[LINK] NBN and competition

Wed May 30 08:39:18 AEST 2012

Just looking up Optus cable speeds...

Is it true that Optus cable limits upload to 0.5Mb/s ?

I thought Telstra cable was limited to 2Mb/s ?

Either way, both are too slow.

N

On 30 May 2012 08:35, Richard Chirgwin <rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> What. utter. drivel.
>
> On 30/05/12 12:51 AM, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
> > ACCC in a twist to banish NBN's rivals
> >
> > By Peter Martin, May 30, 2012. www.smh.com.au/business (snip)
> >
> >
> > The Optus high-speed cable internet network is a national asset.
> >
> > Comprising 25,000 kilometres of coaxial cable strung across 550,000 poles
> > in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, it provided Telstra with its first
> > genuine competition, putting its own wires directly into half a million
> > homes.
> Except, of course, where the cable is underground. And completely
> forgetting the fibre component of the network. Starting point: "It's
> okay for me to be technically ignorant because I'm an economics writer."
> > What Optus has now is an asset that costs relatively little to operate
> > and can deliver peak download speeds of 100 megabits per second - far
> > faster anything on Telstra's copper wires.
> Not, however, either faster nor as extensive as Telstra's HFC network.
> Dill.
> > Right now it has 496,000 customers. It is within connecting distance of
> > another one million, meaning that for very little cost, Optus or a buyer
> > of the network could provide a very fast, very cheap internet service to
> > as many as 1.4 million households - a service far faster than ADSL.
> In other words, more people have ignored the network than have connected
> to it. And Optus broadband services are not "very cheap". They're at the
> top end of the price range, last time I checked. And Optus likes the HFC
> network so much that it hasn't rolled out any new cable in ten years.
> And...
> > NBN Co has asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to
> > let it pay Optus $800 million to *shut the network down.*
> >
> > Only a seriously confused regulator would allow it to happen.
> >
> > The only precedent for the destruction of infrastructure on such a
> > massive scale is the $4 billion NBN Co is to pay Telstra to rip out its
> > copper network, transfer its customers to the national broadband network
> > and remove the internet from the cables it uses to deliver Foxtel.
> Well, the other precedent is that Telstra's HFC network is also due for
> the same fate. But hey, he's an economist ...
> > In no other industry would the ACCC approve such an agreement not to
> > compete. In no other industry would it permit a bribe to decommission
> > working infrastructure.
>
> >
> > This week it published a draft decision approving the Optus deal.
> >
> > In terms of national assets, the Optus decision is arguably worse than
> > the Telstra decision.
> >
> > Telstra will decommission its copper phone lines street by street as the
> > national broadband network cables are switched on. While there will be a
> > loss of competition, copper probably isn't able to compete with fibre
> > over the long term.
> Wrong again. Not "street by street". A fibre serving area will be
> completed; 18 months later, the copper will be decommissioned.
> >
> > By contrast, the Telstra and Optus coaxial cables are as good as new.
> >
> > They were strung up in the last half of the 1990s. They are already fast
> > and capable of being made faster. They cost almost nothing to maintain.
> >
> > They are something that should not be destroyed wantonly.
> >
> > The Telstra coaxial cables won't be. It has only agreed to disconnect the
> > internet from them. It could put it back as soon as changed legal or
> > political circumstances allowed.
> Just wrong. Telstra has agreed to connect all customer services to the
> NBN wholesale infrastructure (including telephony) and decommission the
> copper. It will deteriorate very quickly without expensive maintenance.
> > The Optus coaxial cables are scheduled for destruction. The ACCC's
> > decision will have physical consequences. It should not be taken lightly.
> "Physical consequences"????
> > And yet the ACCC gives every indication its decision could have gone
> > either way. It was "finely balanced", according to the chairman, Rod
> > Sims, in Monday's statement.
> >
> > Its decision to approve the agreement was based on weighing
> > carefully "clear public benefits" against "a potentially large but less
> > clear detriment".
> >
> > The main "clear benefit" is odd.
> >
> > The commission says the agreement will "avoid the cost of operating the
> > Optus network to provide a service the NBN is also able to provide".
> >
> > Would we apply it elsewhere? Should Virgin shut down its airline network
> > to avoid the cost of operating a service Qantas is also able to provide?
> > Should Woolworths shut down its network to avoid the cost of operating a
> > service Coles is also able to provide? Of course they shouldn't. We
> > normally value competition.
> Competition will still exist, but the structure of the
> telecommunications industry is a bit difficult for Peter Martin to
> grasp. <sigh>
> >
> > Some will argue that wiring up houses is different. Frontier Economics,
> > the consultant used by Optus in its submission to the ACCC, says fixed
> > broadband services are a natural monopoly - they shouldn't be provided
> > twice.
> >
> > But the Optus cable network is already in place. It costs next to nothing
> > to keep it in place. It is NBN Co which is planning to duplicate it.
> > Given its plans and the rate at which it is duplicating infrastructure
> > right now, its complaint against "inefficient infrastructure duplication"
> > is simply strange.
> >
> > In truth, it's competition that worries NBN Co, not inefficiency. It is
> > paying $800 million to remove a competitor, not out of a public concern
> > about inefficiency.
> >
> > With its last big fixed line competitor out of the way, the only market
> > restraint on its prices and quality of service will be wireless internet,
> > and it's on to that as well.
> ??? What the hell is he trying to say about "wireless Internet" ???
>
> RC
> >
> > The Optus agreement, given a preliminary tick by the ACCC, prevents Optus
> > from advertising wireless data services within the area served by its
> > existing cables in a way which is "expressly critical of or makes any
> > express adverse statement about the performance or functionality of the
> > NBN where such a statement is misleading or deceptive or involves the
> > making of a false or misleading representation in contravention of the
> > Australian consumer law".
> >
> > The ACCC waved it through because it is essentially meaningless,
> > requiring Optus to do no more than obey the law. But it indicates how
> > deeply concerned NBN Co is at the prospect of competition, or as it puts
> > it "cherry picking". Competition would force it to provide value, and its
> > national pricing structure would force it to provide it to all
> > Australians. Its $36 billion cost base won't allow it. That's why it
> > needs to destroy perfectly good working infrastructure. It's why I think
> > the ACCC needs to think again.
> >
> >
> > Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/accc-in-a-twist-to-banish-
> > networks-rivals-20120529-1zhen.html#ixzz1wGky5g7n
> >
> > Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Link mailing list
> > Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>