[LINK] Keep or sell or ditch, when faced by definite loss of monopoly of resources

[Phillip Musumeci]

"Frank O'Connor" <foconnor at ozemail.com.au> replied:
|
|>What about other fibre that Telstra's installed over the years (see
|>entry dated Friday, 30 January 2004 at the same URL and entries dated
|>from 9 August 2003 in <http://david.boxall.id.au/Phone1.html>)? There's
|>no commercial incentive for Telstra to donate their asset to a network
|>it won't control. Unless the government's going to commandeer it.
|
|Mmmm ... Telstra might actually have to do something with all that
|fibre. ''Use it or lose it' ... How sad.

This might make for some interesting business decisions about existing asset
ownership.

Suppose you have a set of resources that guarantee monopolisitic market
operations at a wholesale and retail level, and suppose you know that those
resources are absolutely going to be replicated at the wholesale level
meaning you lose whatever advantages those resources offered your retail
efforts.

In addition, for fibre, suppose the available bandwidth of any fibre in an
expensive hole in the ground is inordinately greater than what the consumers
can be sold (or there are spare fibres).

Then presumably just before your resources offer no commercial advantage by
being replicated in the NBN, maybe it makes sense to see if you can sell
them to the NBN which is 100% going to happen.  If you can't sell, nor
justify the cost of ownership, your only choice might be to ditch them.
 That doesn't seem a sensible way to avoid running costs like end point
equipment maintenance, land access costs, etc.

I don't know if it will be possible for the NBN to do deals with willing
sellers of existing high bandwidth elements but some owners might be willing
sellers when faced with a definite NBN.  On the other hand, if the running
costs of your own fibre links are miniscule, maybe you keep them???

Phillip Musumeci