Slashdot Mirror
Australian TelCo Required To Grant Loop Access
David. H. Sims writes "Well as it seems Telstra, Australia's telephone monopoly has finally been recognized as one, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has forced Telstra to grant full local loop access to its competitors and to bring extensive testing to a halt and begin the mainstream ADSL rollout by August at the latest. If you don't live in Australia, Telstra is the only reason we're all stuck to poor modem speeds, Telstra owns all exchanges in Australia and is privatised and thus wouldn't open them to other companies so they could install the relevant ADSL equipment. As usual the full story's at NewsWire. I think I'll have my xDSL medium rare! :) "
I'm under the impression that DSL isn't that cool in Great Britain.
Good point. So what is cool in the UK...?
And what else, besides privacy, isn't cool in the UK?
Now wasn't that educational?
WHAT?! This story is about AUSTRALIA?! Well, that changes everything!
Just something to think about...
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Actually, it's not that low, at least, not if you ignore the middle of the country which is basically empty anyway. The vast majority of Australians live in one of the major cities (off the top of my head: Sidney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Canbera). Admittedly, for a city of only 3 million people, Melbourne occupies a huge amount of space, but the chances of not being within 10 miles of a local exchange are fairly slim. Of course, the rural areas are always going to lose out...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Here in the UK you have to be within 10 miles of the local exchange in order for BT to consider you for ADSL. I would assume that this is for technical reasons, and would hold true in any country. So how does this work in Oz where the population density is low. Is it just cities and really large towns that will get the benfit of this? Just interested...
Now weary traveller, rest your head. For just like me, you're utterly dead.
Hang on a minute, you can't sell something twice. At present (AIUI) Telestra is a government-owned telco. The government hasn't given away the infrastructure, its just packaged up a bit of itself and called that package Telestra. Telestra will then be sold, and at that point the government gets the money.
We issue - quarterly, say - "bandwidth bonds". A bandwidth bond entitles the holder to a certain percentage of network carrying capacity over a certain time period.
Thats an interesting idea. The problem is going to be in administering it. What happens when everybody wants to use their bandwidth over one link? Sell off bandiwdth over particular links as individual commodities? Maybe. Take a look at what Band-X are doing with this on international routes.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
If self-evident monopolies (or even companies only percieved as monopolies, but perhaps not technical monopolies within the definitions of law) had better publicists, they would certainly not make the same enormous mistakes again and again, in virtually every country in the Western world.
I mean, what PR person worth his bonus wouldn't say: _You have zillions of dollars and control so much of industry X that a certain percentage of the population will see you as villains, so we need to work on your image a bit. How about offering superior, inexpensive service BEFORE the competition, so that our customers actually LIKE us, albeit grudgingly?_
Jeez, I just said it, and I'm not a PR person. Seriously, how come it isn't obvious to every non-cretin in this digital world that the first companies to offer cheap broadband access (perhaps combined with content) will control that world, perhaps forever? I can even apply this to the US: If AT&T tomorrow offered broadband access to 90% of America for $25 monthly, and this $25 included telephone access, AT&T would own Internet access in America.
But I seem to remember that the Aussie government has recently been on this censorship binge, as well. Hmm. I'll revise my AT&T fantasy: $25 unlimited broadband/telephone access with guanteed anonymity and webspace unfettered by any restrictions other than those absolutely required by law or common sense (i.e., kiddie porn, incitement to violence, etc.).
Is it really that hard for companies to figure out that people want their freedom, and that there is an enormous profit to be made by providing them that freedom? That the Internet has become THE important avenue of freedom of expression?
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
As part of this, certain agreements were made in regards to future activities of the company:
To get a little more on topic :-) Telecom also offer a DSL service - but they are not the only business to do so. Paradise Net also offer it. I'm not sure how their arrangement works with Telecom but they have managed to get it for their customers.
I want ADSL, and I only live 500m from an exchange!!! woohooo!!!!
:)
Ofcourse, knowing Australia ISPs and Telco's, it will be some massive $$$s for non-permanent connections, and permanent connections will require you to sell your first 4 children.
Now, ofcourse, I only have until September to get my Linux/Apache/mod-SSL/mod-PHP box going
Simon
The real linux_penguin has Slashdot ID 101961. Anyone else is an impostor. Including Bruce Perens.
Suffice to say this has put the backs of the Regulators and BT out of joint slightly.
Working for the (other) man
One of the great benefits of a goverment statutary authority operating a public utility monopoly is the economies of scale. After all say if you had 3 private phone companies sharing 90% of the market, all 3 would have to run a full nationwide network, with fixed costs no less than if just one telecom had 100% of the market. With public utilities its economies of scales that keeps cost to a minimum in the long run. Imagine the economies of scale if instead of having 3 GSM networks (Telstra, Optus & Vodafone) there was just one network. Imagine what the cost saving would be from just having one set of antennas per cell, rather than the 3 we have now - triplercation of resources is a waste we all pay for. Plus any net profits go back into the goverment treasury, thereby subsidising the tax payer. As any businesman would know, if a business owned telstra it would definitly not make any sense for them to sell the company off, so why should the goverment sell it off. Really the only reason the conservatives are privatising Telstra is idealology, as it definitly doesn't make economic or financial sense - Telstra has been making billions in net profits for years. Plus, by being goverment owned there are political consequences if they charge too much, ie the politicians might get voted out. So politicians in their self interest will keep prices low. The fact is many people think phone prices on average have gone down since deregulation, however if you reserch the facts, the opposite is true, relative to what it should be now. Its just too many people beleive the PR bull about privatisation etc. Really by world standards phone prices are quite low here, You wouldnt beleive what phone bills are like in Europe. Even though untimed local calls are A22c (US14c), may seem dearer than in parts of the US where local calls are free, actually many of those local phone areas are no bigger than a couple of suburbs. For instance if you were to make a call from one side of greater LA to the other side, you could be going through at least a couple of phone districts, so therefore you'd end up paying quite a bit more than you would down here in Sydney. Where I can dial a suburb 20 miles away & talk for 5 hours & its an untimed local call & as such will only cost me A22c (US14c).
>To bring you yankees, poms, euros and others up
... hell, even a street >of people could get together and form an
>to speed, the Australian federal government is
>hell-bent on selling Telstra in order to help pay
>off some of the national debt.
Yes, that and to help brake these sorts of monopolies held by Telstra.
>This has already led to a great deal of >controversy.
<most of it motivated by socialists who still believe the banks should be nationalised>
>Telstra has been accused of reducing
>services to remote areas, and of predatory, >monopolistic practices.
For at least twenty years.
>The solution offered is a system of regulations,
>laws, and fines. IMO, this is stupid. There is a >much simpler and more elegant solution.
>
>One: Keep the hardware.
>Two: Sell the rest.
This is what has been done. There is an industry oversight body called Austel which allows equal access to all telecommunications players. I agree the system is overregulated, but you're rwong to imply the government has parted with the hardware.
>The Network is the source of Telstra's monopoly >power.
Not really. These country services were one of the last bastions of their monopoly. All that they have now is incumbancy, and their ability to delay court cases for as long as possible.
>It owns the Australian phone network, top to >bottom.
No! This is crap! Rate this idiot down. This is just plain wrong. They do not own, or control acces to the hardware as you call it. RATE THIS GUY DOWN.
>Competition in Australian telcos roughly boils >down to who can pay Telstra more.
DOWN DOWN DOWN - his facts are wrong
>That network - bequeathed to Telstra for free -
>was paid for by the Australian taxpayer,
BZT! Wrong!
>an investment of billions.
BZT! Telstra don't own it.
>But because the network has already been paid
>for (by us), Telstra gets it "for free".
All telecoms get access to it, and none get it free.
>I say that we keep the network and sell the rest
>of Telstra. Sell its customers, support centres,
>business ventures and staff; but keep the part
>*we* paid for.
I can see you're one of the men behind coalition policy in the lead up to the 1996 federal election. Four years ago? What?
>So how do we manage this network, if we keep it?
>
> We turn to the market to handle it.
I smell karma whoring...
<lots of snipage>
>This also means that firms can buy their own
>capacity directly. ISPs, businesses with large
>phone and data networks
>access co-operative. All possible with a working >bandwidth market.
This is as the system has been since deregulation.
>The sale of Telstra is going to create more and
>more of these legalistic, top-heavy solutions.
>This is why we need to take away Telstra's >monopoly basis.
No, it will lead to less. In the transition period it's worse, but it will lighten off over time. Once other players are nicely entrenched (and we're getting close). The biggest probglem with Telstra as it is is that it's a political football. We need a telecommunications sector where there is enough competition to guarentee reasonable service at a reasonable cost. Telstra has never delivered that because regardless of how many stupid tricks regulators have tried to keep it honest, it has still managed to be inefficient and at the time of deregulatoin was a very powerful monopoly.
amien@bemail.org
However I don't see this as the biggest gain from this announcement as all users of the Telstra Cable Modem service will agree the pricing structure that Telstra will likely employ as a monopoly will be so high as to be restrictive. Remember the Charging fiasco of recent times. The real gain for the Australian net community is the access to the local loop for Telstra's competition.
Historically in the Australian Teleco industry it is almost impossible for ANYONE to compete with Telstra on a country wide scale. This being directly related to the fact that Australia is a BIG place. Sydney to Perth is what 4,000 km(?) and there is not all that much in that space. The major competitor to Telstra Cable & Wireless Optus is still suffering from massive costs incurred in both building a fiber network that covers lots of the country as well as covering the cost of buying out the other half of a joint venture that went bankrupt trying to install an HFC network only in Aus larger cities Optus Vision. Yes I hear all you Australian's saying there the same company . . . well they are NOW after CWO payed $400 million to buy out it's other parteners to stop liquidation.
The way I see it is that Australians need need to have more of the community efforts like those that are going on in Canberra and I see now other centres in Aus like this one where communities get together to set up wireless or other types of networks.
Anyway, there are a number of smaller telcos who need you to dial prefix codes for long distance, and cable TV companies who also provide phone service and are starting to add cable modems.
On top of this we have Oftel, the telecoms regulator. They are mainly concerned with preventing BT from squashing any of the minnows. Their long-term goal is to nurture the competition to the extent that they no longer have to set BT's prices. Getting new technology into place is a secondary goal.
BT has been experimenting with and promising ADSL for a long time. They are just getting a trial service under way with some ISPs. Those who have it say it works great, but roll-out of the trials has not been terribly successful. BT have just extended the trial time. It is widely suspected that they don't want people to have high speed net access because this will lose BT its lucrative leased line market (ISTR a 64kbit line costs £1,000/month).
Oftel have commanded that BT open up their local loops by the middle of next year. At that point things should start moving.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
This news will be treated with much hesitation. Telstra has been "trialling" xDSL for several years, only to commence another trial once one is complete.
Australian net users deserve better treatment. We are not a technological backwater. With names such as Tridge(samba) and Rusty(ipchains), both living in Canberra & contributing much to the open source movement, we are a nation governed (for the moment) by a bunch of techno-phobic conservatives.
An end to censorship!
DSL will be great, for the people who will be able to have access to it. My understanding is that Telstra will offer it as a premium service and is limited to a first come first served basis.
This also does not answer many needs remote regional areas have for high speed data access.
The Australian Government is working very hard to facilitate telecommunication growth. The company I work for (AirNet Commercial Australia P/L)is about to launch its services which could be used as an alternative to DSL: broadband wireless access. Link speed can range from 115Kbps to 155Mbps - it is up to the user (and their budget). Each link plugs straight into an IP public packet switched network. "Local" IP traffic is free (great for gamers) with latency of around 2-6ms.
This service will be available in each major city and in regional areas via satellite up/down links.
In a nutshell: DSL has much to offer, but there will be other fantastic alternatives available very soon.
If you are interested to know more, please contact me privately. Colvin Burgess - email:colvinb@airnet.com.au
C.Burgess - email:colvinb@airnet.com.au
We in the Czech republic have the monopoly in the voice calls held by the Czech Telecom, the only voice calls operator here (not including the cell phones). The market in the data connections has been de-monopolized for a while, and this of course caused the rapid lowering of prices of the data connections (leased lines, frame relay etc).
The monopoly in the area of the voice calls still lasts here. The monopoly guaranteed by law was expected to end by the end of this year, but the government moved the factical end of the monopoly two years further by proposing the change of the law. The only purpose of this was to increase the value of the Czech Telecom (the only voice calls operator here, not including cell phones), because they want to sell it. The bad thing is that this increase of the value is in fact paid by customers of the Czech Telecom.
-Yenya
--
-Yenya
--
While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
This has already led to a great deal of controversy. Telstra has been accused of reducing services to remote areas, and of predatory, monopolistic practices. The solution offered is a system of regulations, laws, and fines. IMO, this is stupid. There is a much simpler and more elegant solution.
One: Keep the hardware.
Two: Sell the rest.
The Network is the source of Telstra's monopoly power. It owns the Australian phone network, top to bottom. Competition in Australian telcos roughly boils down to who can pay Telstra more.
That network - bequeathed to Telstra for free - was paid for by the Australian taxpayer, an investment of billions. Telstra could not afford to pay to build that network itself. Nor could any company on an "expected returns" basis. But because the network has already been paid for (by us), Telstra gets it "for free".
I say that we keep the network and sell the rest of Telstra. Sell its customers, support centres, business ventures and staff; but keep the part *we* paid for.
So how do we manage this network, if we keep it?
We turn to the market to handle it.
We have, say, x Gigabits of data capacity inherent in the network. I note that the Australian system, once you hit an exchange, is fully digital. Voice and data are all the same thing.
We issue - quarterly, say - "bandwidth bonds". A bandwidth bond entitles the holder to a certain percentage of network carrying capacity over a certain time period.
To prevent speculatory activity, you'll need a rudimentary registration to enter the market. After that, anyone may buy, sell or trade units amongst themselves. This means that Telcos need not buy bandwidth from Telstra at inflated prices in rigid blocks, they buy exactly as they need. They need more? Buy some off the market. Bought too much? Sell back your excess capacity.
This also means that firms can buy their own capacity directly. ISPs, businesses with large phone and data networks ... hell, even a street of people could get together and form an access co-operative. All possible with a working bandwidth market.
The sale of Telstra is going to create more and more of these legalistic, top-heavy solutions. This is why we need to take away Telstra's monopoly basis.
Well, that's my two Australian cents, anyhow :)
be well;
JC. (note that USYD is a .edu)
--
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.