@Shadow Minister: The so called anti cherry picking legislation

For gods sake, there is no new anti cherry picking legislation! At least I haven't seen it, and you haven't shown the existence of any. This means the government hasn't introduced any new legislation to ban competition in order to create the NBN. Get this idea out of your head! What they have done is enter into business agreements with Telstra and Optus.

If you have some spare hours annex 1 of the NBN proposal Telstra is putting to its shareholders makes interesting reading:

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20110901/pdf/420t3s6kwntyq1.pdf

Telstra faces a choice: either go along with the NBN agreement, or compete head to head with it. They are free to do either of course which is why it being put to a shareholders vote. This should make it clear to you there is NO legalisation banning competition. In the opinion of the authors of annex 1, if they try to compete with the NBN they loose to the value of $4.7 Billion (Annex 1, page 9).

@Shadow Minister: No advertising means no promotions, web information, sales people etc. While theoretically possible to sell wireless internet as an alternative, it is impractical.

You seem to be implying that Telstra and Optus can not advertise wireless data. On the contrary, they can advertise their wireless data as much as they like, provided they avoid saying it is a "fixed line alternative".

You are trying to build this up into something it's not. A clever marketing agency will have no trouble working around this, which is probably why Telstra says this restrictions impose "a very limited constraint on its operations". It's so weak I don't know why they bothered. I guess it's just making doubly sure Telstra won't roll out fixed wireless.

And it you still harbour doubts about the growth of fixed broadband, take a gander figure 8 on page 13 of that shareholder proposal.

Rstuart,

Yes there is new legislation to ban competing networks. As per my previous link.

"Speaking at the CommsDay Summit in Sydney yesterday, AAPT chief executive Paul Broad warned that the uniform price directive, anti-cherry picking provisions -- which prevent companies from building competing networks to NBN Co -- and the prohibition on volume discounts would stifle competition and erode retail margins."

@Shadow Minister: Paul Broad warned that the uniform price directive, anti-cherry picking provisions -- which prevent companies from building competing networks to NBN Co

He lies. The anti cherry picking provisions don't ban people form rolling out their own fibre networks. Quoting from http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/380119/concerns_over_nbn_anti-cherry-picking_laws_overstated_senate_committee/

"the requirements do not prevent other companies from rolling out fibre networks ... The provisions do not compel ISPs to match NBN Co’s operations, terms and conditions but they do require carriers to operate within a comparable regulatory framework"

In other words this is about ensuring the Universal Service Obligation isn't undermined. And again: the USO comes from your side of politics. It is designed to ensure people in the country have equal access to telephone services. It is still coalition policy and isn't likely to change any time soon. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the NBN, and if the coalition ditches the NBN the things in it you are railing against will still be with us.

Can you give this "the government has banned competition to make the NBN possible" line up Shadow? I do read some right leaning web sites, and I know it is a popular meme. It also happens to be rubbish.

You are letting yourself be snowed by billy tea wantabe's trying to whip up some hysteria. You first tried to say the government legislated to force Telstra and Optus to sell out to the NBN. They didn't - it was a commercial transaction. You have said Telstra has been banned from competing with fixed line using its mobile wireless network. It isn't. You are now saying new legislation bands building competing networks. It's doesn't. Please give it a break. Accept the fact that when one of these right wing sites makes claims like this, they are probably lying. Do some basic fact checking before repeating it here.

Rstuart,

http://www.zdnet.com.au/nbn-amendments-clarify-cherry-picking-339311912.htm

Those providers who do build networks after the 1 January 2011 data, and are hence not exempt, will have to provide open wholesale access to their networks. Conroy said the amendments would ensure equal broadband access across the country.

This essentially means they have to offer the same access prices to everyone. Which means if they don't build an entire network, they then have to buy the access from "others" which will cost them much more.

The effect is the same. The Universal Service Obligation was applied to Telstra, and was government subsidized. There was no ban on others providing services, such as Optus has.

As for the "commercial" contract, paying others not to compete is normally illegal, and is presently running foul of the ACCC.

@Shadow Minister: This essentially means they have to offer the same access prices to everyone.

Thanks for the link - it has a much better description than mine. It seems like they are forcing the industry to breakup into wholesale and retail divisions. I imagine its much the same as electricity now, with it's generation, poles and wires, and retail sections.

Do you have a problem with it? It looks pretty good to me.

@Shadow Minister: Which means if they don't build an entire network, they then have to buy the access from "others" which will cost them much more.

Sorry, I don't understand this. Why do they have to buy access from anybody? They connect a whole pile of premises to a building, put a "local connections 4sale" sign outside, and they are in the same business the NBN is.

Unless that link left something unstated these "anti-cherry picking" laws aren't anti cherry picking at all. Anyone is free do this in the most densely populated areas with the highest returns and charge what they please.

I would have thought this exactly what you wanted Shadow. There is no ban on competition. Everyone is free to enter the wholesale local loop market, under the same rules. Want to try rolling out fixed wireless to compete with the NBN? Then go for it.

So, for example we have from http://www.zdnet.com.au/new-nbn-bills-impose-developer-penalties-339311838.htm

"Developers are free to use other telecommunications providers, as NBN Co will remain the 'fibre provider of last resort'."

In other words, if you are a developer, you can choose anybody to service your new green-field development under the new rules. Under the old rules Telstra was required to pay installation in green fields, which sounds wonderful until you realise it guaranteed Telstra's vice like grip on the monopoly, because retailers had to rent the cooper off them.

@Shadow Minster: As for the "commercial" contract, paying others not to compete is normally illegal, and is presently running foul of the ACCC.

You could view it like that. You could also view it as the NBN buying Optus's and Telstra's fixed line business - which is legal. If you buy a business, having a clause preventing the seller from competing in the same area is normal - I've been subject to such clauses.

And no, it's not running foul of the ACCC. If you have only read the right wing commentary on the ACCC's concerns I'll forgive you for thinking they were hugely concerned by the "wireless non-compete", as that is where most of the column inches went. It was a beat up of course as there is no wireless non-compete, they only mentioned it in passing. In fact the entire NBN side was only mentioned in passing. If you read the ACCC's concerns they are mostly about Telstra being freed from it's regulatory yokes while it still has 10 years to run on its copper monopoly. Given Telstra's history, I'd be concerned too.

As an illustration of just how ferocious Telstra is, look at this comment from the US music studios http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/wikileaks-mpaa-behind-aussie-isp-lawsuit-but-dont-tell-anybody.ars :

In the course of their discussion, it appears that McCallum asked Ellis a pointed question. Why go after Australia's number three ISP, rather than its number one broadband provider, BigPond, owned by Telstra? "It was clear Ellis did not want to begin by tangling with Telstra," the message explained, "a company with the financial resources and demonstrated willingness to fight hard and dirty, in court and out."

Seeing a US lobby group cowering like that almost you feel proud to be an Ozzie, doesn't it?

The land line agreement only lasts for 10 years. I wonder if Telstra is free to re-activate the copper after that? I bet they are. Which means they are free to put in FTTN, and undercut the NBN, if there is a dollar in it.