The 800-pound Telstra gorilla that dominated the telco landscape in 2007
will continue to do so in the coming year.
The big question is whether the new Labor government can tame the beast any
more effectively than the Howard administration it replaced.
Kevin Rudd and his freshly-minted Telecommunications Minister, Senator
Stephen Conroy, have a lot at stake - a super fast fibre optic broadband
network was the centrepiece of Labor's successful election campaign.
But while the government has big cards to play, so too does Telstra,
Australia's biggest telco.
Senator Conroy will be all too aware of the bloody nose his predecessor,
Senator Helen Coonan, suffered, after tangling with Telstra.
Goldman Sachs JBWere analysts summed up the situation in a recent note to
clients.
"The election outcome could - despite the market's concerns - be positive
for Telstra," the analysts said.
"However, the critical assumption here is that Telstra chooses to cooperate
with the government.
"Clearly, this has not been a feature of the company's recent history."
Fibre optic broadband will eventually deliver download speeds of more than
50 megabits per second (mbps), absolutely blitzing the 1.5 mbps to which
most Australians have become accustomed.
There is no disputing the need for a network, everyone from the media mogul
Rupert Murdoch to education authorities want virtual classrooms,
telecommuting and internet television.
But the regulatory argument remains a massive hurdle.
Fibre optic broadband involves connecting telecommunication nodes with fibre
and then linking those nodes to the nation's living rooms with the existing
copper wire network.
Telstra owns that copper.
And that is the main reason no progress has been made on building the
network.
The dominant telco had a $4.1 billion plan to provide fibre optic broadband,
but couldn't receive the regulatory assurances it wanted from the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission over access prices for rivals.
> The 800-pound Telstra gorilla that dominated the telco landscape in 2007 will continue to do so in the coming year.
Nope, the govt will, just like it has always done.
> The big question is whether the new Labor government can tame the
> beast any more effectively than the Howard administration it replaced.
Corse it can if it chooses to, by using its shareholding
to give the mex and its arse lickers the bums rush.
> Kevin Rudd and his freshly-minted Telecommunications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, have a lot at stake
No they dont.
> - a super fast fibre optic broadband network was the centrepiece of Labor's successful election campaign.
Pigs arse it was. They just chose to spend a small part of what
the govt got for flogging off telstra to pander to that fool Murdoch.
If that goes flat on its face, only the fools will give a damn.
> But while the government has big cards to play, so too does Telstra, Australia's biggest telco.
Wrong, as always.
> Senator Conroy will be all too aware of the bloody nose his predecessor, Senator Helen Coonan, suffered, after
> tangling with Telstra.
Just another of pathetic little pig ignorant journo fantasys.
> Goldman Sachs JBWere analysts summed up the situation in a recent note to clients.
Nope, just waffled on, as always.
> "The election outcome could - despite the market's concerns - be positive for Telstra," the analysts said.
Pigs might fly.
> "However, the critical assumption here is that Telstra chooses to cooperate with the government.
And telstra has already said that it wont.
> "Clearly, this has not been a feature of the company's recent history."
Yep, ever since that fuckwit mex and its fuckwit arse lickers showed up.
> Fibre optic broadband will eventually deliver download speeds of more than 50 megabits per second (mbps),
Wrong with what is being proposed.
> absolutely blitzing the 1.5 mbps to which most Australians have become accustomed.
Hordes of them already have much better than that if they want it, fuckwit.
> There is no disputing the need for a network,
Wrong, as always.
> everyone from the media mogul Rupert Murdoch to education authorities want virtual classrooms, telecommuting and
> internet television.
That arsehole murdoch just wants a way do distribute pay per view
movies with the infrastructure to do that paid for by someone else.
The education authoritys dont want virtual classrooms.
> But the regulatory argument remains a massive hurdle.
Nope, not if the govt has a clue and uses it shareholding in telstra
to give the mex and its arse lickers the bums rush they deserve.
> Fibre optic broadband involves connecting telecommunication nodes with fibre and then linking those nodes to the
> nation's living rooms with the existing copper wire network.
Wrong, thats FTTN, fuckwit.
> Telstra owns that copper.
And the govt gets to force telstra to allow that to be connected
to other telco's nodes, just like it does with their dslams now.
> And that is the main reason no progress has been made on building the network.
Wrong. The main reason is the cost.
> The dominant telco had a $4.1 billion plan to provide fibre optic broadband, but couldn't receive the regulatory
> assurances it wanted from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission over access prices for rivals.
In fact it wanted a return to a monopoly and no one was stupid enough to give them that.
> The dominant telco had a $4.1 billion plan to provide fibre optic broadband,
> but couldn't receive the regulatory assurances it wanted from the Australian
> Competition and Consumer Commission over access prices for rivals.
And this is the whole crux of the matter.
There's no point in building such a network as there would be a lack of
competition and Telstra would ensure that Australians will, into the foreseeable
future, be lumbered with an expensive internet environment. Therefore only those
in the upper socio-economic demographic will be able to connect to such a
network.
Telstra said in this article that Parkington parrotted that 1.5mbits/sec is what
"most" Australians are used to.
I wonder why it would say that? Telstra, while clearly having the majority of
internet connected households, has this market on its lower and slower plans.
Now, this may be due to a lot of reasons, but it's easy to guess that it would
be based on affordability. Most people cannot afford 20/40 gig plans that run on
ADSL2+. So, they sign up for Bigpond's cheaper, $40/mth plans that run at
512kbps or slower.
Now, if Telstra would deliver a 50mbit service with say, 20 gigs a month for
around the same price, shit, even I would jump ship.
But it won't.
If it wanted to deliver more affordable internet services Telstra would. But it
doesn't, and it's only government intervention that stops it gouging its
competitors even more (and ultimately, us, the end users).
Telstra is set to slug its competitors $30/month/user for each line that other
ISPs have for delivering DSL services. I think that it's around $14/mth at
present. So, everyone can expect their DSL services to increase significantly
over the next few months. Now, factor in other cost of living increases such as
petrol, interest rates, statutory government charges, utility charges,
especially water, gas and electricity and an expected economic turndown as the
US sub-prime crisis begins to bite and you'll start to see people rationalising
how the family budget is spent, beginning with luxury (non-essential) items such
as the internet, pay television, DVD hire, eating out and so on.
So, if Telstra wants to help with the economy (ISPs going out of business
definately won't help) then it would do well to limit its hike in charges.
> Alan Parkington wrote...
>
>> The dominant telco had a $4.1 billion plan to provide fibre optic broadband,
>> but couldn't receive the regulatory assurances it wanted from the Australian
>> Competition and Consumer Commission over access prices for rivals.
>
> And this is the whole crux of the matter.
>
> There's no point in building such a network as there would be a lack of
> competition and Telstra would ensure that Australians will, into the foreseeable
> future, be lumbered with an expensive internet environment. Therefore only those
> in the upper socio-economic demographic will be able to connect to such a
> network.
>
> Telstra said in this article that Parkington parrotted that 1.5mbits/sec is what
> "most" Australians are used to.
>
> I wonder why it would say that?
<snip>
Perhaps because Telstra didn't say that?
Reread the article. The parrotted reporter said that.
Marts <marts_57@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Alan Parkington wrote...
>
>> The dominant telco had a $4.1 billion plan to provide fibre optic
>> broadband, but couldn't receive the regulatory assurances it wanted
>> from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission over access
>> prices for rivals.
>
> And this is the whole crux of the matter.
>
> There's no point in building such a network as there would be a lack
> of competition and Telstra would ensure that Australians will, into
> the foreseeable future, be lumbered with an expensive internet
> environment. Therefore only those in the upper socio-economic
> demographic will be able to connect to such a network.
>
> Telstra said in this article that Parkington parrotted that
> 1.5mbits/sec is what "most" Australians are used to.
>
> I wonder why it would say that? Telstra, while clearly having the
> majority of internet connected households, has this market on its
> lower and slower plans. Now, this may be due to a lot of reasons, but
> it's easy to guess that it would be based on affordability. Most
> people cannot afford 20/40 gig plans that run on ADSL2+. So, they
> sign up for Bigpond's cheaper, $40/mth plans that run at 512kbps or
> slower.
>
> Now, if Telstra would deliver a 50mbit service with say, 20 gigs a
> month for around the same price, shit, even I would jump ship.
>
> But it won't.
>
> If it wanted to deliver more affordable internet services Telstra
> would. But it doesn't, and it's only government intervention that
> stops it gouging its competitors even more (and ultimately, us, the
> end users).
> Telstra is set to slug its competitors $30/month/user for
> each line that other ISPs have for delivering DSL services.
Telstra doesnt get to set that charge, the ACCC does and it wont do that.
> I think that it's around $14/mth at present. So, everyone can expect
> their DSL services to increase significantly over the next few months.
Nope.
> Now, factor in other cost of living increases such as petrol,
> interest rates, statutory government charges, utility charges,
> especially water, gas and electricity and an expected
> economic turndown as the US sub-prime crisis begins to bite
That last wont happen, you watch.
> and you'll start to see people rationalising how the family budget is spent,
Only the fools that expected interest rates to stay low.
> beginning with luxury (non-essential) items such as the
> internet, pay television, DVD hire, eating out and so on.
Only the fools that expected interest rates to stay low.
> So, if Telstra wants to help with the economy
> (ISPs going out of business definately won't help)
That wont be happening at a higher rate than previously, you watch.
> then it would do well to limit its hike in charges.
The real reason they will do that is because their customers will fuck
off to their competitors if they are stupid enough to try that stunt.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why you need a union.
> Telstra said in this article that Parkington parrotted that 1.5mbits/sec
> is what
> "most" Australians are used to.
Correct
> I wonder why it would say that? Telstra, while clearly having the majority
> of
> internet connected households, has this market on its lower and slower
> plans.
> Now, this may be due to a lot of reasons, but it's easy to guess that it
> would
> be based on affordability. Most people cannot afford 20/40 gig plans that
> run on
> ADSL2+. So, they sign up for Bigpond's cheaper, $40/mth plans that run at
> 512kbps or slower.
Because most people dont NEED or WANT ADSL2
> Now, if Telstra would deliver a 50mbit service with say, 20 gigs a month
> for
> around the same price, shit, even I would jump ship.
"Youre living in a fools paradise, Van Hooten"
> Telstra is set to slug its competitors $30/month/user for each line that
> other
> ISPs have for delivering DSL services. I think that it's around $14/mth at
Thats the way life goes. They can build their own networks
> So, if Telstra wants to help with the economy (ISPs going out of business
> definately won't help) then it would do well to limit its hike in charges.
Crapshit. Its a private enterprise, not a benevolent charity. Get over it
Telstra, govt have cards to play in 2008 
Linear Mode
