cut) so I have some concerns as to how they are going to roll out a piece of critical national infrastructure.

With regards to Sol, he is running a business which means his primary concern is delivering shareholder value. Telstra is not a charity or a public service organisation, it is a business. Whether it should be a business or not is a different question that is irrelevant at the moment.

27 November 2008, 5:15 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

wrecklesseric (New user):

Quoting David Neiger:

David Neiger It will be interesting to see how the proposals address service level guarantees in terms of actual speed and actual availability. Love or hate Telstra, they generally deliver what they promise (albeit at a premium price) whereas other telcos promise the world and deliver a postcard.

David,

I think you missed this recent media release:

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2008/818/



27 November 2008, 5:59 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting David Neiger:
If you look at the 3G roll out by each of the carrier so far only Telstra has delivered a reasonably robust network with good coverage and true broadband like speeds.

Alternatively if you were to look a little deeper you'd see that the competing Telcos are hardly all starting from equal footings. A comparison on services delivered for the relative spends would have Telstra firmly in last position.



27 November 2008, 6:17 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Advanced member):

Quoting David Neiger:
With regards to Sol, he is running a business which means his primary concern is delivering shareholder value.

I (reluctantly) agree. If Australia wanted a "carrier with a conscience", then Telstra should not have been privatised. Given that it is privatised (and let's not forgoet that a lot of Australians own shares in Telstra), then Telstra has no option but to look-after the interests of its owners ie the shareholders.



27 November 2008, 7:22 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

Activists target Rudd's net censorship plans

Michael Malone, the managing director of iiNet, labelled the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, "the worst we've had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed".

The artice is posted here;
http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/activists-target-net-censorship-plans/2008/11/27/1227491695981.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/activists-target-net-censorship-plans/2008/11/27/1227491695981.html

The activist's site is here;
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442


27 November 2008, 6:02 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Uncle Bob (New user):

The Telstra proposal should be run through the shredder and then they move onto the next bid. Seriously.

27 November 2008, 8:32 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Dan Warne (Administrator):

Couldn't agree more. If Telstra couldn't make a compliant bid, then the compliant bids should obviously win over it. Of course, I suppose it remains to be seen how truly viable the other bids are considering they all require access to Telstra's copper (presumably... assuming none of the bids are for fibre to the home.)

The ironic thing is: if Telstra loses, and a network is built by someone else, Telstra will just build its own network anyway. It is NEVER going to buy from another network at wholesale. It'll be a repeat of the stupid duplicated Telstra/Optus cable rollout all over again (especially because Sol believes in infrastructure competition rather than efficient wholesale sharing.)

27 November 2008, 8:49 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Dan Warne:
The ironic thing is: if Telstra loses, and a network is built by someone else, Telstra will just build its own network anyway.

A government with sufficient bottle, simply will not allow that to occur. While Telstra may have inherited existing wired infrastructure, what other than convention and short term practicalities dictate Telstra as the sole body able to run comms into my premises.

Telstra can squeal for all their worth, but no bungled sale was ever a mandate for telstra to monopolise reasonable access across public roads and footpath. One way or another that stranglehold must (and will) be broken.

Much of Telsta's assets reside on public land, rent free for private gain. A nominal rent charged to Telstra for their use of public access for private commercial gain could provide a handy income source for funding a NBN.
Those that would argue such a charge is neither possible or constitutional need only look at some of the examples of implementing metropolitan toll roads.

If those mandated to manage our infrastructure lack the kahunas to break up self serving and nation restricting monopolies, then the stupid duplication has to be better than perpetual inaction.





28 November 2008, 9:35 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

McBanjo (User):

Saying that people want "fast, affordable broadband" is very much on the right track. All I want from this NBN is a cheaper internet bill for greater download quota, and a decent enough speed to stream things like HD video if I want to. Just compare Australia to Japan, 50Mbit/s for US$35/month. I know that Australia is vastly larger than Japan, but we can do better. So Telstra clearly isn't the answer for Australians.

27 November 2008, 8:56 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

Don't forget to mention you want it unfiltered so you can choose your own content instead of letting Conroy choose for you.

27 November 2008, 9:51 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

itd (User):

Quoting Tin:
Don't forget to mention you want it unfiltered so you can choose your own content instead of letting Conroy choose for you.

Couldn't agree more Tin... what is the point of faster Internet that is then slowed by filtering - it could end up being a case of 1 step forward 2 steps back

27 November 2008, 10:54 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Carmar (User):

However we contact Senator Conroy, one thing is becoming very apparent: he is not well-suited to the job. If he can't negotiate with the head of Telstra and has managed to put the head of one of Australia's leading ISPs off-side with his crazy internet filtering idea, then get someone into the job who can manage these issues. It needs diplomatic and negotiating skills, not pig-headedness and lack of technical expertise.

28 November 2008, 8:50 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

agami (User):

The government has got it all wrong. The scale of this project is too large for all but the two largest telcos, and the unfortunate situation is that Telstra's offer might end up being the lesser of two evils. Trujillo is playing that card.

The governments role should be oversight and regulation. The project should be cellularised and that way no single company can mandate terms. With the right set of rules placed into the system for cell makeup and interaction you end up with a best of breed communication network reaching 98% of the population that fits into the $4.7b allocation (and not a dollar more).

NOTE: References to the term cell are not related to mobile (GSM, CDMA, UMTS) networks.

28 November 2008, 10:13 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Advanced member):

Quoting agami:
The scale of this project is too large for all but the two largest telcos,

Given the problems Optus has experienced in implementing 3G, you would have to wonder if they have the capability for the project.




28 November 2008, 1:25 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Advanced member):

Other reports this morning suggest that Conroy ACCEPTED the Telstra application and that it will be considered by the panel together with the other applications. Those same reports indicate he is now backing away from 98% coverage being mandatory.

28 November 2008, 1:23 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

$teeve Pink (User):

Tel$tra treat their customers with contempt, the government with contempt and regional Australia with contempt.

Imagine what they would be like if WE gave THEM 4.7 BILLION dollars?

Would we get our monies worth? Most likely not.

Contempt, arrogance and corruption are the current practice.

Its time for competition.

Its time to say NO to Tel$tra.

28 November 2008, 1:59 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Telstra CEO Sol Trujilo today announced that missing out on NBN would cost approximately $2 Billion. One has to wonders if that factors in the around $45Million odd Sol has been rewarded during his brief but destructive tenure. You can pay a lot more than peanuts yet still end up with monkeys.

31 March 2009, 1:52 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags