On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:16:14 +0000, Alan Parkington wrote:

> From
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...73-664,00.html
>
> TELSTRA builds Kevin Rudd's precious high-speed broadband network or
> nobody does, writes Terry McCrann.
>
> In 2008. In 2009. Indeed, pretty much as far into an internet warp-speed
> future that it's possible to see. It's Telstra or its nobody.
>
> In all the spin, the claims and counter-claims, the abuse, the
> assertions of 'readiness to build', the seeking of and/or gaining
> 'approval', this is the one solid truth.

And they *pay* this idiot to write this nonsense???

> Telstra builds the network. Or it agrees to joint venture it with the
> taxpayer. Or it allows someone else to build it.
>
> I'd assign a very low probability to the latter two. But I can envisage
> circumstances where Telstra would sign off on such an alternative.

Well, i guess that's that then. This bloke clearly knows what he's
talking about, so everyone else might as well just pack up their laptops
and go home.

> But that's the absolutely fundamental point. It's in - it's entirely in
> - Telstra's gift. And it will exercise that power, to its own best
> perceived advantage.

Total nonsense! Tel$cum will do what the government tells it to do.

> And that advantage is very simply, that it builds the network; on its
> terms. Or nobody does.

We'll see.

> Not unless the Prime Minister wants to write out a cheque for -- pick a
> figure: $30 billion? $40 billion? Whatever, somewhat more than the $4.7
> billion assigned to help build it.

Bullshit!

> It all comes down to Telstra's existing copper wire network and the
> ducts it runs in.
>
> There is no way that Telstra is going to let anyone else - whether Optus
> or Rudd - have access to those ducts. Far, far less let them rip out the
> existing copper and replace it with (their) fibre.

Nobody's going to rip out copper. Nobody's ever even hinted that they
were going to rip out copper. There's likely to be enough room in those
ducts for a bit of fibre - and if their isn't they can be made bigger or
new ones put in. And tel$cum won't have a choice.

> At the first step in that direction, by anyone - whether Rudd, Optus or
> ACCC chief Graeme Samuel -- Telstra would unleash a blizzard of
> litigation that would freeze it faster and harder than a chilly wind off
> the Antarctic plain.

Of course they'll unleash a flood of litigation. And the government will
legislate it out of the way if necessary. Legislation beats litigation
most of the time.

> To proceed into that blizzard would be at risk of the most humungous
> compensation payment ever in Australian history. Trust me: nobody would
> be proceeding.

Total bollocks. It could easily be done in such a way that tel$cum's
ability to continue providing the service over their wires isn't
affected. If they're not losing anything, then there's no grounds for
claiming compensation.

> But surely the competition legislation can force Telstra to let somebody
> else access its ducts and its existing network? Hasn't that already
> happened, many times? And hasn't Telstra -- physically and legally - let
> it?
>
> True. But that was yesterday and a 'different' Telstra. A
> pre-Sol-and-Phil Telstra.

So? They'll stamp their feet and shake their little fists and whinge and
moan. And it will all just go ahead anyway. Sooner or later, the
shareholders will come to their senses and give them the boot anyway.

> None of that access threatened Telstra's existing infrastructure -
> despite the usual grumblings from a technology-sensitive business.

None of this will affect their existing infrastructure either, drongo!

> And it certainly didn't threaten it fundamentally in a core business
> sense. Although it was irritating -- to actually assist competitors eat
> into your previously monopoly profits, using your own infrastructure.

Their monopoly has been gradually eroded and it will continue to be. And
there's nothing they can do about it.

> The proposed FTTN - fibre-to-the-node - network is fundamentally
> different.

No it's not.

> It would threaten Telstra's existing infrastructure.

No it wouldn't.

> Either physically replacing the copper - certainly, if Telstra built it.

The copper won't be replaced.

> Or supplanting it, running next to it in the Telstra ducts. Arguably
> rendering the copper unusable.

The copper won't be unusable. Tel$cum will still be able to provide their
crap service over it without any major interruption.

> And certainly causing issues at the nodes, where the fibre has to hook
> into the last bit of copper going into the home.

There's no issue there. If the subscriber want's their line unhooked from
tel$cum's copper and hooked up to the fibre network they can. If they
don't it will just stay the way it is now.

> Self-evidently, it would threaten Telstra in the most fundamental
> business sense.

Sob.

> Because such a network is all about replacing the copper. Certainly for
> internet broadband, but also for basic telephony.

No!!! Crikey, this bloke's obviously not quite as stupid as he seems!

> And indeed also replacing the Foxtel and Optus cables as well for pay-TV
> and other services.

Not necessarily. They'll still be there, and they'll still be used.

> A non-Telstra FTTN network would also threaten to strand its existing
> copper wire broadband D-slams in exchanges, in exactly the same way a
> Telstra FTTN network would strand everybody else's.

That's life.

> It is utterly inconceivable that Telstra would 'allow' this to be
> imposed on it.

They won't have a choice.

> Apart from anything else, it has a rather big point. It would constitute
> confiscation of its assets.

Bullshit!

> So its first defence would be litigation that could delay any opposition
> build-out for years. It could even start its own build-out, accepting -
> risking - the access terms that would be imposed on it.

It won't delay it. And they won't start their own build-out.

> In such a context, there is no way an Optus - or the so-called G9 group
> - could start spending big dollars.

We'll see.

> All the claims by Optus and G9 are just so much hot air. Including
> submitting pricing terms to the ACCC.

Probably.

> Earlier this month Optus put out a press statement: "We're ready to
> build a FTTN network."

They're as ready as tel$cum.

I can't be bothered reading the rest of this dribble.

> Optus chief Paul O'Sullivan forgot to put in the fine print: Provided,
> someone gives us the Telstra network to build off.
>
> No wonder Optus says it can have cheap prices on its network. It's not
> costing a full build-out of the Telstra ducts. Apart from the time it
> would take to actually replicate their building.
>
> But isn't the new Government going to hold a competitive auction?
>
> Great idea, but if Optus/G9 win, how does Rudd and Senator Stephen
> Conroy propose to give them access to Telstra's ducts?
>
> This side of the 12th of never or $40 billion, whichever comes first?
>
> In very simple terms. Telstra will decide who gets into its ducts and on
> what terms. Or we let it, on its terms.
>
> So what about structural separation? So we can have a common-user or
> government-owned network company? And everyone from Telstra to Optus to
> the minnows, pay to access it at arm's length?
>
> Exactly the same issues. There is no way Telstra is going to agree to
> such a huge loss of business advantage from its integrated model. And
> nor should it.
>
> So if the Government thinks it's necessary in the 'public interest'. Get
> out the cheque book. To pay for the actual infrastructure and additional
> compensation to Telstra.
>
> Trust me. It's not going to happen. So it's Telstra or nothing. I'll go
> with nothing. Unless Rudd wants to tear up the Trade Practices Act.