Hi Peter GM,

Network efficiency is measured/ rated globally on:

- Physical performance and speed.
Debatable given than each interconnection-hub slows down the network by a number of milliseconds especially for VOIP (voice over internet). I can’t begin to think of the optimisation process to get to a commercially acceptable performance.

- Service levels (down-time, fail over, redundancy, etc..)
What type of service level guarantee can you have with 9 or 11 providers? Who will own it and how will you deliver it? Maximum sustainable SLAs involve 2-3 parties.
- Supportability: same as the above. How do you streamline support when 11 entities (instead of one) have access to the exchange? What type of processes involved after each alteration and what are the costs associated and who will pay for them.

Hybrid providers as proposed means that the customer will have the following:
- Different entities to deal with (including it will eventually create an onsite conflict resolution when it occurs) which in turns add cost and time to the end consumer.
- My personal experience in the ICT to get a single telco to formulate a strategy, agree on deliverables, rollout out plans and roadmap is a nightmare. Can you imagine having to liaise and execute a common framework across 9 or 11 companies?

One correction: You quoted: Why would a second network connected to the Internet suddenly develop "multiple points of failure"

Its not a second network, its living on the Telstra infrastructure and exchanges, just mutilating the last mile so Telstra funds the ditches and trenches costly work from the Taxpayers money while the G9 get the cream.

All what the G9 (or 11) will do is:
- Risk Australia chances of having a global high-speed network (at best will be a sub standard)
- Add risk to getting to the FTTN on time (given the multiple strategies above).
- Increase the snowball effect on jobs and business services offshoring (each of the G9 members have an offshore BPO operation).

Here is a good question: why AT&T or BT is not on the G9?

Fellow_Human:

Did you read this bit?

"The arrangements will establish the separation of the ownership and operation of the FTTN Network...... Both access seekers and institutional investors would have an opportunity to invest in FANOC, but importantly no single carrier will be allowed to control it."
"As the network owner, FANOC would not provide retail telecommunications services. Its objective would be to deliver high quality and cost effective wholesale services to access seekers who will then compete in downstream markets."
<snip>
"No individual carrier will control SpeedReach and all access seekers will be entitled to membership of SpeedReach, including Telstra."

"SpeedReach will have both access seeker appointed and independent directors and managers tasked with optimising the use of the FTTN Network."

You cannot expect anything other than trouble with SLAs etc when the main network is provided by a company which is also a major (the major?) offerer of retail services on that network in competition with purchasers of the bandwidth.

If the G9 proposal does nothing else, it highlights the stupidity of the original decision to leave Telstra with both a network and a retail business on that network in competition with others trying to share the same network... something that would never be allowed in the country of origin of some of the key Telstra executives who want "free enterprise" operation free from regulation. (Ma Bell ?)

"Broadband" as we now know it is apparently already considered to be out of date. Why would Rudd or Telstra or anyone else want to invest in it? Perhaps the first thing our boffins need to do is their homework?

Telstra only interest is to hold a monopoly. That is to charge other providers a fee whereby they could not compete with Telstra in the market place that counts, Families. Currently Telstra is perphaps one of the most expensive providers of Broadband to Families. Currently Telstra can't even provide a decent service to those who live in the bush. Down worry Telstra you are not totally to blame for this mess, the Government had a very big part to play they sold the infrastructure to you. By the way we all know that telephony (landline) is on the way out. Sowly but surely to be replaced by Mobile Phones and by Internet Phone Servives.

Telstra if you were prepared to work with the G9 Group to develop an FTTN system combine with VDSL (Up to 52Mbps/16Mbps) everyone would be a winner.

Forget about the ACCC, the Australian people do not want an American type system where by the Providers made great big profits at the expense of the Australian Family.

As I used to work in the telecommunications industry, I know that international data and telephone charges make opium dealing look honest. The fact that it costs me more to ring from Sydney to Windsor, NSW than Edinburgh, Scotland simply makes it look ridiculous.

FTTN is obsolescent. Any solution, which would take some years to implement, should use FTTH (fibre to the home), so that when it is built it is reasonably up to date.

Another thing that needs to be fixed is to eliminate the extortionate rate Telstra and Telecom New Zealand charge for carrying data to Australia. At the moment this must be one of the most profitable duopolies in the world. The way to fix it is to have an independent consortium lay an optic fibre cable to Guam, which is a natural cable crossroads from East Asia to the US, and compete with Telstra using the very cheap rates from Guam to the US.

Anybody who comes up with the tosh that as a large sparsely populated country Australia should expect to pay a lot more for communications should look at Canada, which is larger, sparser, and has reasonably priced comms, mainly because no-one has a monopoly.

Spending billions of tax dollars to obtain a short-term fix is no solution. Simply copying what has been done for years overseas just condemns us to remain second-rate.

Peter GM,

Your quotes below are 'statements':

‘"SpeedReach will have both access seeker appointed and independent directors and managers tasked with optimising the use of the FTTN Network."
"The arrangements will establish the separation of the ownership and operation of the FTTN Network”
"Both access seekers and institutional investors would have an opportunity to invest in FANOC, but importantly no single carrier will be allowed to control it."

My comment is: the devil is in the detail. My practical work experience with fluffy PowerPoint and promises like ‘optimising the FTTN’, reliable SLA sent me on wild goose chasing for months if not years. Time will tell.

The key issue we should not ignore is that the ACCC is dictating the 3 elements of 'fake free market:

a) Get Telstra to open up the last mile to competitors.
b) Get Telstra to fix the access costs (or subsidise) the competitors.
c) Ban Telstra from benefiting from the same wholesale costs it provides to its competitors. This in turn will guarantee that Telstra services will always be too expensive and hence will have to lose business to its competitors. Creating a fake free market where the tax dollar will always fund the savvy investor.