G9 wants to be a FTTN monopoly: Conroy

The contract for Australia's fibre-to-the-node network is now up for grabs but the government has been accused of trying to return Australian broadband to a monopoly system — which is just the way the G9 likes it, according to Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy.

Stephen Conroy

Speaking yesterday at the CommsDay Summit in Sydney, Simon Hackett, MD of ISP and G9 member Internode, accused the government's request for proposals (RTP) of promoting a broadband monopoly.

"It's awful, it's a trainwreck," he told the conference, adding: "It's a government mandated broadband and voice monopoly... Why aren't people shouting in the street about this? Why are we standing for it? It's madness."

According to Hackett, the fibre RTP will see a full node cutover — where the copper network that Australia uses now will be disconnected — leaving companies that have invested in their own infrastructure out of pocket and likely to sue the government for compensation, and consumers faced with higher prices.

"[Consumers] don't know the cost of their shiny new network will be the loss of the existing ADSL2+ service... They will be extremely upset but it will be too late then," Hackett continued.

Senator Conroy denied that the FTTN network will promote a communications monopoly.

"Infrastructure is vital but so is a competitive telecoms industry," he told the CommsDay Summit today. "There are arrangements in place to promote competition for delivering services over the network."

According to Conroy, it is the G9 consortium — a group of nine ISPs including Optus, Internode and Primus — and not the government promoting a monopoly, with G9's last submission on building the fibre network "demanding to be a monopoly" and asking the government to make sure "Telstra couldn't build a rival network".

Pipe Networks CEO Bevan Slattery told the conference yesterday that the terms of RFP had been skewed to favour Telstra's bid.

"Excluding G9, any other company [bidding] is using the national broadband network as an excuse to raise its profile. G9 should boycott it... it's a completely flawed process," said Slattery.

"It's designed so Telstra is the only party capable of responding."

Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!

Talkback 97 comments

  1. conroy Anonymous -- 16/04/08

    Conroy seems to be in Telstra's pocket. How else can you explain him accusing every other major isp of being monopolistic and not the current infrastructure dictators, Telstra.

    1. Coonan Anonymous -- 16/04/08

      Did you whinge when Coonan was in Optus' pocket too?

      It's quite simply explained. When Telstra offered to build FTTN, they didnt demand the G9 or anyone else, be excluded from building another competing network! Whereas the G9 did demand that no one else build a competing network. Don't forget, whilst there may be 9 of them, they are still operating as one!

      I believe you meant the current infrastructure 'owners' Telstra. Yes the leeches are allowed access, but it's legally owned by Telstra - comprehende`! I bet you'd dictate to others who try to sponge off your property too, wouldn't you?

      And Simon, after years of Howard/Coonan/Telstra competitors brainwashing everyone into believing competition at Telstra's expense is good, the people are finally awakening to reality! Being so, the majority of 'average people' are indeed shouting in the streets. However sadly for you and your easy ULL/LSS profits, they are now shouting - hooray!

    2. Rubbish James Bell -- 16/04/08

      This nation does not demand nor can it support two separate networks of this magnitude. If two competing networks were to co-exist one would eventually lose out resulting in what would be the largest corporate failure in this nations history. We saw a mini example of this occur in the 90's where two companies both lost billions of dollars and are unlikely to see a financial return on their investments any time soon.

      Telstra is just against duplication as is the G9. If you want evidence just look at the string of media announcements and litigation Telstra imposed on the government to try and prevent the Opel rollout which was a direct threat to Telstra's NextG network. And in case you didn't know NextG was also partially funded with the assistance of government aid.

      I'm not even going to bother commenting on your "leeches" and "easy ULL/LSS profits" comments because you need to research this yourself.

    3. Re Rubbish! SJT -- 17/04/08

      Rubbish - lol. Same old broken record! We heard it all previously with OPEL and where are they now?

      I find it amusing that people, who believe they are intelligent - due to childish hatred of Telstra - can't see or won't accept the G9 as the sham it is. It appears obvious to all but the most naive or Telstra hate filled, that the G9 don't really want to win. They have primarily thrown their hat in the ring simply to delay the roll out and keep the status quo (i.e. easy profiteering via cheap ULL/LSS). Also they are there to, when it eventually eventuates, wrangle the best deal for themselves - to keep the ****ards honest, so to speak (yes I know - Telstra certainly are ***tards - thank you).

      If not why did the G9 totally scrap their entire original 'wonder plan' and start over? And now have the hide to whinge that it's all being rushed through - lol!

      Anywhere else in the world, Telstra's investment initiatives (like the initial offer to build and fully fund FTTN some 3 years ago, which we could now possibly be enjoying, but for as I mentioned above) would be welcomed with open arms. But not here, we are all too bogged down in the buzzword competition (i.e. regulatory competition), to include the actual word *commonsense* and encourage investment. With investment, true competition would soon come and we the consumer would benefit. But again thanks to the leeches simply, desperately attempting to cling to their easy profit ULL/LSS, we continue to artificially prop them up with regulatory aid!

      You know in a sadistic sort of way, I hope the G9 do win the tender! Because if you Hel$tra haters are satisfied with second best, OPELesque type bumbling and are willing to continue to gamble on our broadband future, purely to *perhaps, one day* save a few measly dollars, well that is what you truly deserve!

    4. Re: The Telstra Disciple James Bell -- 17/04/08

      I find it amusing you believe your posts are any more intelligent when in reality they're about as lop-sided and unfounded with rhetoric as a Phil Burgess press conference. Every single point you try to make and question you ask is so categorically wrong one really has to ask if you truly believe what you write? Honestly.. do you??

      Anyone who would like to see a competitive environment and even playing field in this country you blanket as "Hel$tra haters" when it's the Telstra groupies like yourself that put their vested interests above the good of this nation. Perhaps you would be better off to ask yourself why so many of us aren�t particularly fond of the business practises utilised by the corporation in question, instead of defending it at all costs with such imprudence.

    5. Clarity SJT -- 17/04/08

      Dearest anti-Telstra crusader!

      1) I do not believe that I am anymore intelligent than you. However I do believe your unhealthy Telstra hatred naively clouds your judgement. But youre incessant lies and contradictory calls; do certainly keep us poles apart.

      2) Unlike you, I am not conceited enough to suggest that everything you say is *categorically wrong!*! I am sure you have some good points. But unfortunately they must get lost in amongst all the contradictions and typical derogatory remarks aimed at Telstra!

      3) You use the c word competition willy-nilly, when its to Telstras detriment, but right here on ZDNet 9/2, were suggesting the complete opposite, by encouraging investment for companies other than Telstra, by banning all competing networks?

      4) The only reason I come here (and elsewhere) to support Telstra, is in an effort to thwart the lies of those, well like you! E.g. you have previously referred to Telstra as greedy, when the FACTS yes FACTS, are that Telstra is in fact one of the, if not the, most charitable company in Oz. Do a search for the many Telstra charities, then eat your words!

      5) Enough for now cya next time!

    6. Congratulations James Bell -- 17/04/08

      The irony is your fourth point is exactly the same reason I post here (and elsewhere) too. I do not post lies as you claim, and I'm not entirely sure what I've said that's allowed you to come to the conclusion I contradict myself in every alternate post. Your arguments generally fail because they follow the typical ingredients of half-truths, missing information and putting things out of context, as with most pro-Telstra and screw everyone else attitudes.

      Telstra is the most charitable company in Oz? I didn't know that and perhaps you're right. Well done for posting something factual.

    7. Speaking of factual. SJT -- 18/04/08

      My pleasure for posting factually! You might like to try it yourself - "even just once"!

    8. Truijlo James McArthur -- 16/04/08

      "When Telstra offered to build FTTN, they didnt demand the G9 or anyone else, be excluded from building another competing network!"

      You're right. Telstra said that they wouldn't cooperate with the G9 and build the network together, rather they would go it alone and duplicate the efforts of everyone else. Why? The previous Government wasn't going to cave into the ludicrous conditions - such as a locked-in 10 year fee for access, or guarantees against competition.

      Telstra whinged and whined to anyone who would listen that the previous Government wrote the tender to suit Optus et al. In reality, Telstra *chose* not to partake in the process because they were having a hissy fit that they wouldn't be given a monopoly. Optus and others were more then happy to work under those conditions.

      So, whats so special about Telstra? Is the 800lb gorilla afraid of fair competition?

  2. WIll not stand for it Anonymous -- 16/04/08

    If Telstra get the $4.7 Billion, Labor can forget my vote at the next election (I have vited labor since I have been able to vote).

    I, and I am sure many other Australians will be furious as we all know that the $4.7B or tax payers money will disappear without anything to show for it if Telstra get their hands on it.

    Telstra have always tried to exploit the customer in the name of increasing profits, why would anyone expect this to change?

    I for one would rather the government flush the $4.7B down the toilet than give it to Telstra as I believe giving it to Telstra will only serve to strengthen their position in the market as a monopoly and will decrease value for the end consumers (if not in the short term, then in the long term) as opposed to improving Australia's current situation.

    1. Down the toilet? Anonymous -- 16/04/08

      Flushing it down the toilet is in fact the other option! Only it's more commonly known as the G9!

    2. Down the toilet? Telstra shares maybe James Bell -- 16/04/08

      The only thing that would posibly go down the toilet if G9 were to be successful may be Telstra shares, but I vote for the 19million+ non-Telstra share holders and the overall good of this nation over a share price.

    3. Down the toliet! SJT -- 17/04/08

      Yes flushing down the toilet probably isnt such a good idea!

      There'd be a blockage of epic proportions, with both the G9 and OPEL down there - lol!

    4. Conroy Anonymous -- 16/04/08

      Thanks conroy now we all know across the IT industry that we are royally screwed and that we know you won't read this as you obviously should not of been put in the position as you have no IT knowledge at all.

      theres a reson the G9 is asking for telstra to not be able to build a competing network is becuase of what happend with the HFC network

      The G9 should build the network as it will bring cheaper prices and telstra plainly won't.

  3. I am shouting in the street about this. Anonymous -- 16/04/08

    I'm telling everyone that will listen. Conroy really needs to educate himself that services like VoIP and VOD etc. can only be delivered if an ISP can use it's own equipment to ensure quality of service. If the government pays $4.7B of tax payers money on a network that provides no more bandwidth, costs me more to use and destroys the QoS on my VoIP. I will become an activist against the government.

    1. Old things will pass away and all will become new. Sydney Lawrence -- 16/04/08

      Senator Conroy is the Messiah. Finally and at last the Australian people have a political party in Canberra that is honest and fair dinkum.

      The waste of billions are finished and the taxpayer is grateful. The deceipt of the competition argument is exposed as a means to enrich Telstra opponents to the detriment of all Australians.

      Senator Conroy is right to point out that G9 demanded a monopoly, in fact a ban on any opponent building an opposing network. What fore-flushers they are, and dammed by their own lies that flow from their mouths.

      The ravings can now stop anti-Telstra detractors as the Australian people are awake to you, and better still so are the people who pull the leavers in Canberra.

    2. Sydney Lawrence Charles Gregory -- 16/04/08

      Why don't you just sell your Telstra shares, Sydney? Then you won't feel obliged to lie through your teeth by publicly supporting such a morally bankrupt company.

    3. Charles Gregory SJT -- 17/04/08

      Why don't you sell your iiNet, Optus and/or SP Telemedia shares? That way you won't feel obliged to make stupid comments aimed persoanally at anyone who voices a positive Telstra comment.

      Are you that naive to believe shareholders of Telstra's competitors aren't commenting here with their biases? Perhaps you are one?

      Thing is, I graphically recall Mr. Lawrence, when similarly personally attacked over his shares, answering that he 'does not in fact own Telstra shares'. The reason i remember is primarily because of the way he answered - none, zero, zilch. So don't make ridiculous baseless assumptions. By all means disagree but have a small shred of decency!

      Newsflash ,other people are allowed an opinion, even if it's not in line with yours - your majesty!

    4. Who do we believe? James Bell -- 17/04/08

      I agree with SJT. Perhaps there are two Sydney Lawrences; the first who owns 80,000 shares as per the below two articles, and the other who posts on forums around Australia with no commercial interests, but rather the personal ambition & fortitude to protect a national icon... yeah right!

      http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/25/bloomberg/sxtelstra.php

      http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/25/bloomberg/sxtelstra.php

    5. 2nd Article James Bell -- 17/04/08

      http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1725815.htm

    6. Your desperation is so sad! SJT -- 17/04/08

      Thats desperately priceless James - lol!

      You do undertsand that shares can be sold? In fact there are people known as day traders who actually buy and sell shares each day!

      But yet you pull up articles from 2006 and pass them off as current, to attempt to discredit a retiree, whaddaguy!

      FYI - In 2006 I probably had PMN & MAY (who no longer even exist as such) and many other shares, which i no longer have! Has nothing changed in your life since 2006?

      See if you can work it out!

      Ooh, since you wish to mud sling in relation to credibility, you never did explain why you lied (13/9) about never having previously commented on NWAT, when you clearly did so, 3 weeks earlier - curious!

      As such, how can we take anything you say as credible!

    7. Egg on your face? James Bell -- 17/04/08

      Umm when exactly and under what circumstance have I been quoted as saying I've never posted on NWAT? I have posted there and don't deny it, nor would I even have reason to deny it??

      In relation to the articles in question they're only 18 months old. Yes things can change and perhaps they have, but the fact remains that Sydney has or at least HAD what many would consider to be a significant financial holding (over $300,000 worth at one point) in the company.

    8. Egg indeed! SJT -- 17/04/08

      Oh, we have a short memory dont we? This is what happens when you tell so many porkies! So just to jolt the memory!

      NWAT 13/9/2007 1:18pm - JB *I have resisted commenting here (add stupid rhetoric) but can resist no longer*.

      However, *another* JB with uncannily similar views and overtones, had in fact previously commented twice, to NWAT on the 20/8/2007 9:03am & 21/8/2007 5;30pm.

      No it wasn'y you was it? Perhaps it was simply your evil twin!

    9. Oh dear James Bell -- 17/04/08

      SJT, unfortunately you haven't caught me out red handed and you've just misinterpreted the post. Perhaps have a read of some of the earlier posts on that forum and you may understand the meaning behind my comment, but I can assure you it was never a claim I hadn't posted there.

    10. Hmmm SJT -- 18/04/08

      Misinterpreted - lol?

      "Out of context" perhaps? What about "the cheques in the mail", that's a winner too!

    11. Surprised James Bell -- 18/04/08

      I have to hand it to you for finding some old posts of mine on NWAT though. They're quite good at editing and deleting what I write over there, so I'm surprised some posts still remain.

    12. Enough frivolity, my friend! SJT -- 18/04/08

      Thanks again but au contraire`.

      I didn't search for, nor wander across your contradictions, they are so blatantly contradictory (that's where I get contradictory from and believe me there are many others, which I'm sure you look forward to reliving at some stage soon - lol) that they stand out like the proverbial dogs!

      Yes - I'm sure the Editor at NWAT has no other aim in life but to sit around waiting in anticipation and with bated breath, just to tamper with your, and only your, groundbreaking comments, oh special one - lol!

      Perhaps you can simply use the old Telstra spin excuse and claim the NWAT Editor is planting all these contradictory comments, with your name on them? So it wasn't your evil twin, after all?

      Enough frivolity, feel free to have a parting shot at my expense - seriously this time, it's time to move onto the next blog - cya there!

    13. I'll await the day... James Bell -- 18/04/08

      For you to actually find a genuine contradiction or error. Good luck and keep practising.

      Ciao

    14. Sydney Lawrence Charles Gregory -- 17/04/08

      Mr Lawrence doesn't own any Telstra shares? Really?

      http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/shareholder-stories/sydney-lawrence-from-manly-qld

      I am willing to categorically state that I do not own any shares in any telecommunications company.

      It is clear that if you look at the activities of (random examples here) Telstra, iiNet, Internode, Optus and PIPE Networks over the past 10 years, you see four companies trying to do good things for Australian telecommunications, and one company holding them back. (see my post about monopolies below for specific details).

      It is mind boggling to understand how anyone can believe that Telstra does good things for this country, apart from what they are legislated to do (and even then they make it difficult - example, they have to allow access to exchanges to third parties - but they make them wait in a queue, take 3-6 months each, charge them rent, charge them for power, for air-con, make them pay for building changes, for renovations, make them pay $50 a pop to Telstra techs to connect customers to these devices... it just goes on and on.

      Sometimes a company will wait for two years, then be told that the building is full. The company will offer to extend the building.. Telstra says no ...to build a new building on the premises.. Telstra says no ... to build a cabinet on the footpath outside.. Telstra says no...

      And after all this, the third party can still afford to charge $50 for a 10Gb ADSL2+ service - so why does Telstra Bigpond, who doesn't have to pay the middle-man, need to charge $90 for the same thing?

      Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but when your opinion is influenced by personal monetary gain, I think that should be disclosed.

    15. 2006 - lol! SJT -- 17/04/08

      Yes really!

      The link you have supplied to another article involving Mr Lawrence is again, similar to JB's, clearly dated AUGUST 2006!!!!

      Once again, do you think it just may be possible - now I'm really going out there man - that perhaps Mr Lawrence has sold them, sometime since 2006?

      FYI - John Winston Howard was Prime Minister in 2006, he no longer is. Cheers

    16. Where do you get this stuff? Paul Jones -- 16/04/08

      Don't you remember? The last G9 plan was just a sham designed to counter Telstra's propaganda - You even said so on numerous occasions! So why are you now taking it seriously?

    17. The crap you talk Sydney is just amazing. Matthew Wardell -- 16/04/08

      Seriously mate, what are you on?

      You're Delusional - If not a badly paid troll... and I'm a TLS shareholder! Your stupid comments do nothing but reinforce the fact that it's a small vocal minority such as yourself, and the TLS board, who are grinning at the prospect of holding Australia by the balls.

      Telstra controlled FTTN will set competition back to the dark ages in this country. What a JOKE.

    18. Re: the crap SJT -- 17/04/08

      Matthew, as i said to Charles Gregory above.

      Newsflash ,other people are allowed an opinion, even if it's not in line with yours - your majesty!

    19. FUD James McArthur -- 16/04/08

      "Senator Conroy is right to point out that G9 demanded a monopoly"

      The G9 invited Telstra to help them build the network. Telstra declined and went on the offensive - so much so that they announced plans to build their own network regardless.

      Let Telstra build their own network. Conroy fell for Telstra's bluff, pure and simple. And if the Telstra management were pig headed enough to build a parallel network then there would be one group better off - Australian consumers!

      "The deceipt of the competition argument is exposed as a means to enrich Telstra opponents to the detriment of all Australians. "

      9 companies working together to lay out a network under the supervision of the Commonwealth and the ACCC, who all have a history of working together, vs one company who has been fighting the Commonwealth and ACCC every step of the way to maintain a monopoly on services that were built with public money and wastes a substantial amount of *shareholder* money on fruitless and pointless lawsuits. Telstra - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt reign supreme..

  4. conroy Anonymous -- 16/04/08

    As stated, Conroy is in the pocket of Telstra, so we can kiss goodbye a competitive communications environment. An appaling lack of understanding by him of the impact of this on consumers.

  5. Monopolies Charles Gregory -- 16/04/08

    People don't understand that it isn't being a monopoly that is a problem. It is poorly regulated monopolies which are detrimental to the consumer, industry and country as a whole which are the problem.

    If Telstra deployed ADSL2+ in 2003 like Internode; If Telstra made intra-state links more efficient by using peering like PIPE has; if Telstra had 3G data plans at Vodafones prices; If Telstra made VoIP services such as Engin commonplace; If Telstra committed to making Bass Strait backhaul more affordable like Optus (as part of Opel) did; then there wouldn't be a problem with Telstra being a monopoly.

    But they don't. They screw the consumers, they screw their customers (Telstra Wholesales customers), they screw other companies willing to invest here, they abuse the regulator and the government, both of who just **** in their pocket.

    The G9 are made of companies who have been on the receiving end of Telstra's shaft for several years now. They know what it is like. Given the innovation shown by these companies, even with the limited funds that come with being a smaller company, they have shown they are capable of doing the job.

  6. A Nine Company Monopoly? James Bell -- 16/04/08

    I'm not exactly sure how Conroy considers nine (now eight) separate companies jointly owning infrastructure to be a monopoly.

    It is widely accepted that only one network of this size could ever be viable. If another were to appear one of them would eventually fall over. It would be a huge waste of capital & resources and simply end up becoming a significantly larger repeat of the HFC debacle in the 90's.

    1. Does Conroy know what a monopoly is? Charith -- 20/04/08

      Exactly, this guy is calling a 9 company coalition owning the network a monopoly. How does that work!

  7. great conversation Carlos -- 16/04/08

    The government calls the Opel, G9, Primus and Optus bluffs and they are accused of being anti competition.

    A government that balances out a playing field that was skewed in every companies favour except Telstra's is accused of being in their pocket. All they have done is applied a set of rules that all companies need to live with.

    Telstra charging high prices for 3G, for backhaul and peering means they are accused of ripping off the country. If they reduced their prices they would be accused of being anti competitive. If they had different pricing tiers to be cheaper in the city where there is lots of competition and more expensive in the areas where there is little / no competition and where it actually costs much more to deliver an equivalent service they would be accused of robbing the bush and destroying competition.

    If they were bought out by an overseas company and had no Australian shareholders to defend their investment they would be un-Australian.

    They rolled out their own networks with no help from anyone (including the government) and they are expected to give it away for next to nothing. People still accuse them of not being able to do anything without government support and will never back up their claims (a.k.a. the so called expert James Bell).

    Shareholders bought every last bit of the assets in Telstra's hands from the government factoring in inflation dating back to federation and people still like to treat them like they are still government owned.

    The future fund & every major super fund in Australia owns shares in Telstra and people still attack the well over 1 million mums and dads that have invested their own hard earned money into the company accusing them of being money hungry.

    1 in every 500 people in Australia work for Telstra, in other words every person reading this knows or comes across a Telstra employee on a regular basis, I challenge you to go up to the next one you see and say to their face "I hope your company fails and you are out of a job" instead of posting your gutless anonymous posts here.

    If the company was truly that much of a rip off why is their profit reports not reflecting this? The banks do not have a monopoly but they slug us with interest rate increases just because their self inflicted costs increase, oil companies don't keep fuel at 60c just because you think it is what you deserve. Telstra work to improve efficiencies and offer new and better products in an environment where prices are actually declining although many costs are increasing.

    If pricing for long haul carriage is truly that high then I am sure there would be lots of other companies rolling out their own carriage to compete and reap some of those high margins. From what I see there is a glut of competition and services in the major cities and ample capacity in-between the east coast capitals as well as a smaller amount from Perth and Adelaide to the east coast because it is cheaper to deliver and easier to fill.

    Didn’t Optus run a cable across Bass Straight on the condition that the Tasmanian government commit to buying services from it, this may not have been paid for by the government but it took a lot of taxpayers funds in the way of inflated prices.

    As you may have guessed by now, I am on Sydney's side and no matter which way I try and analyse the obviously bias comments from Jo and both sides of the comments here I can't seem to find a legitimate reason to change my opinion.

    Let’s not pretend that Telstra is the devil and the rest are all angels, the simple fact is they are all after a profit and Telstra appears to be the only one that tries to make their profit by investing throughout the country unlike the rest who will only invest in highly profitable areas and reselling services in low density, low profit, high maintenance areas.

    I have left a big target here for all of you to attack; I look forward to reading the nonsensical replies.

    1. All it takes is co-operation.. James McArthur -- 16/04/08

      "They rolled out their own networks with no help from anyone (including the government) and they are expected to give it away for next to nothing."

      The only network they rolled out "by themselves" was the NextG one - and that isn't subject to competition notices and such.

      The ADSL one - Government funded.

      "If they had different pricing tiers to be cheaper in the city where there is lots of competition and more expensive in the areas where there is little / no competition and where it actually costs much more to deliver an equivalent service they would be accused of robbing the bush and destroying competition."

      Telstra agreed to those conditions when they went up for sale - having rural services charged the same as for city services. Now they whinging about it. Talk about trying to change the rules half-way through the game.

      "Didn’t Optus run a cable across Bass Straight on the condition that the Tasmanian government commit to buying services from it, this may not have been paid for by the government but it took a lot of taxpayers funds in the way of inflated prices."

      Yet it was still *cheaper* then the Telstra offering. Are you suggesting that the Tasmanian Government should have stayed with Telstra even though they were *more expensive*?

      "Telstra work to improve efficiencies and offer new and better products in an environment where prices are actually declining although many costs are increasing."

      In IT and Comms, costs don't go up. You always get more "bang for your buck". What Telstra is proposing with their FTTN network is to keep prices - set today - the same for TEN YEARS. Ten years ago I was paying $90/mth for 512/128Kbit ADSL - now I'm paying them same for 8192/384Kbit ADSL.

      "I challenge you to go up to the next one you see and say to their face "I hope your company fails and you are out of a job" instead of posting your gutless anonymous posts here."

      You mean one of those contractors that work for Telstra who are always getting the conditions or hourly rate cut back by the management? Usually they're the ones explaining to me that they're too busy to come and fix problems I log with them because their other business is giving them *better* income then the cruddy Telstra jobs.

      "The future fund & every major super fund in Australia owns shares in Telstra and people still attack the well over 1 million mums and dads that have invested their own hard earned money into the company accusing them of being money hungry."

      I'm not (and I think most people wouldn't) accuse the shareholders of being "money-hungry". The blame for Telstra being a PITA of competition in Australia rests Solely (pun intended!) at the feet of Trujilo and his side kick. Telstra could work cooperatively with the G9 and build a fibre network that is *second to none* - but instead they want to fight and whinge and moan. Imagine what would be possible if the G9 put in $4.7b, Telstra put in $4.7b and the Commonwealth put in $4.7b - thats almost enough for FTTH for *all* Australians.

    2. Email the minister direct David -- 16/04/08

      Why not email your thoughts direct to the Mr Conroy.

      Email: minister@dbcde.gov.au
      Source: http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/contact

      Stand up and be counted.

      I can't believe that Mr Conroy would really think this. The facts are so clear!

    3. I will Anonymous -- 17/04/08

      Thanks for that David. I will certainly be contacting him and thanking him for making the right decisions so far and urging a Telstra built FTTN network.

    4. Even NextG was partially funded James Bell -- 17/04/08

      NextG was built over the CDMA backhaul and utilises existing CDMA basestations. This was funded with government aid, so in reality Telstra have not rolled out a single complete network in this country without some form of government assistance.

    5. Even NextG was partially funded??? Carlos -- 18/04/08

      James, You refer to using CDMA backhaul and existing towers. How do you account for all of the Optus and Vodaphone transmitters that are placed on government property rent free simply because they didn't want to spend a few dollars building their own towers.

      The investment in the CDMA towers was recovered by forcing Telstra to wholesale to their competitors.

      Just because the government subsidised an initial build of about 500 towers in regional areas several years ago does not mean that the in excess of 2000 additional towers built to cater for the increased Next G coverage was paid for by anyone else but Telstra.

      I seem to recall the investment of in excess of $1B last year alone for an award winning IP network that is larger then all other networks in Australia combined. There was no government funding for this and it is widely recognised as the best IP based network in the world.

      If you want to write something to try and make you sound like you know anything you might want to check your facts first.

    6. You might want to check your facts James Bell -- 27/04/08

      The government didn't only subsidize "about 500 towers", they also aided the vast amount of backhaul out to these areas. Without this backhaul NextG simply would not have the same coverage it is advertising without investing significantly more capital than the $1B you've quoted.

      Widely recognised as the best IP network in the world? Yes by Telstra sponsored award nights perhaps.

    7. Accurate facts Anonymous -- 27/04/08

      The awards have been presented by global industry bodies at annual awards night, ZERO Telstra sponsorship!!!

      Check your our facts before embarrassing yourself!

      As to tower numbers, spend five minutes and research your numbers (google is a wonderful resource).

      Backhaul? If you really knew anything about the industry you would know that where there is under 3 carriers providing backhaul in an area the ACCC regulates the charges that are charged meaning anyone that wants to obtain backhaul is able to pay either competitive pricing or ACCC regulated rates.

      James, you are as bias as they come, please divulge to the readers here who you are and where your interests lie.

      FYI as a Telstra employee I worked on the CDMA rollout, the Next G rollout and the Next IP network implementation. I now work for another carrier trying to emulate Telstra's successes. I no longer earn an income from Telstra but I know the networks and am proud of the worl leading steps being taken by Telstra.

    8. Fiction more like it James Bell -- 28/04/08

      Anonymous at least I post my name unlike you, yet you have the audacity to question my agenda.

      As a Telstra employee you should also be able to confirm the fact that every single CDMA tower out there was also used for the NextG rollout which simply ratifies my initial claim (which you appear to by trying to refute) that NextG was in fact built with government aid.

      Whether other companies are able to access Telstra's backhaul or not is not the point here; however if do want to go down this path and you "knew anything about the industry" then you'd accept there's something terribly wrong when Telstra have no wholesale customers actually using it.

      Thanks for the tip on using google. With your assistance I was quickly able to locate one of these NextG awards you speak of (The Australian Telecom Awards 2007) where surprise, surprise Telstra was the major sponsor!

    9. How about these Anonymous -- 28/04/08

      Gartner - Best Australian MPLS network
      Frost and Sullivan - Next Generation Network Service Provider of the Year
      IEEE - Network Excellence
      ACOMMS - Innovation Mobility Award for
      its Next network roll-out
      ... and many more

      Research some of these organisation and you will see the credibility that these awards hold.

      The only one with any Telstra sponsorship was the last one (ACOMMS).

      If James wasn't so narrow minded his search results would have produced more then just one little Australian award when the above comment clearly stated "global industry bodies"

      As to not showing a name, as there is no checks as to the true identity of each person (i.e. registration) why should anyone show their name!

    10. http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/corp/awards.cfm Anonymous -- 28/04/08

      How many of these are Telstra sponsored events?

      About 4 out of 26 from what I could tell.

    11. Awards Davo -- 28/04/08

      Ah, these awards are handed out according to the politics of the day and in no way reflect reality. There was no vote, no investigation nor due dilligence - the awards are pre-determined.

    12. Correction ikabod -- 17/04/08

      With regard to the existing copper network, yes it was funded via taxpayer dollers, however the majority of monies were via Gov't loans that Telstra had to repay with interest so any claim that "we own it" or "it was paid via taxpayers" is mute. In reality the tax payer has made a nice little profit via Telstra over the years.

      Not to mention the "special" dividends numbering in the billions of dollars, previous Fed Gov'ts have taken from Telstras profits over the many years that they were a Gov't entity.

    13. Correction of your correction James Bell -- 17/04/08

      Yes Telstra was sold, dividends were paid etc. etc. but the fact remains the PSTN infrastructure was already in place. As for the CDMA network it wasn't and was built with a grant, so I stand by my claim that there is still not a single end to end network in this country which Telstra has built without some form government assistance.

    14. Clarification of your Correction ikabod -- 17/04/08

      I do not deny that Telstra recieved grants, handouts or whatever we like to call them only that majority of monies via the tax payer from PMG to now were in the form of loans not "freebies"

      As for dividends, I'm not referring to those paid for shareholding but a loose term for the monies that the various Gov'ts have siphoned out of Telstra over the many years from operational profits.

    15. Thanks SJT -- 18/04/08

      Thanks Carlos.

      I thoroughly enjoy reading your analytical and commonsense views.

      Keep 'em coming my friend!

  8. Not good. Anonymous -- 16/04/08

    We need a third party on this one - A central (govt?) authority that does not sell any services other than wholesaling this piece of infrastructure. It can then contract somebody to roll out the network.

    Yeah, I'm dreaming. It's a much more expensive option.

  9. CAUTION NEEDED. Sydney Lawrence -- 17/04/08

    I realize the brain ( i am being kind here) snap and panic that the anti-Telstra mob are suffering but be very cautious. Remember this serious and sensible advice before you proceed with your attack on Senator Conroy. That advice is "when you poke a bear in the eye with a stick, just make sure the stick is longer than the bears arm".

    1. Wondering Please -- 17/04/08

      Share comment please?

      Do you currently or do you not have shares in Telstra?

  10. "Gravy Train" ride over Jim Murphy -- 17/04/08

    Foreign owned Telco's have been on a "Gravy Train" ride for years. Rarely have they invested with their own "Capital" without going cap in hand to the ACCC or the government. Senator Conroy, you might aswell through in the Australian Coat of Arms if you continue down this path. Unlike the Anti-Telstra brigade the Good minister knows that governments are elected to make the correct decisions inthe nations interests and not pamper to the interests of the G9 (Optus) . He was wise enogh to see through the farce of the OPEL saga. Well done!!!

    1. The Gravy Train Mr_Zero -- 17/04/08

      Jim, the only company on a "gravy train" is the one with the vested network from the public. Telstra might complain long and loud about the regulated price of services they sell to their wholesale customers but Telstra has been able to sell services based on these at lower than wholesale price, so they can't be too badly off.
      But regardless, do you honestly think politicians, of whichever colour, are there to "make the correct decisions"? What planet do you live on. The one and only role of politicians is to implement their policies in a politically expedient manner in order to regain their seat at the next election. There are numerous examples of where this clearly does not result in a "correct" decision. Assuming, of course, you could reach a concensus on what the "correct" decision is anyway. Just read the comments here to see there is much divergence on what the correct decision should be.

  11. Some input Brock Stevens -- 17/04/08

    I have many shares in Telstra but believe that the only reason the netwrok should be maintianed by one company is for reliability reasons. Can you imagine if there are constant tinkerings by different companies. AH chaos. Let one company control it, the only company with enough resources at the moment is Telstra.

    "9 companies working together to lay out a network under the supervision of the Commonwealth and the ACCC, who all have a history of working together, vs one company who has been fighting the Commonwealth and ACCC every step of the way to maintain a monopoly on services that were built with public money and wastes a substantial amount of *shareholder* money on fruitless and pointless lawsuits"

    As much as I believe in one company controlling the maintenance of the network if the 8 companies could work together properly I would then change my opinion but thats yet to be seen. Maybe its a case of better the devil you know than the one you dont

    I do however like the fact that Sydney commented but declined to comment on the above details of his share holding interests :)

    1. See above ikabod -- 17/04/08

      The pulic money arguement does not stand up for reasons stated in above post. Do your research & you will see that it is so.

    2. Public money?? Brock -- 17/04/08

      Where did I mention money mate. Sure I used the quote mainly due to its mention of companies and the layout of a network.

      I am concerned re maintance and didnt mention anything about public money in my comments.

      Maybe if you use you your eyes to read you would notice that...

    3. Your words? ikabod -- 17/04/08

      You wrote "a monopoly on services that were built with public money".

      It may not have been the topic of your post but you referred to an common false claim.

      Maybe if you could recall your thoughts when writing your post you would remember that...Mate!

    4. . Brock -- 17/04/08

      How do you know my thoughts? With a name like ikabod I highly doubt you are God or Allah.

      Maybe i made a stupid mistake and didnt delete the bottom of the quote!?

      I am human after all. I already typed my reply that that was not the intention of my statement.

      Sorry I do not meet your standards... HAHA

    5. Steady on Brock ikabod -- 17/04/08

      "I already typed my reply that that was not the intention of my statement."

      Yes you did & I was not to know that with my original reply, however you finished with an unnecessary sarcastic response. So I replied in kind & you revert to a personal attacks... nice.

      I neither mentioned nor intimated that you fall short of an acceptable standard :)

    6. He didnt say anything re money Anonymous -- 17/04/08

      No money mentioned ikabod.

      No need to be so harsh.

    7. Fair enough ikabod -- 17/04/08

      Just replying in kind :)

  12. Censorship not on Brock. Sydney Lawrence -- 17/04/08

    Brock thank you for your interest in my financial position, what interest it would be to anyone but myself is a puzzle to me. FRI I have no shares in Telstra as in zero or nil or zilch. Do you infer that the one million six hundred thousand Australians who do own Telstra shares should refrain from expressing an opinion on the subject?

    1. Thank you Sydney Brock -- 17/04/08

      *Quote*"Do you infer that the one million six hundred thousand Australians who do own Telstra shares should refrain from expressing an opinion on the subject?"

      Not at all Sydney, just wanted some confirmation to clear the air from the man himself as above they all seem to be arguing about your position.

      Doesnt it make you feel loved?

    2. Doesn't mean he isn't on TLS's payroll Anonymous -- 17/04/08

      Given his constant trolling and posting he makes at NWAT. He'd have to be.

      That or the fact he's a sad old man who's pissing away his last years fighting for ..... Telstra ROFL.

    3. Live and let live. Sydney Lawrence -- 18/04/08

      Anon it is not a fact that I am " a sad old man who's pissing away his last years" etc. My life is quite full and exciting. In fact I have just returned from a visit to the Middle East and my wife and I are booked on the Queen Mary 2 to circumnavigate South America at Christmas.

      I accept that probably compared to your "life in the fast lane" my existence would be mundane but I suppose we all can't live the life of Prince Abdul Aziz. Please do not let the fact that the Rudd Government no longer does your bidding as Howard did, and please do not let this fact make you a bitter, twisted person. Also, it may be a help to bring you into reality if you were to identify yourself rather than hide behind the Anon shadow. Wish you well.

    4. share ownership Charles Gregory -- 17/04/08

      "what interest it would be to anyone but myself is a puzzle to me. "

      Really?

      You don't think it is relevant at all?

      So when a company acts in a way which is:
      * Detrimental to end-users
      * Detrimental to its wholesale customers
      * Detrimental to the industry as a whole
      * Detrimental to the nation as a whole
      * Beneficial to shareholders
      .. and a person vocally, publicly talks up that company's actions ... you don't think whether they are a shareholder is relevant?

  13. Let's build the network first Anonymous -- 17/04/08

    Monopolies... competition... blah.. blah.. blah..
    Geez! Lets build an FTTP infrastructure first!

  14. CONroy Lord Watchdog -- 18/04/08

    "G9 wants to be a FTTN monopoly: Conroy"

    Helstra wants to be a FTTN monopoly: Rest of Australia.

    1. Lord Lapdog! Anonymous -- 18/04/08

      Did a survey did you? I don't seem to recall it, as I am part of the rest of Australia. Funny how some claim to speak for "us all" when really they are speaking from their backsides.

    2. Once again Anonymous -- 18/04/08

      The wonderful self declared lord of nothing thinks changing one letter in a name and typing a stupid comment makes him something.

      Go back to running your outdated IRC and count your clients as they leave to more advanced technologies.

    3. It's all a matter of economics boys... Lord Watchdog -- 23/04/08

      Try selling some of your $8.00 T2 shares for $8.00. Actually, try getting $5.00 for them. :-p

      It's funny how the ones that worship Telstra are amongst the ones that have lost money by investing in them. If I'd lost thousands of dollars I would be annoyed, very annoyed, rather than getting on my knees and kissing Sol's shoes.

      As for IRC, it is flourishing and thankyou for taking the time to enquire. You'll see why in the coming weeks by keeping an eye on my website.

      ~I came, I conquered, I took the points.

    4. FYI Anonymous -- 23/04/08

      I run a professional share trading, monitoring and tracking application. If I sold all of my shares today I would see a net average return of 12.6% based on funds invested v's income received and the current price. This year I am sitting on a 9.0% increase.

      Not as good as David Jones which has returned 300% in 5 years or Aristocrat which returned 2000% from 2003 to late 2007 but still respectable.

      Nice to win the battle, war may be mine, Thanks for the points

    5. What an entrepreneur you are! Lord Watchdog -- 24/04/08

      "I run a professional share trading, monitoring and tracking application. If I sold all of my shares today I would see a net average return of 12.6% based on funds invested v's income received and the current price. This year I am sitting on a 9.0% increase."

      That's nice. I make a profit out of my share trading too but that has nothing to do with what I said anymore than your little rant did. I spoke specifically about what T2 shares were valued at when they reached their peak against what they can be bought and sold for now. $8 then and less than $5 now doesn't equate to a 9% return, no matter what way you look at it and no matter how much you try to distort what I said to make yourself look like Rene Rivkin.

    6. Fact Anonymous -- 24/04/08

      About 20% of my holding is T2 which is part of the above calcula