[LINK] NBN and competition

Wed May 30 11:42:24 AEST 2012

Of course the same is true for ADSL - designed for television delivery, not bidirectional data delivery.
Yes, my Optus 20Mbps service has upstream limited to 512kbps. I understand both Optus and Telstra limit the upstream speed of their 100 Mbps cable services to 2 Mbps, but slower cable plans may have upstream be limited to less. 

I've yet to work out if the severe asymmetry of cable plans is driven by technical constraints or product packaging. I know why ADSL is so asymmetric, but not HFC.
-- 
Sent unplugged

_____________________________________________
From: Peter Bowditch <peter at ratbags.com>
Sent: Wed May 30 11:05:29 AEST 2012
To: link <Link at mailman.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [LINK] NBN and competition

The systems were designed for one-way delivery of TV programs, not for the 
Internet, so the attached technology heavily favours download.

When I had my Telstra cable Internet put in the installers turned up with 
a Foxtel box and were quite amazed when I said I didn't need it.

> 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
> >
>_____________________________________________

> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> 
> 

-- 
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project - http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

_____________________________________________

Link mailing list
Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link