Internode doubts legality of Telstra's ADSL2+ plans

blah:

I wonder how much telstra fanbois to be Sols lacky.

telstra fanboys are a joke and telstra is the biggest joke of all of australia.

rot in hell telstra

Optus Cable customer:

I don’t have a single Telstra service and yet feel compelled to defend them. The government that you voted for:
1. Sold Telstra therefore recouped any cost that the taxpayer incurred in construction of network.
2. Expected Telstra to sell products for less than it cost to supply them.
There are much larger Telco company’s around the world (Vodafone) that could buy and sell Telstra in a second. If the Australian market was worth investing in these types of companies would. Why build a network that costs more than you source form a competitor at a wholesale price? This does not create competition! I believe that rural customer need to be protected and their services should be subsidised by the government not Telstra shareholders. In urban areas it should be a matter of supply and demand. That is what capitalism is all about or have you forgotten that you live in a democracy?

xman:

Sorry mate, but I just don't buy the "Expected Telstra to sell products for less than it cost to supply them." line. It is difficult to square this yarn with the $3-4 billion dollars of reported annual profits.

Optus Customer:

3-4 billion net proffit on 30-40 billion turn over is a fairly standard return on investment. Why would anyone invest in a company that cant get 10% net profit of revenue. Telstra is not a charity! Its Telstra.com not Telstra.org!!!

xman:

My point was that you can't make any profit if you are selling below cost. First you were talking about being "forced to sell below cost". Now you are "only making 10% net profit".

Which is it?

Sydney Lawrence:

xman be a bit fair and honest. You know that to quote profits without reference to Capitalization is pointless. Telstra has a figure of $60 thousand million that requires a fair return on. You work it out xman.

James Bell:

Telstra have supplied no evidence to support they are being forced to provide wholesale access to the PSTN at below cost besides Spin Doctor Phil's rhetoric to the media.. which unfortunately in Phil’s case failed to convince the ACCC or the ACA. If it really was costing Telstra more to service wholesale customers than what they've been forced to charge then they’d have the evidence to back it up. The only evidence we have to compare Telstra's costs to is the 50+% profit margin constantly delivered by Telstra on the PSTN.. a margin pretty much unheard of in the rest of the Telco industry.

Sydney Lawrence:

Firstly understand that Senator Conroy tells the ACCC what to do, not the other way around. The Anti-Telstra brigade always demanded the umpires decision be accepted while things went their way, seems that was only to apply while they were happy with the decision. Grow up folks this is a big tough world.

Drew:

Syd, do you always go around on these tech sites and promote Telstra or something? Are you a shareholder?

Sydney Lawrence:

No Drew, simply a decent Australian who see an Australian company getting a bum deal and is prepared to exercise his democratic right (with thanks and gratitude to APC)to protest the issue.

What other Company in Australia is regulated to supply opponents with facilities, at below cost,which then allows those opponents to pilfer Telstra customers. Thank God for Rudd and Conroy.

Daniel Crowe:

What other company in Australia was gifted with a taxpayer funded network?

Where do you get figures on whether Telstra are offering their wholesale services below cost? (I'm asking this because I don't think that your statement is truthful - whether you believe it to be true or not - , and because I would like to know if there is somewhere we can find Telstra's costs)

Sydney Lawrence:

Daniel, watch the result of the Telstra appeal to the High Court of Australia who will interpret the Australian Constitution ruling that there must be fair remuneration for any assets acquired by Government. Hopefully you will accept the decision of this supreme Court of Australia.

Dan Warne:

LOL, hopefully you will too Sydney.

raindog:

You NWAT parrots just cannot get it right can you. No Sydney ACCC is not told what to do by Sen Conroy or any other individual politician. It is by no means an end to umpires decisions from ACCC we will see how many of those Telstra finds acceptable.

Is your reference to a big tough world a simple admission that Telstra will milk it's customers both retail and wholesale at whatever cost?

If you believe anti-Telstra sentiment is making a noise now, you have heard nothing yet soon that noise will become deafening. The thing is with bullies they are on marked time sooner or later they are all brough to their knees.

Hoffy:

Errr, Rod, you seem to realise that the Australian taxpayer paid for the infrastructure and yet you're against competition on that infrastructure? Take a look at Telstra's ADSL2+ pricing plans, then take a look at their competitors and tell me which are better. If this is how Telstra are going to price ADSL2+ when there is competition, what price will we pay if there is no competition?

xman:

@Hoffy
The fact that the CAN was paid for by taxpayers is neither here nor there. Telstra is now fully privatised, and the taxpayer was reimbursed for all their expenditure on Telstra's fixed assets via the proceeds from T1, T2 and T3. If you built a house and then sold it on, what grounds would you have to complain if the new owners decide they want to put up a big fence around the place?

Matt:

I will not complain about the big fence. But the original developer or the regulator might if that house has a development control precluding big fences. In the case of Telstra there are many 'development controls' in place. Perhaps if they got on with the job instead of bitching that the control that allowed their creation in the first place are 'unfair',(sounds like small children taking their bat and ball when things don't go their way), people might stop picking on them about their annoying habit of wanting someone else to pay their development costs, so that they can have exclusive rights to the final product.;

iiNet User:

Now did I get fully reimbursed? They took an asset that I had helped build and then wanted me to pay to become a shareholder? I could think of better things to do with my income, like eat and put a roof over my family head. I got NOTHING out of the Telstra selloff except worse service on my phone system as they dont have the staff to fix issues when it occurs.

iinet user:

Hi iinet user.
For the record, I am also an iinet user and I am no Telstra fan. Telstra did not "take an asset you helped build" - they bought it fair and square and paid the Liberal government $60 billion dollars of their own money for it.
So your anger and resentment would be better directed against the Liberal party than Telstra. They were the ones who orchestrated the current debacle. Telstra are now inevitably exploiting the assets they were sold for the maximum benefit of their shareholders. That roughly translates into giving you a worse service and charging you more for it. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Steve08:

Why should telstra also share their copper network , with a provider who's owned by an overseas telco ie OPTUS?
when the govt has given them money to roll our thier own. ive always been a happy telstra customer , yes there prices are a little high for what you get, but id rather deal with someone here , then to be pass over to a call centre in india where no one has any idea on whats going on.

Rod:

Finally someone with common sense by the way im'm not a telstra shareholder just a customer who is more than happy with the service that telstra provides. Yes you pay more but look at the service you get.

Anonymous poster:

What is with this repetitive "overseas telco" mantra? Do you drive a car? The manufacturer is almost certainly a foreign company. Do you use Google search? They are a foreign company...its a free market world, and Telstra itself has a substantial foreign shareholder base - get used to it.

Sydney Lawrence:

Sure Anon poster foreign Companies are fine but how many are given a gift of 500 million dollars to assist their operations.

Understand that the $500 million once invested goes straight to the bottom line Net Asset Backing of a Company owed by the Singapore Government. It could have gone to Australian Companies whose profits remain in Australia.

James Bell:

The profits remaining in Australia you speak of are quickly diminishing when you look at the salaries Sol and his amigos are now receiving, which I might remind you were voted against by an overwhelming majority of Telstra shareholders. Makes you wonder where their interests lie if they don’t even listen to their own shareholders!

And if you’re so upset about one ‘gift’ a company other than Telstra has received, which is subsequently to deliver services in areas which have been neglected by Telstra for years, what about the annual $1billion + ‘gifts’ us tax payers continue to provide Telstra on a yearly basis?

Sydney Lawrence:

James Bell, your comments are noted. Could we please have a little honesty here and explain why we have opposing ideas concerning the Telsra/Opponent issue.

For myself, I own no Telstra shares, except those that may be involved in my Superannuation Scheme. I do see a great Australian Company under attack, by invidious and at times devious methods by opponents who use regulation, based on a false competition argument, to attain an advantage over Telstra.

I ask that you deliver your honest reasons for your desire to crucify Telstra and ask you to be genuine enough explain if you have any financial interest in a Telstra opponent that may explain your anti-Telstra attitude.

Dan Warne:

I hope you realise, Sydney, that Telstra is as "great Australian" as Coca-Cola and Ford. It has an all-American management team and is largely foreign owned.

Sydney Lawrence:

Not sure Dan but will endeavour to verify the percentage of shareholding owned by Australians and that owed by others.

Your use of the word "largely"is subjective, and as you know open to interpretation as to it's meaning in various contexts. Dan what do you regard as the meanng of largely?

If you infer over 50% foreign owned I do think you would be wide of the mark however we will see. One fact I do know is that Optus is 100% foreign owned and 500 million dollars richer thanks to Howard, Coonan and the long-suffering Australian taxpayer.

Chris B:

Again False infoomation from Dan Warne, Why do APC let thier reporters spin propaganda.

What as management got to do, Telstra was Telecom Australia , so Dan are you saying Telecom Australia wasnt an Australian company.

Pull the other one

James Bell:

Sydney, Do you find it so hard to believe that thousands who have no financial interests in Telstra would share very similar views to my own? As you may recall from previous posts when you've asked this very question as a customer yes I have been burnt by Telstra on two occasions. As a customer I made the decision to vote with my feet and leave. I have nothing against Telstra continuing to do business and even being successful; however what I am against is the company in question making it harder, if not impossible for competitors to also do business. If there is any risk in my ability to obtain fast and affordable broadband as a result of Telstra's anticompetitive and unaustralian behaviour then I am more than happy to stand up on behalf Telstra's competitors because this is where my interests lie.

You on the other hand have just stated you own no Telstra shares. This I find rather hard to believe because why would someone who has absolutely no financial interest in a company lobby so hard on its behalf? And secondly I would consider it too much of a coincidence if there are two Sydney Lawrence's in this country; one who posts more on forums around this country than any other loyal Telstra supporter yet claims to have no shares, and another who owns 80,000 shares at a current value of approximately $365,000, but remains quiet. As a result I am assuming you are the same Sydney Lawrence as mentioned in the following article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/25/bloomberg/sxtelstra.php).

For the record I do genuinely feel for those who purchased shares in the above company lost money through their investment, but I do not believe it is fair for Australians to pay the price of reduced services at increased costs to simply improve Telstra shareholder value.

Sydney Lawrence:

James, thank you for your informative reply to which I happily respond.

The reason for my defense of Australia's Telstra is probably much the same as my father who went to France as a teenage lad to be seriously wounded at Flanders in the Great War. He saw a situation of danger and unfairness and without any financial motive, as an Australian, acted to combat that unfairness.

You are wrong when you quote me as being a shareholder of Telstra and I would ask you to recheck your facts. For your assistance my name is Sydney George Lawrence so a check should be easy for you. I am surprised that you take exception in this way to a person who uses the avenue of free speech in defending his opinion in the great tradition of Australian freedom.

raindog:

OK Sydney I'll bite.

I'm not going buy into any ownership of share debate, you desire or not to own crook share is your private business, and I wont speculate what is your actual motivation for actively peddling Telstra propaganda.

It curious that you see what you consider a great Australian company under attack and yet you can be apparently oblivious to this same companies wish to hold the Australian marketplace to ransom.

It is odd you see the Telstra's opponents playing by and to the extents of our nations established industry laws and regulations as invidious and devious, and yet at the same time you can green light Telstra inability to compete accept rulings or to go about its business with any respect to the value or intent of those same laws.
Tell me if you will how the competition argument is false? And how any party is given a competitive advantage OVER Telstra?
You consider it fair for Telstra to wield its considerable and inherited advantage with Telstra profits somehow more sacred than the rights of consumers forced onto monopoly supply. Why?

You ask for honest reasons to crucify Telstra, and I truly thank you for the opportunity to do this.

Telstra has consistently manipulated the marketplace and has used every devious practice possible to thwart any competitor and to extract as many dollars possible from the consumer.

How is it equitable for Telstra to now open up ADSL speeds to customers to has consistently denied such access. Curiously still neglecting any attempts to deliver continuity of service even through densely populated and highly profitable areas.

Is it not Telstra behind the bizarre situation that has Australian unable to ensure they have ADSL access to their street even when their direct neighbours do?

Is it not Telstra that monthly attempts to extract from me a handset rental for handsets that I neither inherited or ordered?

Is it not Telstra that is stopping the installation of competitor hardware an is also levying outrageous rentals for what competitor equipment that is installed?

Is it not Telstra that has absolutely ignored the wishes of its consumers in efforts to force them onto grossly over priced NextG alternative? Regardless of any pros and cons of the system, how can you explain Telstra's absolute disregard of it's customers wishes?

You it as unreasonable that Telstra is chastised for its false claims of anywhere/anytime when it cannot even manage a reasonable continuity of service into the CBD rail network, let alone back of beyond?

You see it fair that saturation advertising by Telstra has made many Australians first taste of broadband a bitter experience with the glossy brochures masking the open ended billing
and lock-in contracts you believe to be fair play?

You see it fair that Telstra can botch its billing and upon finding its error, issue an immediate demand for payment in full under threat of immediate cancellation of all services? Yes Sydney a I am migrating yet another customer who has seen the light and wishes no further dealings with Telstra. I've lost count of how many now, but the stream is steady and the Resentment towards Telstra is deep.

You see it as fair that Telstra can botch-up its NextG rollout and as sole supplier allow substandard handsets to be enabled on its network? Handsets of Telstra supply. And you see it as fair that Telstra customers must fully meet the cost of handset upgrade when what was supplied was and is clearly unfit for it's intended purpose?

Do you see it fair that a CEO can be granted a huge salary increase to an already obscene salary despite the share price under his tenure still being below that at his arrival?

You see it as fair that Telstra can hold Australia to the position of communication backwater with their technology rollouts determined only as tools to maintain a monopoly stranglehold.

Sydney you've asked for honest reasons why individuals would have a wish to crucify Telstra, and I've taken the opportunity to provide you just a tiny sample of those reasons.

While I cannot speak for other, I can state without doubt that I have no financial interest in any Telco or any media lobby organisation. Given your association with NWAT, can you Sydney, honestly make a similar claim. I read your pieces and sorry Sydney I just don't buy the consumer standing up for an Australian business angle.

Yes there is an underlying hatred of Telstra within the community, a hatred which has only increased with their latest cynical manoeuvre. Any defence of this company's actions and behaviour is equally contemptible.

And nothing could be more honest.

Sydney Lawrence:

raindog,I appreciate your comprehensive and detailed reply with was interesting.

My simply answer, and question, to you raindog is if all your comments are true how is it that Telstra remains Australia's favourite Tels-com which out sells it's competitors in increasing numbers to the horror and consternation of those opponents.

Dan Warne:

The simple answer to that is: there are many way to achieve sales, and only one of them is having customers like you. 

You can:

- charge twice as much as the competition and use the extra profit to saturate a market with advertising so prospective customers don't know any better

- use advertising that pushes headline rates which appear very cheap, but actually only represent the rate customers will get for the first six months of a three year contract, etc. 

- own a monopoly infrastructure which you are legally obliged to provide access to, but only provide the bare minimum required by law, which might make it possible for extensive delays to occur in connecting services for competitors' customers. (For example: BigPond can connect a customer same day in many cases, but a customer applying for naked DSL via ULL has a delay of a minimum of 10 days, and sometimes months, to be connected.)

- block competitors from installing infrastructure by saying that central infrastructure points (such as Telstra exchanges) are full to capacity, and even if the competitor is prepared to pay the full cost of renovating the building to extend its capacity, simply dig your heels in and say "no".  

- make claims about the quality of your product, which naturally makes the competitors' products seem inferior, record sales to lots of new customers as a result, and then have a Federal Court ruling that your claims were false to begin with. (Doesn't matter, though, you've already made stacks of sales by then.)

So, as you can see, winning customers, like winning votes, is very much a numbers and manipulation game -- it's not simply about people choosing a company because they like it. 

Derek N:

Sydney, in reply to your "Telstra remains Australia's favourite Tels-com which out sells it's competitors in increasing numbers to the horror and consternation of those opponents." I would like to bring to your attention that Telstra have always been running misleading Ad to the non-technical mums and dads. Ads such as "Next-G everywhere you need it" is so misleading, the network is not up to scratch that's why the plan to shut it down has been pushed further back. As for "Australia's favourite Tels-com" comment, that is so far from the truth. Where did you get that fact from? Some people are with Telstra's because they have no choice.....So you are telling me that if you walk into a shop and find two identical products next to each other, one of them is forgein and the other is Australian, except that it's charging at twice the price that the forgein product's going for, you still going to buy the Australian product based on values for money? You can't be serious.....

raindog:

The simple answer to your question Sydney is that Telstra far and away are not Australia's favourite Telco. Without a shadow of a doubt they are probably the least popular Telco and probably one of Australia's most hated organisations.

You confuse size of customer base with popularity, and many hundred of thousands of Telsta customers are begrudging one who would be gone at the first realistic opportunity.

Holding the community to ransom and making all out efforts may keep customers who have no choice, but it will not win popularity.

If Telstra is so sure of its market popularity why is it refusing to wholesale ADSL2+ at the soon to be enabled exchanges? Could be internally Telstra have a fair idea of just how unpopular they are? And that could just be why Telstra is the only Telco that feels the need for a massive saturation campaign from a manufactured media lobby organisation.

IN the areas where competitors have had a chance at fair and honest competition. Subscriber numbers paint a very different picture of Telstra's popularity.

The ultimate dismantling of a Telstra monopoly will be the real Australian favourite. And its not a matter of if, but when.

raindog:

Just a thought Sydney but to prove your point why dont you get your buddies at Now We Are Talking to run a poll where members of the public could cast their vote?

Oh, thats right! They already tried that! What did the public have to say on Telstra's own poll before it was hidden from view? Wasn't complimentary was it?

Sol's 401k Plan:

"Understand that the $500 million once invested goes straight to the bottom line Net Asset Backing of a Company owed by the Singapore Government. It could have gone to Australian Companies whose profits remain in Australia."


Is that before or after Sol and friends jetset it back to the States once they leave?

Dan Warne:

"Understand that the $500 million once invested goes straight to the bottom line Net Asset Backing of a Company owed by the Singapore Government. It could have gone to Australian Companies whose profits remain in Australia."

True, true... so you're counting out Telstra there too. What Australian telco which keeps profits in Australia were you referring to? 

Internet user:

Under what most say about Telstra MUST wholesale there adsl2+, well in that case the ACCC and Government should make all ISP's that have ADSL2+ DSLAMS in Exchanges wholesale thier as well.
Fair is Fair, if one must all must.
No i do not like Telstra, but if you think they should why do others not have to.
This is one point most isp's and users, mainly isp's do not seam to look at. if they were to be made to wholesale thier service would thay i ask you.

Its Me:

I am constantly astounded how governments (both past and present) can sprout "how important quality broadband access is to business and families” yet allow Telstra to monopolise the network so they can charge ridiculous price for a "whopping" (sic) 400mb download allowance.
Our broadband is overpriced and very small on allowance.
A quick search of major international providers will show how far behind Australia is becoming on affordable broadband with an allowance that isn't restrictive.

Tiscali UK - 8Mbit w/ Unlimited downloads 15 GBP (~35 AUD)
Bell South USA - 1500/256 w/ Unlimited downloads 33 USD (~40 AUD)
O2 Germany 4Mbit w/ Unlimited downloads 30 Euro (~40 AUD)

Finally our great Aussie icon Bigpond
1500/256 - 400MB $40 25GB $80

Robbo:

Simon Hackit needs to build a bridge and get over it. or better still build a rival network if he wants to be in the ISP game. He is just a little boy crying to his mummy.

Spelling Police:

Who is this "Simon Hackit" you speak of? Maybe if you had progressed beyond the 3rd grade we might actually listen to a word you say. To respond though, Internode & Simon have built a competing network where it has been commercially viable, and accessible. I'd be surprised if Tesltra allowed anyone to run actual copper to houses.

As per the topic, Simon HACKETT is entirely correct. If our new federal government hands over more control to telscum then telecommunications and internet in this country will degrade even further.

Charles:

Wow.. you obviously have no idea about the DSLAM and backhaul constructions that Internode/Agile have been undertaking the last four years.. despite Telstra trying to block them constantly.

db:

Internode does have a significant backbone (trunk lines) of their own, and have installed DSLAMS in a number of exchanges across the country (along with a number of other ISPs). What they and the other ISPs require is access to the infrastructure that enables them to access their customers - infrastructure that Telstra control.
For every ISP to duplicate that infrastructure is uneconomic and an enormous waste of resources.
If you think that allowing Telstra to continue to restrict access to infrastructure is going to benefit anyone other than Telstra you are seriously deluded.

jet:

Man you have no idea.
Simon was one of the pioneers of what we have today. I don't use Internode but to disparage somebody of this stature lacks class.

Jet

Slippery Jim DiGriz:

Asking to get flamed here, I know! - I've only lived in Aus for a few years, so can't claim a lengthy and in depth knowledge of the various wranglings around the whole Telstra situation, but surely if Telstra are all powerful, owning everything and having the latest technologies, why don't they just use their competitive advantage to give the end user a good deal. How can they justify their ADSL2+ charges when there are co's like TPG putting out 150GB a month for $70? If they just charged comparable prices surely their market share would increase enough to cover any loss of revenue without breaking whatever competition laws they are subject to.

Milton Greene:

I realise I'll be flayed by the tall poppy brigade but I agree with Rod.

Telstra is a private company who paid for their infrastructure, they are entitled to make business decisions without interference from competitors constantly running to regulators to have a whinge.

Milton.

Laura Dee:

Telstra never payed for putting the majority of its infrastructure in, the Government did. Unless Telstra has been buying its own shares, theres no way that it can own itself either. The shareholders have since the corporation went public.

You would also think that Telstra just like any private business would be willing to sell more bandwidth on a wholesale basis, because that would guarantee that they would be getting a guaranteed source of funds coming in 24/7 from that sector. It would also stop competitors such as Optus from putting their own cables in. By refusing to sell wholesale, Telstra is making it so that everyone else wants another supplier to enter the areas in question so that they don't have to put up with Telstra's pettyness. A move such as this one would make good business sense, while Telstra's current moves are just plain confusing in a business sense.

James Bell:

Correction.. Telstra paid for their infrastructure with the condition that the PSTN become a regulated, declared asset giving all competitors access.

In relation to wholesaling ADSL 2+ I'm not entirely sure what my position is on the matter, but I do find it interesting that Telstra is so against wholesaling its services. Other companies such as Optus embrace wholesaling and have successfully provided wholesale services on many of its products for years.

Rod:

Again Telstra, why should Telstra share "There Copper Network" with others if you want to provide Internet set up your own netwok and stop giving telstra a hard time look at optus they set up there own fiber network thats not even used to it's full pontential and they are still piggi backing onto telstra network.
Again why should telstra let other so called Internet service provides use there network when it was the Australian people that paid for it.