nowwearetalking is about telecommunications and you. It's where you can become involved, have your say, and Telstra listens - on issues affecting all Australians and the telecommunications industry. nowwearetalking is managed by Telstra. Find out more about this site.

Customise Page

Customise topic view

Please select items below for your custom page.

Re-organising your page

Log in here

Forgotten your password?Use ssl security

Register now

Use ssl security

Customise topic view

Customising your topic view will tailor your user experience by only displaying content which is relevant to the topic/s you have selected.

This setting will apply site-wide and will remain applied until you wish to change it.

Customise your modules

Customise your modules allows you to add or remove panels of content which appear on the homepage.

These can be added to or removed from the homepage at any time.

Re-organising your page

Calls for separation separated from reality



Topic: Broadband , Telstra

Tags:    broadband  communications-day  fttn  national-broadband-network  news  structural-separation  telstra  tony-warren


Mechanical hand holding the world

Telstra’s Executive Director for Regulatory Affairs, Dr Tony Warren, today said the growing consensus of regulators and experts around the world that separation doesn’t work demonstrated the need for the regulatory debate in Australia to be refocussed.

Dr Warren said one of the world's leading telecommunications policy experts, Mr Kip Meek, made clear overnight that separation is an extreme regulatory response that has no place in the current National Broadband Network (NBN) process.

Mr Meek, head of the UK Broadband Stakeholders Group and previously the OFCOM Commissioner responsible for the separation of BT, told an International Telecommunication Union conference in Bangkok yesterday that the current focus on separation in Australia is a distraction and that the real issue was ensuring equivalent access to the network.

In an article in Communications Day, Mr Meek is quoted as saying:

“If the exam question is, ‘in the context of next generation broadband network being deployed by Telstra, what do you need to do to preserve competition?’, then I wouldn’t start from … a greater degree of separation. Where I’d start from is, how is it we can ensure equivalence in the post NBN environment? That was actually what was envisaged in the tender documentation, I think that’s the place conceptually to start from. Government regulators really need to look at it from that perspective.”

On the impact of separation on investment, Mr Meek said:

“If you have completely structurally separated business then that issue of investment coordination, particularly when it comes to new, very risky markets, is a big issue. The further you go down towards structural separation, the more that argument carries weight.”

Dr Warren agreed, stating calls for separation were nothing but a provocation and a distraction as those making them knew that Telstra would not bid if separation was a condition of the network.

“While we mess around talking about separation our eyes are off the main game: getting a regulatory solution that will encourage the investment needed to get the NBN built,” Dr Warren said.

“One international expert after another has looked at the Australian debate and come to the same conclusion: stop looking backwards to yesterday’s tools for yesterday's problems and start asking how you are going to ensure competition while bringing on new investment.

“It is clear that we need a new framework that protects competition through an open access regime policed by the ACCC but that also underpins the regulatory certainty and scope for competitive returns that investors need.

“Telstra is committed to open access. Telstra is committed to getting the NBN built if the regulatory settings are right. The people that instead want to talk about separation are simply seeking to delay the shift to high-speed broadband networks as it suits their own narrow commercial objectives,” Dr Warren said.

Comments

Vasso Massonic
304 comments

6 September 2008
5:33pm

Comment Permalink

It seems the Minister has learnt nothing from his predecessor. If the report in Friday's edition of The Sydney Morning Herald (http://business.smh.com.au/business/telstra-flags-risk-of-split-under-plans-for-broadband-network-20080904-49wk.html) is fair dinkum, it's not a matter of ...'Calls for separation' its more like a foregone conclusion and a most unethical way to conduct a multi billion dollars tendering process ......"The minister has raised the prospect of stronger separation of the broadband network from retail divisions when he considers the tenders early next year"


Jock H M
8 comments

8 September 2008
12:29pm

Comment Permalink

Why structural separation? It's very simple and a look at recent history show exactly why we should ensure the NBN owner has no retail interests. Since the introduction of 1.5Mb ADSL where has technical and product innovation (in the ISP segment) come from? Everyone EXCEPT Telstra; Internode and iiNet have been the primary leaders. Let's back up, why 1.5Mb in the first place? Because Telstra wanted to service guarantee? But they'd been selling 56K dial up for the previous 5 years with a 2.4K service guarantee on it but a typical user would get 40K. So the market was trained to this concept of a lower guaranteed speed and a much higher potential, again, why limit to 1.5Mb? Very simple, Telstra had a massive cash cow in the form of ISDN and Frame Relay services; they didn't have to wholesale them to anyone else and were making big margins. ADSL was a threat to these services in that they matched the speed without Telstra being able to charge the margins they wanted to, as a result the best defense of their ISDN and FR services was to restrict the speed. As a result, the market learnt that ADSL meant a committed rate service where as it's much closer to dial up (the other DSLAM providers had to retrain the market when they release 8Mb, 12Mb, 24Mb services). So, once they released 1.5Mb what happened? Very little. Until iiNet, Internode and a couple smaller providers cam along there was no innovation. Once they hit the market, 8Mb, then they both ignored regulations and released 12Mb (seriously who cared, 12Mb was spectrally the same), Internode even ignored regulations for the release of 24Mb. Where was Telstra on all this? 1.5Mb. Their response? The public doesn't want 24Mb. Eventually they unrestricted their lines to 8Mb, and only recently gone to 24Mb BUT.... ONLY where the other ISPs with 24Mb are killing them in the market. History shows Telstra will not innovate unless they are forced to; does the government really want to mandate every 5 years, "You must now upgrade to VDSL!", "Now, VDSL2", etc, etc. With regards to their retail arm, look over the ACCC judgements, Telstra have repeatedly been caught in anti-competitive behavior, at one point charging more at wholesale rates than their retail arm. Having known a number of Telstra wholesale reps, they are politically separated, their job is to wholesale the best product they can, and they are repeatedly embarrassed by the retail arm offering a better package than they can. How can we, with a clear conscious, hand Telstra a monopoly hold over the CAN, the NBN and still have a retail arm?


Vasso Massonic
304 comments

9 September 2008
2:03pm

Comment Permalink

Jock, I agree with your first sentence... "Why structural separation?" The remainder, is fairy tale stuff. Telstra shareholder paid 60 billion dollars for the, near obsolete, voice copper network. We have moved on from horse & buggy telephony and now need to renovate the network to modern day telecommunications at a cost, of between 10 & 30 billion dollars. So, where on earth would you find a purely 'wholesale' company able to spend between 60 and 90 billion dollars to provide high speed broadband to cherry picking providers at a regulated pricing structure. Importantly, who caters for the unfortunate souls living outside the cherry picking footprint?. You allude that Telstra is a "massive cash cow" but if you dig deeper into your case study of the "recent history" you will quickly learn that for the 2 million mums and dads Telstra investors things have not been very rosy, with their cumulative investment being under water for the best part of a decade. Telstra, until recently, have had to borrow funds to pay dividends to offset the erosion of their capital. As regards to your ludicrous... "History shows Telstra will not innovate unless they are forced to;" I suppose you believe father Christmas built you the space age Next G mobile network. I don't know what's your agenda, but pull the other one mate.


Chris Atkins
44 comments

22 October 2008
12:51am

Comment Permalink

It is nice to see Telstra (REMOVED)about what BT have said.. Maybe fully quote what has been said by Mr Livin gstone has said..

I am guessing this will be poohooed due to the fact it is from the Tell The Truth Telstra site, but I have more faith in that than NWAT.

LINK - (www.tellthetruthtelstra.com.au)


Add a comment

 

You need to log in to post a comment