The release of National Broadband Network (NBN) regulatory submissions has lifted the veil on the competitors to reveal a real agenda of Telstra slashing, not nation-building.

Telstra slashers are using the NBN to advance a tired, anti-Telstra campaign instead of advancing regulatory reform that will promote investment, innovation, consumer choice and the digital economy, Telstra Group Managing Director for Public Policy and Communications, Dr Phil Burgess, said today.

Dr Burgess said many of the submissions showed key players have no interest in building out high-speed broadband, providing better services for consumers or real competition. This is demonstrated by the fact that they all seek a Government-mandated separation of Telstra that would weaken and undermine Australia’s only integrated, nation-wide communications network just so the slashers can gain an advantage in specific markets where they compete.

"Many of these regulatory submissions have exposed the real agendas of Telstra’s competitors and would-be competitors," Dr Burgess said.

"They show no interest in the best outcomes for all of Australia and building a 21st century, open access network. Instead, they are abusing the NBN as a self-serving means to advantage themselves by using the Government to tear Telstra apart.

"If they get their way, Telstra will be broken up into about a dozen separate companies. It's like watching a B-grade slasher movie but, in this film, the knives are out for millions of Telstra customers and shareholders.

"In a case of clear vested interest, they actually want to use separation as a means to reduce the competition they face in their particular markets.

"These NBN regulatory submissions would be a joke if broadbanding Australia weren’t so important for the nation’s future.

"Of course Vodafone, one of the world's largest corporations and the world’s third largest telco operator, wants to use government to cripple Telstra. Why wouldn't they? It sure beats competing for customers in the marketplace, where they are not winning.

“Of course, Singtel Optus, another very large international telco, also wants to cripple Telstra. This is a company that was to receive nearly $1.0 billion of taxpayer’s money if they could come up with a plan for building a network to regional and rural Australia. After eight months, they could not produce a plan and the Government removed their access to the public treasury. They are back at the trough again.

"In an example of breathtaking hypocrisy, it is also interesting to note that Singtel is arguing vehemently for separation of Telstra in Australia but also arguing vehemently against separation of itself in its home country of Singapore. If separation is such a great idea in their offshore market of Australia, why is it such a bad idea in their home market of Singapore?

"None of the submissions agree on how or where separation should occur, but the submissions make clear that no area of Telstra would be left unscathed if our competitors get their way.

"Mobiles operators want to see Telstra's mobiles business broken up; ISPs want BigPond broken up; content providers want BigPond and FOXTEL broken up; telcos want to put an axe to the lot; and Acacia wants to shield its NBN from all competition, even from wireless. Google, of course, wants everything for free."

Dr Burgess said the other telling fact was that while the slashers all call for some form of separation, none of them offer a shred of evidence on how separation will improve investment, innovation or service to customers. Nor do the slashers provide any clear evidence of how Telstra is abusing its market position or acting inappropriately. They simply assert that separation is necessary because they want it.

"No one in their right mind would go down the separation path, which lies somewhere between crazy and stupid," Dr Burgess said.

"It doesn't make any sense and it hasn't worked anywhere in the world. In reality the opposite is true - separation has done nothing but grind investment and innovation to a halt. This view is supported by experts around the world. Wherever separation has been toyed with, it has increased costs, reduced efficiencies and brought investment in high-speed broadband infrastructure to a virtual standstill – not the least in the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand.

"Given the members of G9 (Terria) can't even agree on some of the most fundamental building blocks of the NBN, they should be more worried about their own separation. We have said repeatedly that consortiums seldom work. G9 which is now G8 or G7 and recently rebadged itself as Terria is Exhibit A and the Optus/Opel consortium that lost nearly a billion dollars of government money because it couldn’t produce a wireless infrastructure plan is Exhibit B.

"Unfortunately, this exercise has simply provided a forum for all of Telstra's competitors to present the Government with a wish-list to win through a political process what they cannot win in the marketplace – a familiar story.

"The most likely outcome in all the gaming that is now going on is even more delay in building the NBN – or, even worse, that the NBN may never be built at all."

Examples from the submissions:

Acacia wants to ban all broadband competition including wireless networks:

"... at present, (there) is nothing to prevent any licensed carrier from subsequently rolling-out its own broadband infrastructure in detriment to the NBN...an NBN provider would rightly be concerned about certain other types of conduct which could thwart the commercial viability of the NBN, such as...investment which attacks or diminishes the value or likely take-up of the NBN, including investments in non-NBN technologies (such as HFC) and predatory use of existing non-NBN assets (such as DSLAMs or wireless)."

"... the Government could amend the Telecommunications Act to specifically prohibit all carriers17 (except the NBN provider) from rolling-out certain infrastructure... the licence condition(s) should remain in place for a sufficient period to enable the NBN provider to make a reasonable economic return on its investment."

Vodafone tried to kill off competition in mobiles:

"There is a clear and growing trend globally that mobile communications are replacing fixed line communications. Therefore the NBN will directly affect competition in the supply of mobile communications services, whether fixed or mobile. It is important to understand that this issue is not about fixed line communications: it is about all forms of Telecommunications."

Google, not even an access seeker, just wants free access to bandwidth from a network that will cost billions of dollars to build although they do acknowledge the need to consider cost implications:

"Google believes that some form of strong and independently enforced functional separation, or structural separation, is necessary in order to achieve this key objective.”

SingTel Optus shows it is not interested in building an NBN, just obstructing build and decimating a potential builder via separation:

"The focus of this submission is deliberately directed at the reforms that would need to be made to the regulatory framework should Telstra be chosen to construct and operate the NBN… It reflects our overriding concern that the new regulatory regime must be robust enough to withstand the serious threat to competition posed by an NBN operator which is also the dominant provider of retail voice and broadband services to consumers."

Though it made quite the opposite argument in Singapore where it is serious about building a network.