Alan Parkington <alanparkington@team.telstra.net> 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.

It aint called Tewwy McCrapp for nuffin...

> In 2008. In 2009. Indeed, pretty much as far into an internet warp-speed future that it's possible to see.

You need new glasses.

> It's Telstra or its nobody.

Wrong, as always.

> 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.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

> Telstra builds the network. Or it agrees to joint venture it with the taxpayer. Or it allows someone else to build it.

Telstra doesnt get to 'allow' anything, just like they didnt with the optarse fibre
network and the optarse mobile system, and the optarse satellite system.

> I'd assign a very low probability to the latter two.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

> But I can envisage circumstances where Telstra would sign off on such an alternative.

Telstra doesnt get to 'sign off' on anything, just like they didnt with the optarse
fibre network and the optarse mobile system, and the optarse satellite system.

> But that's the absolutely fundamental point. It's in - it's entirely in - Telstra's gift.

Wrong, as always.

> And it will exercise that power, to its own best perceived advantage.

Pity that the govt is STILL by far the biggest shareholder, fuckwit.

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

Have fun explaining the optarse fibre network and the
optarse mobile system, and the optarse satellite system.

> 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.

Thats just one way of doing it.

The other obvious alternative is to use its shareholding in telstra to
give the mex and its parasites and McGauchie the bums rush and
replace them with someone who will do what the govt wants.

> It all comes down to Telstra's existing copper wire network and the ducts it runs in.

Nope. Telstra can be forced by legislation to allow access to those,
just like it was forced by legislation to allow reselling of their services.

> There is no way that Telstra is going to let anyone else - whether Optus or Rudd - have access to those ducts.

Telstra gets no say what so ever on that. Just like it didnt on reselling.

> Far, far less let them rip out the existing copper and replace it with (their) fibre.

No one is talking about replacing existing copper with fibre, fuckwit.

> 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.

They couldnt do that if the govt uses it shareholding to give the mex and its arse lickers the bums rush.

> 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.

Wouldnt happen if the govt uses it shareholding to give the mex and its arse lickers the bums rush.

> But surely the competition legislation can force Telstra to let
> somebody else access its ducts and its existing network?

Yep, and to resell its services in spades.

> Hasn't that already happened, many times? And hasn't Telstra -- physically and legally - let it?

And they'd get no choice on that if the govt uses it shareholding
to give the mex and its arse lickers the bums rush.

> True. But that was yesterday and a 'different' Telstra. A pre-Sol-and-Phil Telstra.

Completely trivial for the govt to give them the bums rush legally.

> None of that access threatened Telstra's existing infrastructure -

Pig ignorant lie with reselling.

> despite the usual grumblings from a technology-sensitive business.

Thats all they'd be able to do this time too.

> And it certainly didn't threaten it fundamentally in a core business sense.

Wrong with reselling.

> Although it was irritating -- to actually assist competitors eat into your previously monopoly profits, using your own
> infrastructure.

Pity that reselling does that in spades.

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

Nope.

> It would threaten Telstra's existing infrastructure.

Nope.

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

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

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about even the most basic stuff.

And there aint no 'ducts' in the absolute vast bulk
of the residential network being discussed either.

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

Nope, the system has been like that of DECADES now already.

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

Reselling did that in spades.

> Because such a network is all about replacing the copper.

Nope.

> Certainly for internet broadband, but also for basic telephony.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about even the most basic stuff.

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

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about even the most basic stuff.

> 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.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about even the most basic stuff.

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

Telstra gets no choice on that.

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

Wrong, as always.

> 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.

Its always been able to do that. The govt doesnt care, it
got that $5B from flogging off what it flogged off of Telstra.

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

How odd that they did with their fibre network, their mobile network, their
satellite system, ALL of which have the same interconnect considerations.

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

Your mindless pig ignorant hot air in spades.

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

> Optus chief Paul O'Sullivan forgot to put in the fine print: Provided, someone gives us the Telstra network to build
> off.

To interconnect with, actually.

> No wonder Optus says it can have cheap prices on its network. It's not costing a full build-out of the Telstra ducts.

There are no 'ducts' in the vast bulk of the residential network being discussed, fuckwit.

> Apart from the time it would take to actually replicate their building.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about even the most basic stuff.

> But isn't the new Government going to hold a competitive auction?

They havent said that.

> Great idea, but if Optus/G9 win, how does Rudd and Senator Stephen Conroy propose to give them access to Telstra's
> ducts?

By legislation and by giving the mex and its
arse lickers the bums rush if thats what it takes.

The govt can force a separation between the wholesale
and retail parts of telstra too if it chooses to.

> This side of the 12th of never or $40 billion, whichever comes first?

By legislation and by giving the mex and its
arse lickers the bums rush if thats what it takes.

> In very simple terms. Telstra will decide who gets into its ducts and on what terms.

Wrong, as always.

> Or we let it, on its terms.

Wrong, as always.

> 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.

Nope, just like with reselling, telstra gets to like
that or lump it if thats what the govt chooses to do.

> 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.

You can make the same stupid claim about reselling. Telstra got to like it or lump it anyway.

And dont forget which party forced reselling on telstra.

> 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.

Or give the mex and its arse lickers the bums rush and do what they like.

> Trust me.

No way, you've always been a pig ignorant clown thats
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

It aint called Tewwy McCrapp for nuffin.

> 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.

Or give the mex and its arse lickers the bums rush.