Slashdot Mirror
AU National Broadband Network Signs $11 Billion Deal With Telstra
An anonymous reader writes "The Australian government has signed an $11 billion deal with the country's largest telco, Telstra, to acquire the telco's physical infrastructure and migrate customers to the National Broadband Network. The NBN is a 100Mbps open access fiber network that will be rolled out to 94% of the Australian population, with wireless and satellite to cover the remainder. The deal marks a large step forward for the new network, as without a deal to bring Telstra's customers onboard, the NBN's viability was in question."
Everyone knows wallabies love to eat fiber
If this was a country other than Australia I'd think it was awesome. Now this just seems as a way to further invade the internet lives of their citizens. I sure hope people can still buy private internet, but I doubt they'll be able to.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe now the Australian people won't get fucked by Telstra any longer. Seriously, that's got to be one of THE worst ISPs I've seen people use.
I've had more stable video conference calls on a 56k dialup.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
NBN is a private company funded by the government for now. Once it's up and running, the government will cut and run like with everything else. Trust me, this has very little to do with censorship.
For anyone truly concerned, they never tested any of their ISP-level filtering shit on the fibre networks, because they know it'll fuck up under that load. If anything, the NBN will make any further censorship proposals go away... for now.
Disagree != mod troll.
Come on, Australia has a population of 21MM people! If it joined the US, it would make it our 3rd largest state population-wise and that largest state area-wise! That, and if any of their government censorship antics (or nationalized broadband) are successfully implemented, don't think that the US and Western Europe won't seriously considering following suit.
Australia is currently spearheading innovation in Western censorship and control. Think of it like MSDN for governments.
Yeah, now they will be fucked by their Government instead. Who do you think has the bigger dick?
This is going to turn out one of two ways.
Best Case: the NBN operates somewhat like AmtTrak in the US, forever receiving subsidies from the national government while getting government-granted monopolies on some kinds of operation.
Worst Case: the Australian government decides that NBN is a really good start on nationalizing all Internet access in their country.
Either way, the people that think this operation will be spun off privately and profitably one day are fools.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
4. Profit! (for the Telstra shareholders)
Well it would be about time for them
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
This will save the government billions of dollars in trench digging and pole construction. This is a great sign that the NBN won't be scrapped by any upcoming parties.
On the other hand since the NBN is essentially going to either make Telstra's service a niche product or drive the company into bankruptcy, you'd think they'd just nationalize their assets anyways. But at least this way the shareholders, most of which are common Australian families, will get something out of it.
Yeah, its a bit of a redundant exercise IMHO but its really the nature of the beast. The Liberal Govt sold off Telstra (and privatized it) and now we have Labor in Govt they've decided to rebuild a brand new infrastructure to replace it. One would think they would of just kept Telstra and simply fixed the problems but this is a fine example of how politics fails for the people by not considering the sake of practicality.
Now they want to transition the customers back? amidst of an economic crisis? this really sucks. The world economy is falling apart and Australia has sucked its surplus dry trying to fix it but damn it! we want fast Internet! don't worry, Ruddie will make it happen!
The problem with Telstra really was the fact that the fibre went to the node. If they took it to the premises it would of sorted it (and been cheaper than the NBN) but no it had to go through the most long and arduous, costly and impractical approach.
The NBN is a great idea but the value vs the cost isn't. I just wish politicians would just stay out of technology issues (especially Australian polies) because they always seem to get it wrong even though their intentions may seem benevolent.
The Telstra-NBN deal illustrates how the telecom industry should be restructured.
In the US, recent policy has moved in exactly the opposite direction, towards more vertical integration, so the telephone companies, who own wires built with monopoly money, don't have to let competing ISPs use them at all. They only have to let competitive phone companies (CLECs) use them under certain circumstances, which are shrinking; this basically is limited to old copper wire in urban areas and town centers.
A "LoopCo" would be a company that owns the outside wire and leases it equally to all comers, building fiber for all who want to rent it, even cable. One fiber plant is a lot easier to afford than two or three. The original NBN plan would have built a new fiber plant to compete with Telstra; as customers moved off of Telstra's old copper network, Telstra would have lost money. Telstra blinked: They're selling their existing plant to NBN, so that they will be the biggest wholesale customer, not a competitor. Telstra wins: They get to use the new network, and get paid A$11B for their old wire. The country wins: They get NBN's new fiber, and don't have to fight Telstra all the way, or pay twice.
The Bells in the US do not see it this way. Nor does the FCC, which is squarely in their pocket. Expect the US to fall farther and farther behind, as the farce called "National Broadband Plan" leads to more of the same, just with higher taxes to subsidize CenturyTel, TDS, and other rural subsidy whores who can use the subsidy money to put local wireless ISPs, who are not eligible for subsidies (only one subsidy recipient in a given place - it's literally a monopoly fund) out of business.
Provision of last-mile services are not commercially viable, virtually every network of this type has been built with government funds.. If such a network comes under private ownership it will always be a monopoly because it isn't commercially viable to build any competing infrastructure.
Such infrastructure should always have remained controlled by a non profit wholesale provider, and let third parties brand and offer services to end users.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Sure... hop onto the nice, fast, cozy, government-provided internet.
And in exchange, accept ubiquitous monitoring and censorship.
Sorry, but the Australian government has gone far too Orwellian for me. If I had a choice of being on a government-sponsored internet, I would insist that it be just like phone lines: no censorship, and no monitoring without a warrant.
Like most major infrastructure projects in Australia, by the time this is completed (or even available in certain areas while others are still unconnected) it will be obsolete. There are providers offering much higher speeds in new residential estates already.
Seriously, wtf? Just ignore them and let them die a slow and painful death. Create a government funded company that *just* does infrastructure and only sells bandwidth to ISPs. The end user can only get a plan from one of these ISPs. Keep the infrastructure entirely separated from the end user and we can avoid a mess like selling Telstra again. Oh yeah, last step, don't get fucking greedy and sell this new company either.
Seems like every day there's a story about AT&T, Verizon, "cable" and "digital switchovers". It's just one country, right?
I just read another article about this, NBN deal , which indicates:
* Telstra gets to be removed from universal service obligation
* and there will be yet another company setup to look after unprofitable telco services to rural and regional Australian - called USO Co - with only 50 million to do with with (at least to begin with)
As to filtering - I still think it is a part of a master plan to create a backbone which is filtered before it ever reaches ISPs. They won't/aren't concerned with filtering overhead and never will be. They only want to be able to control the flow of free information into Australia.
Encryption won't do diddly-squat. It hasn't for quite a while now.
Whats the use of an encrypted connection when you're being mass-MITMed by the very lines you're going through?
Security through obscurity is the first step. Once you've got that down pat, then encrypt it.
Someone's going to punch me in the face for saying that.
"The NBN is a 100Mbps open access fiber network that will be rolled out to 94% of the Australian population"
Currently, the plan is only 90% coverage with fibre, although the recent report by KPMS suggested they increase that to 92%. I believe the 94% is the current (claimed) Telstra ADSL coverage.
My only concerns are privacy and censorship. It's not like they were protected before by having private telecoms, but what happens when the government runs the entire network?
That's a problem.
It does somewhat depend on which country you're in. Here in the US, for example, we do have some rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Granted, they're not always followed, but in theory at least (and in practice if you have enough money), you can get them enforced, or the violations can mean that the courts will dismiss any charges against you.
But this only applies to government agencies. As many people have explained here, the US Constitution doesn't apply to private corporations. They can intercept your communications all they like, and use the information for any purposes (or at least any profitable purposes ;-), without fear of legal repercussions. When the government does that, it's illegal. So in the US, we'd probably be better off with a government-owned Internet infrastructure.
Of course, things may be entirely different where you live. Some countries put legal controls on what private corporations can do to you, but allow the government free rein to abuse their citizens. In such countries, you should probably push for a private comm system if you want legal protections.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Whats the use of an encrypted connection when you're being mass-MITMed by the very lines you're going through?
Avoiding MITM attacks is one of the primary design features of SSL / TLS. Unless the government has control of a root cert authority in your browser they can't MITM you without you getting at least a warning. Of course, I wouldn't put it past them to legislate that all browsers distributed in Austraila must ship an "Australian Government" root cert and then the game will be up ...
True, that is the point of SSL / TLS. But you'd be surprised at how many cert issuers are in the pocket of agencies like the NSA or DSD. The root certs are only as secure as the original issuer is.
I do love my internet dropping out when it's raining :( Starting to happen to me more often.
No new pipes to the US, no competitive data rates, held back adsl 2, count data use up and down ect.
Labor could have done this right with clean new equipment, new telcos and worlds best practice.
Now we have the same old rust belt tech grafted on.
The same crushed ducts, digital loop carrier DLC protecting telco leaders getting rehabilitated with public funding.
The only effort put into national networking was to stifle, silence and suppress any talk of one.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The National Broadband Network (NBN) is a Layer-2 wholesale network; your IP carriage (or whatever else is run over the fibre) is provided by your retailer, who buy access to the layer 2 wholesale network from NBN Co., the government-owned company that is building and administering the network.
I would think that litigation for copyright violations etc would then be more likely to fall on the retailer, who has a direct relationship with the end user; as the wholesaler, NBN Co. does not.
Recall from 2008 http://www.zdnet.com.au/telstra-uses-plastic-bags-and-tape-to-fix-phone-lines-339285489.htm
They have a huge secret database of crushed ducts too.
Other telcos have asked for details but nobody gets to understand the state of the network in any depth.
This mindset is what we will be adding to a new network.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I think that there is a "fit-for-use" clause. I noticed it in one of the briefings. Of course, migrating to fibre means that these problems should no longer be problems.
They are acquiring access. That is, renting access to the "fit-for-use" pits and ducts from Telstra. I hope that this is only a mistake in the reporting, but perhaps there is a buy option at the end of the lease. http://www.commsday.com/commsday/?p=1134
I trust SSL/TLS against malicious users, not government level sniffing. I'd almost guarantee that the NSA have copies of most root certificates for the purpose of conducting MITM attacks.
This is why I have a VPN
In this case, any network outside of Australia is considered "Trusted" for my purposes.
I pretty much just want to get around the whole Australian Governments "We are going to watch everything you do" policy. Specifically, their desire to log every website I visit.
Last thing I want is for the feds to bust my door down because I'm googleing a particular book by Vladimir Nabokov.
How much did the Government sell Telstra for in the first place? ;-)
Fair enough. Different lengths for different needs. =)
Exactly.
When I'm plotting my suicide terrorist schemes to kill the president by blowing up new york using illegally downloaded music and child porn, I use something a little more secure.
(Ohai there NSA!)
If the majority don't like the government they can vote it out.
When the majority of Telstra shareholders including one that had more than a 50% stake voted to stop the Telstra CEO from getting a five million dollar bonus for nearly running it into the ground the board ignored them.
That infrastructure already belonged to the people of Australia, since we initially paid for it (when the Government initially built it).
Then it was given away as part of Telstra when the company was partly privatised.
Now we have to pay for it again so we can replace it.
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
Basically the reason Stephen Conroy is the Net Minister is because he knows how to get the telcos rolling with the NBN. I don't think they expected him to be a complete nutjob regarding the other stuff.
21 MilliMetres?
I think you mean 22 Million people.
Just to clarify, Australia is 7,617,930 km2 whilst the continental United states is 8,080,464.25 km2. We are almost as big as 48 of your states put together.
And we are getting better Internet infrastructure (how are those local monopolies working out, our regulation is great) not to mention health care, education and so forth.
No point in having area a population statistics when talking about services.
Where does it say this?
Nowhere?
Perhaps you made it up to justify your poorly thought out rant.
The broadband will not be nationalised, The government is building the infrastructure and this will be leased to all private telco's. It's not like this was the NBN's stated goal from the word go, nor has it changed. Australia has not had a government owned telco in over 15 years. this is exactly like state owned powerlines, anyone can lease them.
And you're damned right, when the NBN is a success, European governments will follow suit, however the US will still be beholden to private corporations who want tax money to maintain the status quo. Let us know how that works out for you.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I blame consumers for not being informed for Telstra being dominant in ADSL. For many non-technical people "bigpond" and broadband are synonymous. Even if you try to explain alternatives they just ignore you and go with Telstra anyway. Telstra do have a huge war-chest when it comes to advertising which helps their dominance, but other ISPs have print & billboard ads. Even a small amount of digging would show up how much better the other ISPs' offerings are (more broadband for less cost).
NBNCo buying the Telstra wholesale arm is a positive step for the NBN. They get existing fibre and in rural areas copper networks (in the case of copper the digging has already been done so you just have to lay the fibre alongside the copper wires). It would be a huge waste of effort digging a second set of trenches everywhere, which was the alternative until today.
Fibre everywhere gives everyone 100Mbps internet as opposed to what we have now which is 20Mbps in cities and much slower in regional areas.
The crushed duct database is very secret, what are we paying for?
Existing fibre is usually backhaul quality, any telco can run that out given approval.
A second set of trenches would ensure a clean install or blowing down existing ducts ect.
20Mbps in cities with copper is what 1200-1400 m of looped clean quality copper from the exchange?
http://www.internode.on.net/residential/broadband/adsl/extreme/performance/
Telstra's only interest seems to be a direct monopoly or a wholesale monopoly or an interconnect monopoly.
The idea that your gov optical link from a suburban home ends with a selection of other telcos optics - best effort wholesale or real hardware waiting to be linked on demand is not something they want to see.
ie just another isp.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
In the UK, BT actually encouraged people to share their broadband accounts,
eg, so BT wouldn't have to add as much infrastructure each year.
(It's a bit like power generators encouraging folks to generate power locally,
eg, with their own wind or PV gear & buying their power during peak-load-
ing periods.)
Very sensible!
Perhaps, someday, WiMAX boxes will get as cheap as today's home routers,
so you'll be able to share a fast NBN account with some neighbors.
If not WiMAX, then something similar - maybe even better - may come out, ;-)
that will help you enjoy a few "fast enough" access roads to the Internet
"super highway" as we used to call it when it first arrived.
"blowing up new york using illegally downloaded music and child porn"
Thanks, I've been wondering what a "dirty bomb" was.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
-1 Disagree
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
Come on along and be impressed, the alibi of broadband.
Australia has to have the best, the alibi of broadband.
It will connect to everyone, in every home or nearly.
It's going to be a heap of fun, it's going to cost us dearly.
When the brand new broadband comes to town, it won't be that much quicker.
A special filter slows it down, to catch the porn.
Must ask Kevin, one thing we don't understand.
With the net so full of crap, who needs broadband?
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
Provision of last-mile services are not commercially viable, virtually every network of this type has been built with government funds.. If such a network comes under private ownership it will always be a monopoly because it isn't commercially viable to build any competing infrastructure. Such infrastructure should always have remained controlled by a non profit wholesale provider, and let third parties brand and offer services to end users.
I think it's true that this project isn't commercially viable. For the "non profit wholesale provider", the question is how much of the building costs they will be able to recoup through the wholesale charges. Closing down the competing Telstra network will presumably allow higher charges than would otherwise have been the case. My experience with other government enterprises, e.g., electricity, is not entirely positive, since they tend to operate inefficiently and simply pass on the costs via large annual price hikes. Without competition (except for mobile networks), will that happen on the fibre network too?
Just have a flat levy on residential land rates (like I think Queensland does for funding it's ambulance service).
Remember economies of scale are king in this business. The costs of running a nation-wide network with 97+% of the residential market & 100% of the Govt market aren't really that much greater than the costs of running a a nation-wide network with 20% of the same market, well relately speaking. The only decision required is working out the simplest/cheapest revenue method for such a govt utility. A flat rate levy on residential land rates fits the bill perfectly. The only requirement for retail ISP services would be the business market, which would nominally placate all the private ISPs crying fail at the govt using its comparative advantage to make them all redundent overnight in regards the residential market.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. What the Government and Telstra have signed is a "Heads of Agreement", which is not a binding contract; it's more like a broad set of terms both sides agree on.
The finer details still need to be discussed and the resulting contract approved by Telstra's shareholders before we can really rest easily. Until then, either side (incl. the next Government, should it change) can pull out.
It's definitely good news – not least for the current Government, coming fortuitously a scant day after a by-election hiding in Sydney –, but some commentators have already suggested Telstra holds a bit more of the bargaining power going forward as a result.
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
If the pipe between Australia and the rest of the world is still shit, what exactly is improved by laying fiber all over the place? Quicker access to the web site of a local plumber?
Yes, inefficiency is the problem with government organisations... If it's not their money, then the people running the show don't care about wasting it. That said, when organisations like this have been privatised the company taking over quickly makes huge profits by cutting costs, but often they also massively slash service to do so.
In theory, the non profit wholesale provider should recover their costs, not making a profit but not making a loss either.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!