TOCPCs – The Elite Geeks Blog

Having a conversation with a MSN friend tonight, we began talking about a lot of topics, but we hit a rather great, lengthy, well, debate, on the topic of VoIP in a business environment.

You see, my MSN friend was talking about VoIP not being ready as a business technology.

I fail to see how VoIP, when implemented correctly, wouldn’t be a technology fit for a business.

There’s all sorts of redundancies that can be built in at the client end to protect from poor quality calls, and ensure the majority of calls are perfectly normal (or even better than PSTN quality) calls.

We were discussing this for some time, I think we hit like 30 odd minutes about possible issues using VoIP in a business environment.

All of the issues raised had very obvious and rather easy solutions to them.

Anyway, we ended the topic basically he was still under the impression the PSTN was not an IP based network, and that made it superior to VoIP in someway.

For all purposes intended, the below is all based solely off the interpretation of how PSTN actually works, and to give a better idea of just how alike each other, VoIP and PSTN are.

VoIP: You connect an internet connection to your premises, supply an ATA, a handset, and start calling. That’s the basics of it.

PSTN: You run fibre between each exchange, you have routing servers to route and handle calls, you have copper going to the customer premises, you carry the voice over an IP based fibre network to the destination exchange, and convert it back to voice.

The key differences with that are, VoIP is generally not given QoS on the public internet. You get your internet connection from a supplier who could have different contention ratios, and not provision enough bandwidth.

The PSTN fibre IP network has a lot more to it than just that, the same fibre IP network carries the nations internet traffic for the most part (from exchange back to point of aggregation, except where other providers offer exchange fibre termination).

The calls on the PSTN network, they come in on the copper wire, to the exchange, into a device which converts it to IP packets, they are transported on a private network, managed solely, and provisioned only, to carry telephone calls in ulaw format.

The calls on the VoIP network, they come in on the copper wire, to the ATA (the device which converts it to IP packets), they are transported on a public network, which carries all sorts of data reliably, and is provisioned to your providers needs, which are generally bulk haul data from the public internet.

As you can see, that is a major point to VoIP, however, if you choose the right connection, the right provider, and use the right implementation, I fail to see how VoIP (with PSTN failover) couldn’t work in any business?

If you look at it, businesses normally provision enough bandwidth for their needs, and then some, so if you install VoIP into a business, you would obviously provision enough bandwidth for peak load, implement a strong QoS policy with proven testing, and have failover.

All that seems pretty obvious to me. It’s all enough to provide the average business with VoIP telephony of a reliable standard, and without any quality issues.

PSTN and VoIP are basically the same thing, the only difference, you aren’t paying through the roof rates, for someone to manage a private network solely for your phone calls, you compromise on quality, which is generally not noticeable, and the obvious issues with internet packets. But, in most businesses, most of the time, that would not be a problem at all, with PSTN failover, the service wouldn’t be affected to any significant degree.

VoIP as a business technology, the savings alone throughout 2 years would have me sold instantly.

I decided that having people signing to Bigpond in the presence of cheaper or more value added alternatives was something best tackled with a display of dollar values.

Instead of simply explaining what each got, repeatedly, and having information lost between individual translations, I decided it was time to put something in place which demonstrates the differences.

I set out to show the difference between a Bigpond customer, on the 256k “Beg For Liberty” plan, and an alternative mix of products using cheap line rental, a 512/128k 12GB connection from AAPT, as well as highlight the savings in line rental, and costs of getting on to VoIP.

I thought I made it simple enough. You spend X in calls, Y in data, Z in line rental and come to the conclusion you save $26.00 a month, when you factor in average calls, ignoring the cheaper on net calls, and assume 12GB is plenty of data for someone taking the 12GB (with uploads charged) plan from Australia’s leading bend you over, make you their… ex-customer, Bigpond.

The cost comparisons were quiet surprising actually.

With Bigpond and Telstra, using the following products and pricing:

$29.95 for their HomeLine Plus(or is it minus?) package.
$56.50 for 50 Local, 10 STD, and 5 mobile calls. STD uses the $2.00 cap, and mobiles assume the 37c rate for 15 minutes of calling time each.
$29.95 for 12 months, plus 59.95 for an additional 12 months thereafter, taking advantage of the bundle offer with 50% off for 12 months.

We reach a total price of $116.40 per month, for the initial 12 months.

We reach a total cost over the time of the contract of a huge: $3153.00.

I set about doing a difference comparison:

Phone – $19.95 – HomeLine Budget (or should it now be called “VoIP user”)
Internet – $49.00 – AAPT 512k plus no contract, no setup fee plan.
VoIP – $20.25, using the same calls, same timeframes, STD at 10c untimed, Local at 10c untimed, mobiles for 15 minutes each at price of $2.85.

Anyway, based on the above, the monthly cost comes down to $89.20, saving $27.20 (nearly 30.00 a month) for doing the little bit of work of setting it all up.

Compared to Bigpond, the alternative plan saves the user $1012.20, over 2 years, and if they aren’t satisfied, can pull the plug as soon as they like, no exit fees.

That comparison is attempting to compare like with like, of course, we could have added VoIP to Bigpond, but that adds another element, flaky calls over the 256/64 connection. There’s no telling how many problem calls they will have, and therefore, making the calls via Telstra ending up cheaper.

The beauty of the chart is that we can now change the few call volume numbers, and rates if necessary and come to the same conclusion.

In a related, and interesting note, the G9 FTTN network seems to enable a new provider into the PSTN market. I’m not 100% on all the details yet, but it really does seem like the G9 FTTN network really brings new elements to fixed line (phone and broadband) competition, with competitors able to join products to bring cheap prices to consumers.

At the end of it all, you get some serious competition, and none of the price squeeze that is happening with Telstra Wholesale and the retail areas.

Just imagine what you could do with an extra $30 a month. Nearly get Foxtel, or an 8Mbit connection, or .. well, more than what you’d get giving them to the greedy pigs at Bigpond.

I do hope the chart will sink into a few minds, and keep them away from Bigpond. People seem attracted by the cheap prices, I’ve gone and shown just how CHEAP they really are.

At last, it’s out in the open for all to see.

The G9 group of companies have released their proposal for a FTTN network.

The main highlights are the prices!

$15 – $25 for basic telephone access.
$19 – $29 for basic telephone access and a 1.5Mbps internet connection.. Currently, we pay at least 30 ex GST just for the 1.5Mbps connection, with phone costing extra.
$40 – $50 for basic telephone access and a “up to 24Mbps” internet connection.. ie. ADSL2+.

As you can see, the G9 seem to really want to attack right at the balls of Telstra’s monopoly pricing, quoting in the proposal (which I am yet to rip open – its too late) – “because unlike Telstra the G9 is not trying to protect existing monopoly profits”.

They really do seem to dislike Telstra’s anticompetitive pricing, and are aggressively attacking it, but at the same time having pricing at a range which should allow the network to be built, and a return as well as fund expansion.

The above prices are reason enough to accept the proposal without any consideration, consulting the public will likely reveal the same, with happy customers all around.

I doubt Telstra will be competing hard with that proposal, it does seem to really hit them hard with an attack, and the G9 do seem like they want to go all the way and win, there’s no room in those prices for Telstra to come back with a counter offer, with similar pricing, or well, anything to compete with.

The proposal is yet to be fullly read by me, but I plan to tear it apart, and see what we are all in for.

The prices above confirm my earlier suspicion that the prices were for both phone and net, as I doubt there’d be any LSS at the node level.

Key points to dig into are how they propose to cut customers over.

And now, the wait begins, Now We Are Talking are going to catch up eventually, and we’ll see the same arguments go around again: “Think of the shareholders, won’t somebody think of the shareholders”, “Don’t vote it in, it’s from Singapore” – last I checked, Simon Hackett of Internode (an Australian company) employed Australians and maintained his business privately, as an Australian. That therefore makes Internode, one of 9 in the proposal, fully Australian owned.

Optus, a Singapore goverment SingTel company, maintains operations within Australia, and therefore assist the Australian economy, and compete FAIRLY in the Australian telecommunications industry.

Of the above, Telstra can’t claim any. They have a percentage of foreign shareholders, are managed by foreigners who will take their bonuses back to their foreign countries, and don’t compete fairly in the Australian telecommunications industry.

They could claim they have some Australian shareholder ownership, but seriously, who cares anymore? They bought, they chose to, they had every oppourtunity to sell, they chose not to, that’s their fault.

The flaw that can be outlined in the proposal so far is the 1.5Mbps minimum speed, to which I think there is no problem with, having all those 256k fraudband users at 1.5Mbps would lift our OECD ranking significantly, and that’s the only reason why we are down as far as we are, because of Telstra limiting infrastructure, and marketing crap, completely the opposite of the G9 proposal.

Nearly time to enjoy cheap, fast, reliable internet access and telephone services.

I think the title of this SMH article by Matt O’Sullican is rather misleading.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/govt-may-even-side-with-telstra/2007/05/28/1180205161253.html

Our government doesn’t, and should NOT side with anyone.

Our government should be simply doing exactly why they have jobs in the first place, to make the decisions that govern this country, and the priority behind those decisions being for the good of the nation, and not the good of shareholders, or any other lame excuse you want to think of.

Another journalist with a few less marks beside his name from me, for writing a trashy title.

The article I’m talking of goes into a bit of detail on how Telstra’s rivals very well could be forced to pay more for the USO obligation they already fund.

Right now, I want to interupt all thoughts on that specific USO issue, and point out, the T4 (Tell The Truth Telstra) website, has an article on it, which asks Telstra a lot of questions, but one, would they agree to a independant review from a few independant people on the costs of the USO, and provide backing evidence to support those cost claims?

When you speak of cost, you are speaking of the cost to the company, and not the profits a company should make, otherwise, the other companies should not be paying it at all, if it is a for profit service.

I seriously doubt they will ever agree to allow any one to voluntarily review their claims, in fact, I doubt they can prove them themselves. The level of detail required would consist of how much copper wire was used, any other parts needed to perform each and every specific USO job, and what the tech costed to do the job, and any other equipment required, and costs, with the exception of internal costs (time spent confusing paperwork and cleaning up the trash), as that’s something Telstra themselves can control, but don’t seem to do well enough. The industry shouldn’t have to pay for bad cost management.

Anyway, the article is detailing that Helen Coonan is committed to reviewing the USO, after the election of course, so the Telstra shareholders keep her in, and that a new funding model could be implemented.

The only support Telstra has, despite what the article claims, is that, if Telstra truly do believe and can demonstrate that the USO is running at a cost to them, and the costs aren’t being recovered, it is something that truly does need to be looked into.

Helen Coonan has stated that herself in response to Telstra’s threats to neglect the bush as leverage in its ACCC and Government broadband war (like they really have put much money into Regional areas as it is!).

I totally agree however, if Telstra can demonstrate, that the actual costs to the company (aside from the wasted time with staff and paperwork, etc, they raise against themselves), should indeed be covered. Only to the extent they can reasonably demonstrate however, and the areas defined as Regional are areas where they provide services, and those services are immediately expected to run at a loss, and in the course of normal operation, still maintain a loss.

Telstra on the other hand, could get smarter, and start changing the customers over to Fibre, instead of copper, and see less faults, and therefore save money on the USO altogether.

Maybe their lack of spending of money (18% of lines have faults), should be looked at in the USO. Afterall, some of the USO lines have to be included in that 18%, surely? If that’s the case, Telstra do owe the industry some big dollars for misappropriation of the funds, which is likely to have been occuring in what can be seen as nothing short of poor management by previous Telstra management, and that’s likely continuing into current.

A better USO model would be one that doesn’t involve Telstra at all, instead, one administered by the government to ensure that at least the funding is correct, and is monitored.

Telstra raise the bill for services with the government (who should ALREADY have an idea of the costs behind services), and the Government decides if they are going to USO it or not.

Industry members are sent bills from the government showing the total cost of maintaining services, and their contribution required, and that is how you could manage USO in a manner not subject to poor cost management. Telstra would still need to provide actual costings for providing the service and demonstrate the loss, otherwise they’d still pull figures out of nowhere, like Bigpond pulled 8Mbit ADSL out of nowhere, even before Telstra Wholesale had it, they are truly some magical people in Bigpond! They predict future service offerings, and retail them before the wholesaler can!

Let’s hope that the USO funding and costing models are decided in what should be considered fair, that is Telstra aren’t left out of pocket, and the industry themselves are not being ripped out for Telstra’s own inflated, poor managed costs.

I have noticed a lot recently that in the movies area, the quality of movies are dropping.

Look at the movies from 1990 to 2004, a lot are good.

Titles like:

Mission Impossible
Gone in 60 seconds
Fast and the Furious
Ice Age
Shrek
Scary Movie (all of them)
Not Another Teen Movie
Ocean’s Eleven & Twelve
Saw I, II, and III
Lord of the rings (my precious – actually, not a favourite of mine)

Come to mind. All good movies that come to mind, and certainly made for great viewing.

Recent titles that absolutely suck:

Epic Movie. What a waste of time and money that was. YUCK.
Unaccompanied Minors (what was the actor from “Everybody Hates Chris” thinking ?)

… and a few others, that I can’t remember the names of, that suck.

Taking sequels too far also is a bad thing.
Pirates of the Carribean comes to mind. They certainly have attracted a good audience with that, but just how far is too far for such a movie?

If you follow trends with movies, as time rolls forward, sequels of movies tend to drop in the audience they draw, and the angle they come from. Though, some have been done good, like, I think Star Wars was a great release.

Taking them too far though can be rather suckful.

I enjoyed some recent movies though, such as Norbit (never before have a seen something so heavy take off the ground, without mechanical assistance).

EPIC movie on the other hand, worst movie ever. The best bit of the entire movie:

“Wow a chocolate river”
“That’s actually the sewer line”.

And the rest of the movie, what on earth? Where’s the story line? The movie sucked. Not just “sucked”, but “SUCKED”.

The theory here is, if they want to whinge about declining revenues due to piracy, perhaps they should give people reason to pay for it!

Just recently I was talking to someone, who indicated to me that they enjoyed getting the content for free, however, if they enjoyed watching the content, they would buy it, if they did not, they would remove it and not maintain a copy of it at all.

Makes sense to me. If they want people to open their wallets, they have to make it worth their while. Otherwise, there’s no point. They can’t compete with free, even if it is copyright infringement. They should instead leverage this technology, allow consumers to preview key parts (or the entire movie), and obviously encourage them to pay for it if they enjoyed it, and if they did not, ask them for feedback in exchange for the awful viewing, so that they can take that onboard for future movies, and gain an idea of what people like, and what they don’t like.

The data would have marketing value and if the majority started taking on the theory of trying before buying, instead of simply trying, not buying and keeping, they could see an increase in revenues.

P2P isn’t the entire problem here. Bad words travel at high speeds, so if its crap, your revenue goes away with it. On the other hand, if its good, you should see it, is what is said, then the revenues would increase.

Also, BitTorrent is a great technology for distribution, saving companies a lot of money in maintaining their own servers and paying for it. Leverage it, charge for the movies to get them legally. If you don’t like something, you should be entitled for a refund, so long as you agree not to maintain any copies of it, and obviously explain what you didn’t like about the movie for feedback.

The same could be applied to other forms of media too, including newspapers, to hopefully see the failing standards of journalism rise.

Just recently, I saw 50 to 100 megabytes mentioned in “The Age”. Such speeds require Gigabit networking, so, they obviously were talking about megabits. But from my angle it reads like the writer has NFI what they are writing about, and discredits the complete article that I don’t bother reading on. They are paid to write the crap, they should put some effort into it, and research what they are writing about, and what a megabyte and megabit are, so at the very least, they don’t look stupid to the technically informed.

The points above are what I feel are major lacking points in media, and how they are currently maintaining quality (or lack thereof).

Lift the quality, lift the sales, lift the profits.
It’s not rocket science!

I was waiting yesterday for the release of the FTTN proposal from the G9, ready to tear it apart.

In fact, I was waiting every day of last week to tear it apart.

I’m a little disappointed they missed the initial date, I really was ready to tear it apart and see what they have in the details.

Whilst the wait continues, we see media releases from Telstra and the T4 (tell the truth telstra) group, seemingly put together to expose the lies and misleading articles on Now We Are Talking (trash).

Recently, Now We Are Talking published a 49 questions for the G9 FTTN.

And, we also can see the T4’s reply to that, 30 questions for Telstra’s FTTN.

Both ask the hard questions, but state the bloody obvious.

Telstra:
Q7. How long will it take the G9 to roll out FTTN to the five city footprint.

A: Well, considering members of the G9 have a lot of happy customers in that five city footprint, they’ll probably put it below gaining a marketshare in the large regional areas, like Newcastle, which are listed in their media releases. Telstra ignored that completely.

Q11. Whose ducts and trenches are the G9 proposing to lay fibre in? What happens if the existing trenches are full?

A: Telstra’s of course, we are just waiting on the ACCC to change the wording of ULL, and you’ll be forced to give us access to them. They aren’t full though, otherwise you wouldn’t be proposing FTTN yourselves.

Q12. Have you requested from Telstra a price list for access to Telstra’s trenches and conduit?

A: Nah, we didn’t have to. The ACCC decides those prices for us.

Q13: If not, what price has been factored into your business model?

A: Umm, something like $2.50, considering all you will have to do is bill, and only $2.50 if you can get the billing right!

Q14: Have you arranged with Telstra engineers a process for locating and gaining access to the trenches?

A: Nah, we can do it ourselves cheaper. Too tired to be paying $99 a job, I imagine.

Q15: How do you propose to haul fibre cable through Telstra’s trenches and conduit without disturbing the services that are currently being supplied to consumers and other wholesale customers?

A: Easy. Feed it in. Pull it through, connect it up.

Q16: What is your proposed restoration plan, particularly for emergency services, if you disrupt service while hauling or otherwise working in Telstra’s trenches and conduit?

A: We aren’t incompetent.

Q17: Have you notified consumers of their rights to compensation if you disrupt their services while installing your networks?

A: Our customers love us enough to understand issues might occur.

And of course, there’s the other side of the argument:

Q1: What compensation will Telstra pay competitors who have their equipment made redundant

A: We didn’t think of that.

Q2: Where will the Telstra network be built first and why?

A: Look at the HFC network for an answer.

Q3: Will the procurement process be restarted so that tax-payers and consumers who are being asked to subsidise Telstra’s network through guaranteeing its rate of return get value for their money?

A: What means value for money?

Q4: Is it true that Telstra has in the past 10 years received about $1 billion in taxpayer’s subsidies, directly and indirectly, for regional services?

A: I didn’t see nothing if you didn’t.

Q5: Are Telstra’s expectations of an appropriate rate of return based on its desire to remain this profitable?

A: No, no way at all. We hope to be more profitable at the end of it.

Q6: What will Telstra do for customers presently satisfied with a competitors’ broadband service, but are then forced to use the Telstra FTTN network and are ultimately unhappy?

A: Lock them into unfair contracts!

Q7: Will Telstra guarantee its proposal will be for the long-term benefit of Australia and not the short term benefit of its management team?

A: Think of the shareholders!

Q8: What are the transitional arrangements for those customers presently buying a broadband service from carriers other than Telstra.

A: Lock them into unfair contracts.

Q9: What does Telstra mean when it says it will offer a Bitstream service to competitors?

A: We will develop our own product, and limit its speed to 1/5 or lower of the maximum capable.

Q10: Telstra has said that it will provide ADSL2+ in those locations where it presently is refusing to turn on the service. Does this mean it plans to by pass these customers with its FTTN plan?

A: We had no intention of servicing them at all, but since you thought of it, we’ll take that idea and do that.

Q11: Will Telstra guarantee that no customer will be worse off (in terms of speed per dollar) if it cuts off these services to replace them under its FTTN proposal?

A: We will lock them into unfair contracts.

Q12: Why doesn’t Telstra invest in a national program to fix faults before trying to force the Government to change the rules for FTTN?

A: The government won’t pay for our lack of maintaining the network.

Q13: What will be the prices for wholesale and retail services and how will they be set?

A: A price consumers won’t be prepared to pay, and we’ll continually set them higher.

Q15: How will these prices be adjusted over time?

A: That’s easy. Up.

Q16: Will Telstra pay exactly the same prices for exactly the same services as everyone else using the network?

A: Nah, we pay nothing now, we expect to maintain that.

Q25: Will Telstra now apologise for calling the ACCC a “rogue regulator”?

A: NEVER!

Q30: How can Telstra be trusted to tell the truth about what it will offer if it gets its way on FTTN?

A: We are a “great australian company”, you have to love us and our extortion level prices.

As you can see, the T4 questions are just as easily answered as the Telstra questions, and it’s easy to see what the T4 group are aiming at, when they ask those questions. They are attacking Telstra’s anti competitive angle.

One they missed would have been:

Q31: Should Telstra build FTTN, will it still continue to be the target of fines and legal action from the ACCC administering the Trade Practices Act, under the new network? Will Telstra still be getting heavy fines, costly court cases, and being forced to compensate competitors due to illegal business practices?

A: Of course not, we like to keep our tradition.

And that is the question they should have got printed all over newspapers, let everyone know that Telstra are the company that want to attack competition, instead of build a FTTN framework to encourage more of it.

After the initial build from a Telstra FTTN, we would expect to see legal action very quickly, as it’s only common for Telstra to give itself priority and release retail products, and wholesale won’t have anything to offer, and the prices would be in a price squeeze manner, meaning they will pay through the roof for a service they could have provided themselves cheaper.

And Telstra say they’ll commence legal action if they confiscate Telstra’s network? Well, if you ask me, Telstra don’t seem to deserve a network at all, considering the high level of faults, and excessively high charges they use to maintain profits.

It’s not where the future of Australian telecommunications should be. We need a competitive framework, and we don’t need FTTN from a company with a retail / wholesale conflict of interest.

I got a system to fix today.

The system came from someone else, who gave it to someone else, who gave it to me.
Anyway, the description the person who handed it over to me said the owner described it as:

Tried to download a modem and it wouldn’t boot.

Interesting, I thought you needed an internet connection to start with before you could download anything, and the concept of downloading modems is new to me.

I assumed modem drivers.

Turned the system on, no video output, nothing. Went with the general rule: Unplug everything except essential (eg, pci cards, and other devices), and ended up having to remove the dial up modem, and AGP card that I had added to see if it was a onboard video issue.

It booted straight away. Installed dial up modem again, refused to boot. Problem solved, remove dial up modem, use as frisbee (or return to owner, as the case is).

Once the system booted, I was confused what the bag also bought with the system was for. Opened it, found this weird blue dvd like case, a small black SpeedStream 4200 ADSL modem with both USB and ethernet cables, assumably connecting to the same single machine, and a power pack.

Opened the DVD like case, and discovered the most fearful thing ever made.
A Bigpond Self Install CD!

Noooo.. I thought. You are silly. You signed up to Bigpond.

Anyway, I assume that was bought with it because they wanted it configured, as is obvious by the username and password written in the book for all to see.

So, I proceed with the configuration, and notice it wasn’t letting me access the modem via its IP, 10.0.0.138.

I dig a little deeper, figure it has to be a firewall or service blocking it, after resetting the modem and still seeing the same results.

I see Sygate Personal Firewall. Find the uninstall for it, remove, bingo. Fixed. All works.

Use the PIK tool in the root of the CD to configure the device, and the job was done.

But, that’s not where MY job was to finish.

I found Excel on the machine, and a quick click over to Broadband Choice, led me on the fast track of creating a nicely laid out Excel chart, showing just how screwed you are with Bigpond using 3 GB down and 1 GB up, in comparison to other ISPs, whch offer faster speeds, and more data for the similar pricing (the monthly fee, anyway).

So, with this, I had a great idea. Save it on the desktop as “Bigpond – Important Information”, for “All Users”, that way it’s on everyone’s desktop, and they’ll just see how badly screwed they are, when the system passes hands again, back to the owner.

I figure, if Bigpond aren’t going to state exactly what the customer COULD end up paying (and this machine is still running Windows SP1, with Updates now set to Notify) for a months worth of internet access, I would.

In related news, another user signed up for the “Bundle” despite being told a lot of times: “Anyone, anyone, anyone, but BIGPOND!”. Doesn’t matter who you sign up with, so long as the name isn’t Bigpond.

Suggested Internode and AAPT. They ended up with Bigpond, on the 256k, 200MB plan.

The person in question was actually interested in taking up VoIP to save money on their phone calls, but now paying $60 a month is somewhat of a step backwards, considering $30 goes to the internet connection (and thats before they get charged usage for the VoIP calls), and the other $30 is going to the phone, could easily save $10 there by going to the HomeLine Budget plan, and using VoIP. But, on that 256k plan, you might find it cheaper using your land line, the usage charges could be incredibly excessive, to the extent that 10c call becomes a $5.00 or more local call.

Why on earth would someone not listen to that advice is beyond me, but in light of seeing TWO people in the same day take the bad plunge into Bigpond, I figure, its time to inform the masses.

On a automated phone system I have lines stating that plans provided do not include unfair contract terms like you will find with SOME providers, who want you to stick around for 2 years, and pay rates through the roof.

Also, I plan to design a comparison sheet and start dishing that out via email and on any PCs I fix, to at least keep them informed, and if anything, it’ll narrow down the costs for them, so they get some idea of just how “cheap” the “great australian company (not)” wants to give you broadband for.

The more people that can get a clear picture of just how bad Bigpond is, the better. The marketing and deceit needs to stop. They can’t be allowed to get away with influencing the decisions of the uninformed, or at least, not explaining what they are buying in detail. It’s not their job, 100%, I know, but if they want to be seen good in the public eye, they need to start presenting themselves that way.

Don’t Sign With Bigpond!

Centrelink, the nations leading (and only) Commonwealth Government family support department have yet again placed us under a review.

The previous review, from the exact same department, resulted in them apologising for the error of their ways, after some 5 months of constant contact proved the decision made was incorrect.

This time around, I decided to place my valuable time on the line.

I raised the single issue to the staff member upon answering the call that, any calls, any faxes, and my time would be billed to Centrelink as a direct result of their incompetence in checking records thoroughly.

You see, the previous issue that was raised was after some 5 months, was removed, after the consultant realised that she had made a fundamental stuff up, and wasted a lot of time and resources.

This time around, I’m prepared, I’m going in armed, and if the result isn’t the same, or the contact goes on for more than the initial contact to inform them of their stuff up, I’ll be billing them.

I got better things to do with my time than deal with an incompetent government department that can’t get its own records right first time.

We have been the subject of several “reviews”, and successful.

I’m sick of the “reviews”, we do our best to ensure information they have is the information expected, and we ensure that they have no need to raise reviews.

The whole purpose is a waste of time.

The possible explanation for it all is that they can’t seem to get their head around the issue that not all young people are on their lists to scam them.

Centrelink, another government department, that can’t get its records right. The list can extend towards the RTA, getting speed cameras incorrect, TAFE NSW (and I don’t really want to go in detail here, but they are far from the medicare of the industry).

Medicare are the department that seem to not cause issues for anyone. You get the card, you use it when you have to, you visit them when you need to, and a lot of the time, the data they have is correct.

Why is it that such detailed departments, such as Centrelink and the RTA can’t maintain accurate customer records? It’s not rocket science. Slap together an SQL database, and all is identified by “ID”, and that means all entries visible at any point in time.

The processes they have are flawed, and the costs of these “reviews”, and the staff that do them shouldn’t be something any taxpayer should be supporting. The postage, phone calls, faxes, and staff time are all a joke. A big Commonwealth Government joke.

I doubt the people that should be subject to reviews are not causing the biggest dints in their budget, surely. But that’s not saying it’s perfectly acceptable either.

Hopefully this time it comes to a quick close, and we can both just leave each other alone. I really don’t want to be making friends with the reviews team.

Incompetence, we really shouldn’t tolerate it.

I’m surprised that Hayley was evicted out of Big Brother tonight.

She’s probably the stronger, more louder personality in the house, and could certainly have stayed on longer and kept things rocking along nicely.

Andrew just doesn’t get himself in the camera as much in my opinion, and could probably have done better letting Hayley go along for the trip.

Looking at Demet’s evict list (so predictable), she chose Andrew as her first, with likely reason being putting her up for eviction.

I doubt we’ll see Andrew evicted however, simply due to the popularity associated with him and Hayley to start with, and the common association.

I think this week will see either Rebecca or Nick leaving, and I’m pretty much 50/50 on Nick and Rebecca anyway.

Rebecca because she doesn’t seem to get in the camera enough, and when she does, it’s nothing interesting anyway.
Nick, because the reasons for nomination were centered around his own confession he isn’t being himself.

Andrew is least likely to be evicted, I doubt Demet, Bodie, and TJ could get together and do enough votes to cause a great evict vote.

Nick and Rebecca just aren’t likely to have a lot of Save votes, as I can’t see why anyone would want them to remain, they are both boring, and provide no real entertainment.

I think nominations will be getting harder too if people don’t spark some action in the house as well. Jamie seems to struggle to find some valid reasons to nominate someone, as does Thomas, but amazingly, Emma (BB07’s most nominated), and a few other select housemates aren’t having issues bitching about the other HM’s at all.

Back to Hayley and Andrew, I think they are both in for a tough time, not being around one another is gonna send each other crazy, espeicially going in their with each other, and Andrew going along by himself.

The test of time will be whether he bails out or gets evicted out. He is unlikely to be evicted, as he does have some good aspects, and is very competitive in Friday Night Live. The bail out is likely if the trust or strength in their relationship isn’t strong enough to be able to be distant without contact for the next 2 months.

Hayley is likely to become a favourite for the premium membership to be watching Andrew. I think they’ve both been put through enough, having seen each other have to be completely misleading, but none the less, denying their relationship in front of one another, in a house which is dominated by single male and female housemates of similar age grouping.

I guess the good idea behind Big Brother was that something was gonna tick and a time bomb would go off in that first week. But, nothing did, which is a great representation of the strength in their relationship.

I do hope Andrew goes on to win (I was originally planning they both win), with close second preferences to Emma, and I can’t see why Travis the embarrassed couldn’t go on to be in the finals.

I do believe Emma will remain to close to the finish. Zoran is a keen evict, but the public demand wasn’t there with a 9 – 9% save / evict vote last time he was up, indicating no one could find the need to evict him.

Will be an interesting watch (and I don’t watch much of it), generally I catch Evictions, Friday Night Live (fun!), and Nominations, so I probably don’t watch enough to form solid opinions, but the big personalities are easily identified, and I want to look back on this post when its finished to see how right I was.

.. Unfortunately, it seems Telstra would much rather still deny their poll results as being a accurate representation of how the community feels about Telstra and blocking high-speed broadband.

In a blog post done by Rod Breum recently (but later deleted), a Telstra staff member had written:
“… it shows just how well the ACCC and the G9 have been deceiving Australians..”.

What a load of rubbish. How on earth are they BOTH deceiving us?

When all else fails, twist it your way I suppose. Let’s just hope they don’t go stupid about it and stick that claim to anything that could be considered a false accusation by its writer, a Telstra employee – no sign of bias there.

I think there’s room for an independant review of everything Telstra does.

Sounds stupid, I know, but every detail, from answering a phone call, to providing wholesale services, to managing their own corporate affairs, there is seemingly always room for a group of independants to oversee it, and provide recommendations on how things could be changed for the better.

Let’s set some examples:
– Sales reps signing customers to Bigpond. The customer has no idea what 200Mb means. They don’t explain that to them either. Neither do they explain that the plan is very poor value.

– Wholesale services. Telstra Wholesale could easily be improved upon by releasing products to wholesale, at the same time Bigpond can retail it. They had announced that they would offer it, right when Bigpond was already retailing it, leaving the competitors not so much time at all to get their systems aligned to process orders. And further, there’s no pricing transparency between Bigpond’s charges: $14.97, to wholesale charges (at least $25).

– Corporate affairs. Well, no one needs to say anything here. We all know this bit.

So, wherever you look in Telstra, someone, somewhere is being mislead, or scammed in some way.

That’s Telstra’s definition of being a “great Australian company”. Well, in my opinion, they are very far from it.

Great Australian companies, would be looking after the Australian economy, and looking after the consumers that are forced to buy services from them, either via wholesale or retail. Looking after the country that keeps them in business, and keeps them “able” to pay shareholders dividends. Those greedy pigs might need their position checked, because no matter where you look, no one in this country is going to be putting them first. That’s really, easy to see. They can’t demand anything, they should simply shut up, eat it, and when they become a “Great Australian Company”, they may at that point, approach the government, and the australian consumers for a higher return on their investments, or sell it off now to someone who will.

… I’ve done it. I’ve finally got a really, really good comment to appear on the Now We Are Talking > Broadband Australia > Discussion Forum.

Basically, I was starting to reply to someone on the discussion forum that stated 1.6 milllion shareholders (greedy pigs) vote.

Wow. Is that all? Cause I thought 1.6 million fat, lazy, greedy pigs are a lot smaller than the combined 20 million Australian consumers, who have for years been subject to Telstra’s anti competitive behaviour.

And what’s 1.6 million voices anyway? Where’s the volume control, might want to turn their voices up, because the 20 million Australian consumers are drowning out their dull squeals and oinks.

Back to it, the post I got on their forums (I know, who’d have thought it possible) was:

John Plecter 1.6million shareholders on election day are still just a very silent greedy pig squeal compared to the interests of 20 million australian consumers, which clearly speak louder than a Telstra shareholder. I for one, even if I were a Telstra shareholder (sif I’d be a greedy pig), I would STILL be behind competition, and supporting a network that isn’t based on the greed of a measily 1.6million shareholders. I’d still be greatly concerned about the prices 20 million consumers pay. Unfortunately, Telstra don’t seem to get the message, sell the current network into another company so they don’t own it, and regulations will likely disappear, naturally even, if not with a little “reminder” sent to Graeme Samuel. Tell me something though Telstra, and I’m serious when I ask this question: Why do you say the current network cannot carry fast broadband, when clearly, you already provide 20Mbps services to SOME areas. I consider myself familiar with the fibre optic technology linking Telstra exchanges already, and wasn’t it a public release of Telstras that the fibre network rolled out would carry.. MORE THAN WE EVER WOULD NEED ? Essentially, Fibre networks are EASY upgraded too. So, saying you can’t provide fast broadband to Australians on the current network, when several of your competitors have done just that, is a big untruth. Yet another Now We Are Talking (trash) lie exposed. Time to contact the media, with screenshots.

… The Editor added:

Jason, fortunately the interests of Telstra’s 1.6 million shareholders and the other 19 odd million Australians are aligned. The country’s prosperity is linked to broadband investment and only Telstra, in its current form, has the ability to deliver truly fast broadband (more than 20Mbps) across the continent. More Australians are realising this fact every day as our Broadband Australia Campaign continues.

.. Doesn’t their coding team suck ? Like, they couldn’t preserve spacing?! I had my post nicely spaced out, and they destroyed that, probably related to the fact they are trying to show it to greedy pigs, who couldn’t find the space, or the pants room to fit it in (for those aware of Phil’s Public Split & Spit).

Anyway, to recap the points made, I was advising John that if he thinks 1.6 million shareholders (both Australian and International) are going to get anywhere, an election isn’t going to cut it, because the combined interests of 20 million Australian consumers will definitely speak volumes louder, basically turning their little pig squeals into sounds of silence! Fantastic, I love it.

Further, If I was a Telstra shareholder (and I wouldn’t be), I would still get behind the Australian consumers on this one, because without customers, comes no profit, and with no profit, comes significant loss on investment.

Put in the squished position with the G9 proposal, I would do one of two things.
1. Sell the bloody network into a private company, and remove ownership, and in that process regulations.
2. Compete with the proposal. They say they’ll do it for 12% ROI and a 12 year monopoly, with a requirement to take over parts of my assets, I say, bugger that, I’ll go one better. 20% ROI, no monopoly or overbuild protection, transparency in pricing, no requirement for asset takeover.

Now, that number 2 option seems too easy for the pig headed americans running the Telstra – shop(s), so much so they’d not get the idea of “competition” (what mean competition?).

So, number 1 would seem like a very possible outcome.

Anyway, looking further into my post, I go into detail about that. As well though, I expose another lie on the Now We Are Talking Discussion Forum:

Lindsay, the current network was never designed to carry broadband at all – certainly not fast broadband.

But, wait.. They offer 20Mbps ADSL2+, and competitors at the same exchange also do the same!

More to it, it was public knowledge a while ago that the backbone laid out by Telstra was more than we’d ever need.

So, for them to be stating “it was never designed to carry broadband”, can’t be any further from the truth. The current network is perfectly fine at running the nations broadband services, and more to it, the current network wouldn’t require Telstra to do much at all to it, as simply they would run nodes, and that would be the end of it. Simple really, not from the installation point of view, but from the “simplified view”. Nothing much changes in the backhaul field, just exchange to half way, and all the way to customer premises.

Of further note to this is also, that Fibre Optic networks are easily upgraded, such as Southern Cross plans to upgrade its network from 240Gbps to 1.2Tbps or higher, it doesn’t take any new cable running, and is simply a change in the technology used to send the zaps down the cable, much the same way as Telstra artificially limit a large number of ADSL services to slower speeds.. needlessly. And impose stupid upload speed caps on connections.

I also got away with posting that the site is named “Now We Are Talking Trash”.

They chose a great title for my post too: Telstra shareholders are greedy pigs.

That’s right. Finally, something truthful on the now we are talking website, and it was written by THEM!

Also on the attack list by Jason Torrento was Rod Bruem’s recent blog attacking the media.

In all cases, notice they ignore the possible solution to all their hassles? Removing the need for regulation? I wonder if anyone would pick up on it, now its published publicly, or will they all take the easy way out and simply try and state that the election could be rigged, like their recent polls apparently were!

Entertainment value of the highest level. Nothing better than Telstra calling their own shareholders greedy pigs on a Telstra website! Have screenshots 😉

Tonights Big Brother live eviction had two evictees.

Evictee 1: TJ – wow she is a shocker. I’m surprised she was evicted, as I think the action (she loves action), would have added continued entertainment value to the show.

However. I do not think she should have won the game, as clearly is visible, she didn’t really act herself in the house, to quote a line: “Dumped on National Television” – so the fact the cameras were still rolling indicated that she was not being herself.

Besides that, I think her whinging, and chasing after nearly 45% of the males in the house, meant that she either really, really wanted some action, or she was basically finding a slot for the public to .. keep her in..

Either way, I sort of enjoyed the entertainment provided in Bodie’s fearful looks at her, as well as her constant “attempts” at picking up another housemate for “some action”.

So, someone should fill that slot again.

Evictee 2: Bodie.

What a shock, Bodie indicated he did NOT want to be evicted with TJ.

I’m rather surprised he got evicted, he had a clear percentage of people wanting to save him, and if I was into wasting money on 1900 numbers, I’d probably want him saved as well. Fantastic for entertainment in the house, and the amount of nomination points he got, made him a clear object to keep in the path of the game to ensure the players remained competitive.

Anyway, back on to what I wanted to write about.

Rumours have it (read: Behind Big Brother) that the eviction tally appeared to be rigged, however, I think its just how they layed it out.

You see, when you have a pool of 45000 votes to save, and a pool of 150000 to evict, and you express the percentages, left and right as representative of the total pool, and not as a percentage of total votes per housemate recieved, you end up with a rather bizarre calculation.

Such as the one I suspect was Zoran (and I think I’m on the mark), had 9% to evict, 9% to save. Looking at those numbers, 9% – 9% = 0%. Therefore, that calculation put him as 2nd to leave, behind TJ, but he actually had 2% to evict, so the question was how does 9% – 9% = 2%.

Easy, because 9% of 45000, and 9% of 150000 are two entirely different numbers.

Basically that’s where it does SEEM incorrect.
Big Brother should present the statistics different to avoid such confusion, they should instead:
Tally the votes on a housemate basis.

So, using the figures above, and TJ, because she’s right into action:
45000 + 150000 = 195000.
So, we would show the save percentage as: 23.1% Save.
And we would show the evict percentage sa: 76.9% Evict.

That adds to 100%, and makes perfect mathematical sense, and avoids confusion.

Tonights results were displayed as a percentage of evict and a percentage of Save, and that’s where the confusion lied.
They didn’t group by house mate and use a individual count of votes for each housemate, causing massive confusion.

One would hope that despite the display error, the actual calculations behind the scenes were still correct, and the result would be the same.

So, the poll isn’t rigged, but it certainly gave that appearance (even fooled me til I thought about it a bit).

I still wish they’d left Bodie in, because he added such entertainment value. It was great with him, and the show might not be AS good without him, and the entertainment he added.

I wonder how things with TJ and Bodie will work out, notably, he doesn’t seem too keen to continue things with her, and Emma, as a chain reaction, might suffer a bit.

Bodie obviously dislikes TJ, when asked, who’d you swap places with, his response was “Do they have to still be in the house”, referring to TJ as a possible person he’d kick out to remain in the house. That’s entertainment!

Very enjoyable up to now, hopefully things shape up differently, and the house doesn’t become boring.

Since this didn’t want to make Now We Are Talking, probably because they like to censor content, as they don’t seem to believe their shareholders and website viewers are able to find fiction from fact, I will post what I want on Now We Are Talking (trash) here.

It’s really poor of them to censor comments that are seemingly perfectly acceptable, simply to avoid the public seeing just one possible solution to all the drama.

Telstra Corporation owns Telstra’s Retail Business Units, Telstra’s Wholesale Business Units, and Telstra’s Network Business Units.

Those 3 business units are all owned by Telstra Corporation, and as a result, give Telstra Corporation, and its child companies and business units conflicts of interest when it comes to participating in a competitive market.

The reason Telstra get so strongly targetted by regulation is because of a few FACTS (the ones they don’t want the Australian public knowing about either):

• They have been fined repeatedly for breaching the Trade Practices Act
• They have repeatedly been taken through court for breaches of the Trade Practices Act
• They have been ordered to pay competitors back funds, to the tunes of millions, as a result of court and legal action.
• They maintain a strangle hold on the industry, with uncompetitive, and very restrictive prices on backhaul, that it likely doesn’t charge itself, or Bigpond for, making ADSL2+ rollouts in regional areas bad options for competitors.
• They don’t seem to charge Bigpond a cent, and further, Bigpond still seem to get cheaper prices, just looking at the recent $14.97 campaign for Fraudband.

So, as a result of Telstra having a complete conflict of interest between being the infrastructure provider, the wholesaler and the retailer, they can’t seem to price in a manner that is “competitive”, or not favouring Bigpond, or its other conflict of interests, such as Telstra’s backhaul.

Removing that conflict is VERY, VERY simple.

Here’s how they do it.

Split that Network Services Business Unit into a seperate company. One that they can only maintain a 40% interest in, and encourage private investment into that new company.

That rids Telstra completely of its network services company, and places it in a new company.
Telstra wholesale buy services directly from the network services company. Telstra retail, Bigpond, and other companies by services from Telstra Wholesale, or other wholesale entities that deal with the network services company.

No Wholesale services entity can retail services, they may only wholesale them. Wholesales can only supply to retail businesses.

Retail businesses service the consumer.

It’s the job of the network services company to invest in, maintain, and upgrade the network, and provide services of a reliable nature, as well as take over the USO.

Telstra will at that point be a company that is no longer a monopoly. They maintain their brand name, and they should lose regulations.

That is what you call a “level” playing field.
Something Telstra didn’t want to be showing on Now We Are Talking, because Telstra refuse to face reality.

The telecommunications market is a market that is driving, with strong force, competition, and they don’t want to face that reality. They want that monopoly, and they want it unregulated.

I fail to see, any reason whatsoever, how a post of this nature is somehow in breach of the rules of Now We Are Talking (trash).
I find it a completely unreasonable move on their part, considering the solution could help them!

Also, holding a 40% interest in the network services company would ensure value. They would hold a great amount of value of the network services company, and enjoy the profits, and avoid the dilution of the share price.

Telstra claim they can’t compete due to the regulatory stranghold, well, lose the regulations by removing the need to have them. That need is clearly the monopoly network they have in their posession. Place it in a seperate company, and lose the controlling interest in the company, and Telstra can really show us just how they will compete in a competitive market.

Alternatively, they can shut their cakeholes, and let the G9 get on with business, and stop playing down their proposal, it’s a great proposal, in fact, it’s likely to do more for this country in the words of competition, compared to anything Telstra has ever done to help competitors into the industry.

So, I’m still pondering, why else would they not let such a comment be posted? I just don’t find a reason in their rules that fits “describing a workable solution” as a reason for a comment to not be allowed on the site.

.. is the headlines I expect to see in the media soon.

Telstra’s Now We Are Talking website is running a poll of interest. Incredible interest looking at historical polls.

Keep in mind when you read the question and answers below, Telstra recently spent a lot of dollars on nationwide advertising, to attract more users to its Now We Are Talking website. The ads are full page ads in major newspapers across the country, and they attack the ACCC because of regulations that help keep competition, to a state that is still not even close to fair in the telecommunications industry.

The question asked is:
“Who do you think is blocking high-speed broadband for Australia?”

And, the possible answers are:

The Government – That’s right, Telstra shareholders actually believe Johnny ordered beavers to set up a underground block to prevent Telstra rolling out fibre services, or enhancing existing broadband services.

The ACCC – That’s related to the other article, the main article on the site is a article by Mr Split Pants Due To Eating Too Much Profit himself, Mr Phil Burgess, and basically has a headline that reads: How is the ACCC stopping Australia from getting high-speed broadband? So, we can see which way he wants the votes to go, towards the friendly, great folk at the ACCC who do a good job at keeping competition active in an industry where a monopoly giant dominates.

Telstra – Interesting choice. I suppose it wouldn’t be a valid poll without this answer, as this answer is the true answer.

Telecom Industry – G9 – That’s right, they have a proposal on the table that is cheaper, and more competitive than Telstra. They are surely stopping high-speed broadband. Right… Seems to me they are encouraging it.

Don’t know – The option most Telstra shareholders should pick if they aren’t already picking Telstra.

Anyway, looking at the results, right now, we can see this fantastic result for Australians, which completely destroys Telstra’s investment in the media for full page newspaper advertising promoting the site and attacking the ACCC.

The results are:

The Government – 73 people believe those beavers are there, blocking fibre cables being laid, and also stopping Telstra turning on the ADSL2+ DSLAMs it already has in exchanges in Australia.

ACCC – 243 people seem to believe Phil’s rubbish, that the ACCC are stopping high-speed broadband from being invested into. That’s not the case, the ACCC are protecting the large numbers of consumers in Australia from Telstra’s monopoly pricing, I don’t really want to pay $100/mth+ for a basic internet connection, sorry Telstra. You lose.

Telstra – 8331 people believe the real reason for slow speed fraudband is actually Telstra’s fault. And this is 100% correct. They are directly responsible by not doing anything for 7 years, providing Australian’s with 1.5Mbit at expensive prices ($50+). That price only came down recently due to industry pressures from ADSL2+ competitors. They still do artificially limit speeds needlessly.

Telecom industry – G9 – 9 people think that providing competitive proposals for faster broadband services is somehow blocking “high-speed broadband”. I know, there’s truly some idiots out there. How on earth are they stopping it by offering it ?!

Don’t know – 11 people confessed, I dunno. I bought TLS shares to make some quick cash like the greedy pig I am.

I’ve had an interesting time on Now We Are Talking recently too. I’m no regular of the site, but I do like to bite where I can.

Syd Lawrence, a shareholder since the days of T1, has a blog on Now We Are Talking. Syd recently made a post to his blog on Now We Are Talking. This blog post contained some fo the following content:
“Telstra’s decision to step up its Broadband Australia Campaign by placing ads in newspapers across the country is great news. It brings the facts of Australia’s broadband fiasco to the attention to more people.” … blah, blah, blah, more useless trash.

Here is my responses to posts on his blog that they thought would be worthy of everyone to see. They obviously agree with the terminology used, as it wasn’t censored, and made it public from their moderation queue:

Let me get this straight.. You all are happy as consumers to pay more for a product, to support those greedy pigs that are Telstra shareholders, and hold back competition, so some greedy pig can have more money, rather than letting someone who is innovative, and actually cares for Australia’s Metro and Regional areas more so, than Telstra and it’s greedy pigs? You really want an FTTN from Telstra, and not the G9 ? Even though Telstra means we all pay more, for the same thing, so greedy pigs continue to get the same or more money? That’s unbelievable and stupid. But I expect nothing more from any Telstra supporter. Open your eyes. The G9 can do it, and cheaper, whilst promoting competition. Telstra has done nothing but hold back innovation and the Australian economy, and put pressure on the government for their own greedy pig gain. They deserve NOTHING, and whilst I am an Australian, who votes in the government, I’ll see that Telstra doesn’t give us FTTN.

As well as:

Syd, You are completely incorrect. The Singapore Government don’t RECEIVE IT. Optus Communications Australia receive it and do something that Telstra don’t seem to have the common sense to do, give Regional Australians HIGH SPEED ADSL2+ Broadband without artificial limits. Why not Wholesale it too? I’d jump on a ADSL2+ wholesale plan in a second if it wasn’t speed limited. Trouble is, no one is offering ADSL2+ here, just yet, and Telstra, already have ADSL2+ equipment there, and are limiting it so they can make more cash off innocent consumers, for the greedy pig shareholders. I say we don’t just give Optus 600 million in cash to help with competition in regional and rural areas, but we give them it regularly in the form of USO payments.

The reason I state greedy pig shareholders is because a proposal exists for a G9 network to be built, with 12% ROI, that’s effectively a 410 million dollar profit return off a 4.1billion dollar network. They say NO, we want 39%. That’s why they are greedy pigs. The people representing the shareholders, and continually claim to be representing shareholders, are exactly, greedy pigs, and whilst they represent shareholders in their greedy demands, the representation makes anyone behind it, exactly, a greedy pig.

I’ve said before that I don’t have a problem with companies making some cash, that’s perfectly fine, but I don’t see how Telstra are going to outshine a G9 proposal that is competition neutrel, and doesn’t have the conflict of interest that Telstra does, being the wholesale and retail and network bodies of the entire customer access network.

With that monopoly, they have to accept that competition will need to exist, and as such should be aligning themselves to accept the offer at a rate that is reasonable. Telstra go to the ACCC with a 15% ROI demand, and it’d probably be signed sealed and delivered on easily. The G9’s is for 12%, but wants a 12 year overbuild protection guarantee. Which makes sense, the HFC network has tought us all enough that overbuild gets us nowhere anyway.

It’d have made more sense to run HFC out to different areas and basically have two providers offering similar deals in single areas, sure, you still have a monopoly situation on cable, but that would mean it reaches more areas, which is ideal.

So, basically the ACCC have the options in front of them:

We can dilute regulation and basically allow Telstra to run rampant on a FTTN build, at $82+ per customer connection, artificially inflating prices so revenue doesn’t drop, and therefore profits remain high, or we can welcome the G9 in at a maximum price per customer of $45 for high speed broadband, with just 12 years of a monopoly.

The ACCC can easily identify the best solution for consumers, considering we learn that Telstra is extremely incapable in a monopoly position to be a fair player in the market and leverage competition for the income it brings Telstra, compared to running a price squeeze like they are now.

They only complain they can’t compete because the ACCC forces wholesale prices down when retail prices are at or below wholesale rates, which makes sense, considering the wholesale suppliers have to chuck money on to pay for bandwidth, support, and profit too. In the current environment, basically after they chuck the initial charge on, theres bugger all room to make any good money, unless you play a numbers game and add LOTS of customers to your network, at that point, you can make a reasonable profit.

There’s plenty more that can be dug at on Now We Are Talking, Syd’s blog is a growing part of the website, as the greedy pig continues to make statements that have incorrect spelling, like “discription”. My response to him is basically, he should investigate an education before he speaks out for any broadband policy, without it, anything he says can only be considered uneducated ramblings.

I’m keen to see what Telstra do, when they know that a extremely large percentage of votes, 96% in fact, believe that Telstra stand in the way of providing high-speed broadband services.

Will they move out the way, or continue squirming like the greedy pigs they are?

That’s right.

In a drastic first for Telstra in recent times, one of its own websites now confesses: Telstra is blocking high speed broadband.

See the full details on the poll on the website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/Home/Default.aspx

Down the corner, click Telstra, press submit, tell your friends.

Here’s why Telstra’s blocking high speed broadband in Australia.
They have ADSL2+ in several national exchanges.
They can turn it on by simply flicking the switch nationally.
Regulations aren’t stopping them turning on ADSL2+ at all, and the ACCC Chairman, Graeme Samuel even admitted to giving it in writing.
Telstra did not write the ACCC.
Graeme Samuel, still not happy with the continued whinging at his department, wrote a draft letter for Telstra to sign and send off.
Telstra did not seemingly send that off.

Now, how is anyone else holding back faster broadband services for Australians, when clearly, Telstra and its greedy pig shareholders are the ones at the root of it all, claiming they’ll sue if the copper network is taken away from them, and won’t provide FTTN unless regulations are removed (that encourage competition), and they get an agreement on a price of at least $82 -90.00.

The G9 proposal was $45 for a high speed port, $15 for basic access, so the total for the provider to get a customer serviced with phone and net would be $60.

How’s that not blocking high speed broadband for Australians? They basically are holding it all gridlocked.

I do remind others that in visiting Now We Are Talking (Trash), you’ll be exposed to a lot of rubbish, like, lies that the ACCC stand in the way of Australian’s getting fast broadband, that’s not the case. The ACCC are there to protect us from being screwed over from a monopoly. It’s their job, they do it well.

I’ll set the record straight now too. I don’t have an issue for companies to make profits, but when they make profits and restrict competition, and Australian’s are forced to use or go without, the ACCC should be a lot more closely examining the deal, and ensuring no other offer exists that protects consumers interests and is better for the consumers wallets.

That’s the key point.
When Telstra come to the party with $50 FTTN port costs, maybe we’ll start considering it. Otherwise, they can simply sit back, let the G9 do their ideal job, of providing the national broadband infrastructure at prices consumers can see as reasonable- and they’d be making a 12% ROI. That’s a lot of money when you look at $4.1bn, Telstra shareholders should be angered that the money won’t be reaching them due to the stupidity of Telstra’s management, because they are being greedy in the face of an offer that is likely to gain more ground!

Oh well, they lose, 20 million consumers win. Seems fine to me :). If that fails, we can always risk Labor for a few years. Not that I would prefer that, as we have a great budget running for the nation now, but if it has to, so be it. I want faster upload speeds, cheaper rates, and innovation. Telstra aren’t the ones to deliver that.

Today was the day I was expecting to tear apart G9’s FTTN proposal, after reports earlier on in the week suggested it’d be released within ‘days’.

I suppose days could go all the way to 365 days, but I doubt anyone would be THAT patient.

I’m anxious to see the secret that lies around how they plan to get copper from the node to the premises. I just don’t see Telstra saying, here you go, have it all for $5/mth.

I do see them saying, you can build and pay for the network and have the copper wires going to the home for $82/mth, but that’s expected, and wouldn’t be the proposal from the G9 for their own network.

In news about Telstra, this campaign against the government might almost certainly will backfire against them.

Obviously, they can’t expect to be attacking the government and getting reduced regulations and so forth as a result. Aside from that, the government still has ministerial powers, and if they keep upping the pressure on the government, you can just see a different apporach coming back against them.

Removal of the USO comes to mind as one possible way of hitting them back hard.

And if they were to lose the USO, they would stop servicing regional areas right? Well, that works fine too, because they can indeed approach things differently. The government could find the USO be sorted by an infrastructure body.

Telstra want to up the campaign, paying for newspaper advertisements attacking the government about Broadband.
The government have had planned for months now to do a leaflet drop in many regional areas, obviously to sooth and provide a fair idea behind it all about the broadband debate, and the path forward, think of it as a election softener, I’d say.

Telstra’s attacks like the above against the government would get a negative impact for them, if paying for newspaper ads, attacking the government, Australian consumers voted in, is where they think funds best spent on broadband should go, they really need to think again. Those newspapers would only lead to the spread of more misinformation by Telstra, and cause more users to get more informed about the issue, and who best to service their internet connections, and that person in a lot of cases, isn’t Telstra (for obvious expensive reasons).

One thing here is certain, we all need faster broadband, and we don’t really need the government paying for it, however, a public private partnership with funds from the Future Fund work well, considering the return is at least 8%, so that would provide some income for the Future Fund, for money that is basically, sitting there. It could go to enhancing the economy, and bringing more income in, which overall makes sense.

I am also keen to hear what happened with the $600 million flying Optus’s way. Competition in Regional Areas (even more so mine) is a good thing :).

That’s right. We can all be saying that.

At least, in a report provided by Australian Computer Society President, Philip Argy.

Philip seems to have learnt too much from the previous saying that 640k would be all we ever need (and now we all start in the 1-2GB range, and well, he seems to take that a step too far, and let’s just future proof us all, 30Gbps to my home, sweet.

Basically the report states that it would give Australia what it needs to be a leader, compared to a follower.

Here’s the Australian IT link for those who might be interested in 30Gbps Internet Connections (you’d be insane not to be):
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,21661764%5E15318%5E%5Enbv%5E15306,00.html

Looking at that, we can see that it’s a far leap from what I currently use, labelled Telstra Wholesale Fraudband, bought to me by Netspace Online Systems.

I think he is seriously looking too far ahead, I mean, it’s 10 years away, and I am sure, that we honestly would find it highly difficult to come near maxing, or utilising the full potential of a 30Gbps Internet Connection (but I still will take a few anyway, I wanna give Southern Cross Cables and PIPE networks a run for their money, and go fishing and eat fish without cooking it, the heat from the cables should do that for me).

I don’t mind being a follower, being on the leading edge of technology means you get to poke tounges at the rest of the planet when they have a measily 10Gbps connection, and your fragging their asses, and leeching their torrents, and carrying half the countries phone calls, and still have bandwidth to spare on your 30Gbps internet connection, but seriously, I think we are a long stretch from using that, and being on the leading edge of technology isn’t without a set back:

You roll out billions of dollars in technology, and you start retailing it at a fair rate, and all of a sudden, you find flaws in the technology.

Let’s not forget how hot Intel Prescott CPUs get. Or the other developmental failures.

So, there’s no real point sitting at the front of technology, you do, you spend your dollars, its outdated next week anyway.

You sit back, and wait for price change, and you see the technology highs, and those highs occur in certain product ranges at differing intervals, that’s when you jump in, get a stable setup, and walk out and go back to watching again.

I still want to laugh at those that paid $600+ for an XBOX. Bahaha. Stupidity. Sit back, and all of a sudden, they are stocked, the idiots that spent $600+ have found the bugs, they’ve figured them out, Version 3 comes out, and what do you know, probably one of the best times to buy with price and bug fixes.

So, I don’t really want a 30Gbps Internet Connection right now.

I don’t want a 1Gbps Internet Connection right now.

I want a 100Mbps internet connection within the next few years.

I want a 24Mbps Internet connection – right now.

In staggering the updates over technology, you can see the peaks, the highs, the times to buy in and invest.

For example, UDSL is another flavour, among the many DSL flavours, why wouldn’t we investigate UDSL ? Probably because the technology isn’t right for us. However, VDSL2 or DOCSIS3 are proven technologies (and have shown their flaws), rolling it out, and creating content industries within Australia (bring on IPTV), we’d see some mass demand for both the connections, and the content, thus advancing us technologically.

We do need to move up with the times, and of course, with Telstra in a monopoly position on the copper network, it isn’t going to happen, so move that monopoly position, and let’s see what happens. I predict we’d start having 100Mbps or higher speeds within the 12 year monopoly the G9 want to have over the infrastructure, and that’d just be the start of what could be a OECD changing network.

We shouldn’t aim for 1, we should aim for a position at 3 – 10. They aren’t going to find flaws in technology, and instead will be watching the rest of the world make moves on technology, and calculate the correct investments for Australia.

That’s what SHOULD happen. In fact, ADSL2+ wasn’t too far off ADSL. I’d be curious as to why they even stopped at ADSL. We could of leaped right into ADSL2+ easily.

Catch yas all on the information super dooper, high in fibre highway.

The ACCC recently announced that they would not accept a proposal from Telstra for a wholesale access price of $82 to a monopoly Fibre-to-the-Node (FTTN) network.

The G9 proposal, also being considered (and expected to be in the public domain within days) is for $15 basic telephony access, and $45 for ADSL2+ access, all up $60, for wholesale access to the network (the only way the network works).

If you ask me, $60 is a lot cheaper compared to $80 when you look at the resulting outcomes.

$82, Telstra + Mandatory AGVC + GST + Customer Data + Support + Services = Roughly $115.
$60, G9 + GST (?) + Customer Data + Support + Services = Roughly what an iiNet customer pays for ADSL2+ with phone. Pretty competitive.

Under the G9 proposal, we can’t forget that they propose to have Access to allow providers to make unique offerings, so, possibly cheaper ports at slower speeds, but of course, some level of transparency between each band.

Telstra now propose to start a campaign attacking the Federal Government on lack of spending on infrastructure, putting more unneeded pressure in an already pressurised environment.

I wouldn’t want to be Helen Coonan now.
I imagine it’s something like this for her:
– Telstra: We want to give Australian’s faster Internet Access, we want these regulations removed, we don’t want any competition, and we basically don’t want the ACCC to do what it was originally set up to do.
– G9: We don’t believe it right Telstra gets another chance to extend its monopoly and tear apart customers for all their income and more, we have a proposal that will see Australia get a competitive, fast, upgradeable, extendable network, and we won’t bend them over either. We won’t wage war against the government our customers voted in, we won’t be overly concerned with making big bucks for shareholders as our investment model is long term, as such a model should be. We don’t want Telstra building if we do decide to buid a network.
– John Howard: Get these Australian’s fast broadband. I don’t want to see my possibly retiring term here ending with the voting out of the government.
– Senator Conroy: Nerrr, We Are better, we got the voters, and you might not.
– Media: What are your thoughts on Telstra this, G9 that? What are you planing to do? Are you falling to pressure of Telstra?.. Cameras start snapping shots, she becomes enraged with violence (well, wishful thinking – I shall call that: SuperCoonan, Faster than a speeding byte on a fraudband port).

And all the while, we get to see is media flashes about how Telstra want this for shareholders, the G9 want this for Australians, and well, the situation as a whole could get dangerous.

Some even believe that the Government might come to a deal with Telstra to avoid the pressure another Telstra marketing campaign might create. I don’t. I think they are better off counteracting it, with evidence that they have and will be looking after Regional Australia, and what better way than… a mailbox leaflet drop.. wait, that’s what they are doing. $5 million dollars of tax payer funds going to disarm the Telstra rubbish they plan to send out. Sounds worth it, if they do a good job of it and educate all, including those greedy pig Telstra shareholders.

Here is a recent article in a media website I was reading, that I found rather.. Full of Crap for want of better words:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21657209-601,00.html

Oh, it’s written by Michael Sainsbury, that says a lot.

He goes on in that article to say that Telstra is planning on launching an aggressive marketing campaign (Read: Blow more dollars needlessly), due to the collapse of an agreement between Coonan And Trujillo.

– Michael, there never was an agreement in place, they had talks, but no agreement formed, the ACCC is the body that would do that.

He goes on further to say that after 1 month of negotiations, they came to terms for the rollout. The terms were blocked by the ACCC.

– Seems incorrect, considering Telstra would be placing the terms on the table, and all she could do is basically provide initial feedback, and that feedback seems like it’s not enough for Graeme Samuel – rightly so too.

He writes further that Coonan has stated that Telstra need to make their case clear, because they need to understand what they really mean by fair commercial return.

– That’s right on the mark. Fair commercial return seems to be 30%+ of revenue being Telstra shareholders profits. Should the Australian public be expected to fill that hole? Nope. They chose that $82 dollar figure, which basically says what they make at the moment.
– Just on that note too, it’s common Telstra shit spinning that they don’t want to sell to competitiors below cost. They were never forced to, and never have been forced to sell “below cost”. They were only ever forced to make retail prices higher than wholesale. Basically, ensure Retail prices are never below what a wholesaler can also package together. That makes them true trash talkers, because they aren’t looking after anything telling lies like that. Such a company can’t make large profits selling below cost.

He goes on further “Senator Coonan has been caught between a political desire to do a deal and solid resistance of the ACCC”
He quotes further down, Coonan stating “I am not sidelining the ACCC” – “The ACCC has a role”.

So, that’s a little bit confused don’t you think?
The government should never have an urgent need to do a deal with anyone, let alone Telstra (of all companies, the worst).
The ACCC have a job to do, they do it well. If the interested parties have a business case they want to put forward, and the balance is sound (near or lower than current prices, or significant improvements that have a higher cost to maintain then the existing), I don’t see how it would be a problem. But that’s not the case. Speeds would only be enhanced to a next step technology, and the other company can do that already, for $45, instead of $82.

The only thing Telstra are overly concerned about is preventing that $82 dropping lower. For them, the fortunate case is, they aren’t going to be able to. They are going to make a lower revenue packet off wholesale, and its about time. It’s time the G9 had a shot and got things DONE, and done for consumers, not shareholders.

I’m in a Regional 1 area, and I don’t see a need to get faster broadband off the ground “quick and dirty” by Telstra, but more “correct, competitive, and complete” by the G9.

I still do have a desire for fast broadband, but not if I have to pay an arm and a leg to get it, or the competitive environment is going to sink to a new low as a result of it.

On a related note, others have accused ACCC Chairman Graeme Samuel of having a bias against Telstra. As much as they might like to believe that is correct, I would argue he has a family to feed, a house to keep them in, and his integrity in being anti-Telstra or Pro-Telstra would reflect negatively on his position and his integrity. He wouldn’t risk that for a dislike of Telstra. I know I’d have told them to GAGF though, they are being completely stupid in their approach to this, either way, they are going to lose money on this, they might as well as just work a way to build the revenue in other areas, and let the G9 do the job, or get in on the action and build it in line with the G9’s proposal, or better it, they would minimize the total loss that way.

Interesting days ahead on this issue.. I can’t wait to tear that G9 proposal apart and get all the dirty details.

I’ve dug a little deeper on top of my previous blog entry on ADSL2+, and the central coast, and when we can expect it.

Unfortunately, we are still no more clear on when that will be.
My Original prediction at that point was that there would only be a short delay to several exchanges, including mine, from the previous Exetel advertised date of February 2007 (nearly 3 months ago now).

However, a credible source of information (the Let’s Go ADSL2+ roll out PDF) does not show much of the Central Coast in Optus’s sights at the very moment at all.

Gosford now has ADSL2+.
Saratoga now has ADSL2+.
Avoca Beach now has ADSL2+- why do you need fast net at the beach ?
Woy Woy is due to get ADSL2+.
Hamilton is due to get ADSL2+.
Toronto is due to get ADSL2+.
Belmont is due to get ADSL2+.
Cardiff is due to get ADSL2+.
New Lambton is due to get ADSL2+..

But, those last due to get ADSL2+ exchanges aren’t due until July 2007.

So the earliest I would be looking to get a fast internet connection (unless MySoul come visiting sooner) is around or after August 2007, at which point my much disliked Netspace extended contract is over, and I am free, free to tell them..

.. thanks for the free pipe.

I guess my only real motivation for ADSL2+ is its faster upload, but that’s not needed, what really is needed is for Telstra to stop being anti competitive, and restricting AUSTRALIA, and give us full speed, at competitive prices.

How do I define competitive?

Unrestricted fast ADSL2+ access for $45 on a G9 FTTN network.

What do I find as stupid in many degrees?

A restricted (8Mb/384kbps) ADSL2+ port sold for $56ex GST on Telstra’s aged wholesale network.
The other point here is, they’ve probably made the full cost of my port back several times already.

Telstra, Where’s my broadband?