Continued from yesterday, moving through to Page 9 of the mammoth PDF that is Telstra’s trash about why the ACCC shouldn’t accept the G9 proposal, we see more invalid rubbish from the rubbish that wrote it, Telstra.
1. It does not promote effecient competition.
– Rubbish. The G9 model is all about competition. Everyone buys access on equal terms on an equal playing field. Though, we already know Telstra can’t stand it when they have an equal competitior. Just look at the money they are wasting on the Coonan – OPEL legal action as proof of this.
Telstra’s claim: RUBBISH.
2. It seeks to give G9 a protected monopoly, and blocking Telstra from building its own.
– Ask yourself, if you were G9 and you saw Telstra’s FTTN there, and know from previous competition notices, legal action, fines and compensation cases that building an FTTN will only see Telstra fight back to destroy you as a competitor altogether, and therefore waste your investment dollar before you take any real advantage of it, would you be still investing beside Telstra? no.
The same is true in reverse. If the G9 invest, Telstra will overbuild. They did this with the HFC network instead of investing in areas where no HFC existed, thereby stopping Optus making a good return on its own HFC investment.
– Telstra are only in the business of protecting its telecommunications monopoly, they aren’t investing unless competitors do (or threaten to do), and they aren’t in the business of enjoying friendly price competition, they would much rather suck consumers dry.
– We don’t need duplication (hey, Telstra’s against duplication, but only when it builds, isn’t that right Telstra?) of a FTTN network. That would be wasteful (read the Expert Taskforce guidelines too).
Telstra’s claim: INVALID.
3. It eliminates current retail and wholesale services.
– Rubbish. They plan to use Remote Switching technologies to enable lines to be switched between exchange and node serviced.
Telstra’s claim: INVALID.
4. It imposes inefficiently high costs.
– Hardly. Communication between the layers would be much more simpler than it is to get Telstra to do something today. I think we waited something like 2 weeks nearly to get a resolution to a phone issue while being a Telstra supplied customer. Strangely, competitors have faster turnarounds (where incompetence is not involved).
Telstra’s claim: INVALID.
5. As most of the industry will participate at some level in the G9 structure, it not only invites collusive behaviour but requires it for the model to work.
– Umm, that’s HIGHLY funny. What do we have now? Most of the industry dealing with Telstra, and getting a wholesale price squeeze. Telstra’s had the chance to make the situation work. They didn’t. It’s the G9’s chance to have a go at it.
Telstra’s claim: INVALID.
6. It disables a functioning network that is already capable of delivering more than G9 is prepared to promise.
– Rubbish. G9 propose 24Mbps best efforts services. Telstra supplies artificially limited 8Mb/384k services at higher prices than G9’s proposed prices.
Please explain ?
Telstra’s claim: RUBBISH and GREED.
7. It requires customers to take a risky migration path on a newly built network.
– No it doesn’t. Remote Switching allows lines to be switched between exchange serviced and node serviced.
Telstra’s claim: RUBBISH.
8. It allows and encourages the G9 to prices that are not only too high, but also inefficiently structured.
– Too high? It’s cheaper than Telstra’s current prices, and cheaper than Telstra’s proposed $59 wholesale for 512k! G9 propose up to 24Mbps speeds for just $60 wholesale.
Telstra’s claim: Well, my comments speak for themselves. Telstra’s claim is RUBBISH.
9. It undercuts Telstra’s incentives to modernise the copper network to support the next generation of broadband services.
– Undercuts Telstra’s incentives? If Telstra had incentive would they be waging a political war with the Australian elected government? Not likely. Would Telstra have actually upgraded the copper network if competitors didn’t start adding thier own infrastructure to start with? Not likely.
Telstra’s claim: TRASH.
10. It requires access seekers to inefficiently duplicate facilities and systems not required in the current environment.
– At what price Telstra? What is the current price of those facilities provided by Telstra? What is the price by G9? You get a very clear picture of how things are going to go in the real world. Telstra’s plans are to increase basic internet access costs by a significant amount. G9 propose to drop those costs for consumers to sane amounts.
Is Australia to pay insane prices for broadband services that are already provided cheaper than proposed by Telstra?
Is Australia to instead, get with the future, and follow technologies natural downward pricing path, with a G9 proposal?
Doesn’t take a great wall to work out who is working for consumers here. It’s not Telstra.
Enjoy!