Telstra’s attempt at delaying the OPEL rollout is one which will fail.
Some considerations need to be placed to decide just how far Telstra are going to try and go, to stop any form of regional broadband investment.
Consideration 1: Telstra is the only supplier in Regional areas.
They have a conflict of interest here, in that they were never going to be eligible anyway, as the point of the funding was to provide competition.
Consideration 2: Telstra are wanting to put more consumers on NextG, simply for the fatter profits.
Consideration 3: Coonan’s case is only launched by Telstra, despite the fact that many other consortiums also did not win, yet could have won easily. Telstra is the only one taking it to the courts.
Telstra was never going to be qualified in the first place, the pricing they have is excessive, and from previous experience, Telstra take anything government funded, as its own and still restrict competitors from accessing it, despite being taxpayer funded infrastructure.
— They have how many Broadband Connect and HiBis ADSL2+ DSLAMs, yet these are shaped to limited ADSL1, for Telstra’s own financial gain… They really love thanking the taxpayer and the consumer for their assistance in the purchases, don’t they.. —
Consideration 4: Regardless of whatever avenue Telstra take to put the case into the courts, and however long they keep it there, they will not become the successful tenderer to any bid placed.
Not because anyone dislikes them (wouldn’t surprise me if many did though), but because it’s the competition’s turn now. Telstra had their years of government funding and investment risk management.
It’s how they got themselves to the trillion dollar (and falling) position they are at today. (I say Trillion, because managed right, the national network has the potential to produce that sort of dollars from now into the future, put in the hands of pigs, like Telstra and its shareholders, well, the asset very quickly becomes devalued, not because Telstra are the bad owner for it, but because Telstra have no idea whatsoever about money management and smart investment, just look at the waste of dollars on ADSL2+… They bought ADSL2+ technology, yet only supply it at ADSL1.. Why not just buy cheaper ADSL1 technology? Idiots.)
The point of the tender is to introduce competition to all of the underserved areas, they are only underserved because Telstra serves them at present. Telstra’s service is excessively priced, and poor value.
Telstra’s point with the legal case is to delay the funding to OPEL. They don’t want to see OPEL get building and save all the NextG customers from Telstra’s greedy hands..
Ask yourself, why else would Telstra spend money on a court case that it won’t win, and even if it did, it’s back to the tender boards to redo the tender, and the result.. someone else other than Telstra, getting the funds.?
They have a lot to lose, and they don’t like that idea..
Telstra, the ticking time bomb will explode. Put the matters in the courts all you like, your wasting your own money, eventually, they will be able to invest, and that investment will see Telstra losing revenue and customers.
No point fighting it continuously, and if you think you can try and push it into a political debate, you’ll lose. Howard still has a lot of support, and given the recent exposure the Labor party has had, you can imagine Kevin Rudd isn’t going to bounce back good after the revelation that he well, isn’t exactly the “Family Guy”, and Wayne Swan’s actions recently.
So, your only real count at the moment is that many will believe Rudd’s plan will work… Well, you haven’t got much support from what I can see, when you look at Coonan’s plans over Conroy’s you see a very clear mark that she is doing better by keeping taxpayer dollars in taxpayer hands…
.. All fun and games isn’t it Telstra? Until you waste so much time and money that the competitors end up ahead of you, and your sitting on.. well, court cases and lawyer bills instead of dollars.
Enjoy!
Jason you are to be admired for your extensive writings, all of which must consume valuable time.
Could I humbly suggest to you however, that your over the top and insulting remarks only alienate you (except for like thinking and equally rabid readers)from well balanced people who are interested in you columns.
I understand the frustration with having to compete with a large well managed company like Telstra, but Jason, attacking, with at times unsupported vitriol does nor assist your argument and gain you support.
It is not my intention to be insulting to you but I do note that you have very little correspondence to your articles and suggest that the reason could be people are reluctant to converse because of your unreasonable, hurtful and insulting remarks.
It is a fact that around Australia there are 1,600,000 shareholders of Telstra who I am sure would find your communication extremely distasteful.
Sydney.
I say screw those 1,600,000 Australians, there’s 20,000,000 and rising Australian Consumers.
They are the ones who are important.
Sydney, I don’t compete with Telstra at all, I repeat here to your empty head that I don’t compete with Telstra one bit..
I don’t see how you find the truth insulting? It is the truth, you do know that?
People do actually respond here too Sydney. And besides that, put in the face of a more broad media, you can easily see which argument here wins hands down, tip: It’s not Telstra.
Telstra can try all they like to fight the change that is occurring to the telecommunications landscape, but the fact of the matter is, the force behind the change is far too strong for Telstra to hold back completely, Telstra will lose marketshare. It’s only a matter of just how long is remaining until they do, and how much they do lose.
And Telstra have no one else to blame but themselves, they could very well have worked together and reaped rewards, but no, they had to fight it, so they’ll make the short term gain, and the long term loss.
Jason thank you for the courtesy of reply.
It would be extremely interesting to see what your business reactions would be if you were to become Chief Executive Officer of Telstra.
I wonder if you would maintain your sharing attitude or, as I imagine, you would cut loose on all the restrictive rules placed on Telstra.
To be honest I think you might be good for Telstra as I am sure you would go in hard in an effort to slaughter the opposition.
Sydney,
I don’t deny anyone the right of reply. I’ve gone over that time and time again.
My business reaction being the CEO of Telstra would be much like it is in the Web Hosting industry.
Essentially that industry is very competitive, yet so very similar to the market that is there at the moment, with one exception, the dominant infrastructure bodies don’t generally have a conflict of interest like Telstra does.
Web Hosting services are generally setup in a manner where Colocation providers also sell webhosting, and they also allow others to resell that hosting in their own manner, and the chain can continue limitlessly.
They compete fairly, and there isn’t much in the way of competition lockouts happening either.
In fact, Web Hosting surprises me how all those businesses can exist side by side without any anti competition notices taking place.. But then, they aren’t exactly the same as Telstra, the greedy pigs either compete or go broke. Telstra on the other hand can sit and maintain the current situation and do nothing and will still make the same.
I definitely think I could do some good for Telstra as CEO.
Drop those excessive backhaul prices so we can actually get some dollars for having the backhaul there, use infrastructure already paid for to its full potential, and stop wasting shareholder dollars on vexatious lawsuits and failing web and advertising campaigns..
All the while, still putting a meal on the table for our favourite shareholder, Sydney Lawrence.
Pretty simple if you ask me.. But greed complicates things, just ask Phil, he seems pretty porky.