Confiscation? What confiscation?

I was browsing Whirlpool recently, and discovered that a user was posting that the G9 consortium proposed to “rip out” part of Telstra’s copper network lead me to believe that some are blindly believing the crap spewed out on Telstra’s propaganda machine, or that some people believe a article on “The Australian’s” website is free of errors and is factual and uninfluenced.

The amazing part here is, I told that user on Whirlpool to read the proposal and point out where in the proposal (the SOURCE) does it state that the G9 plan to “Rip out” part of Telstra’s network.

I further asked that user to define how confiscation was occurring when the G9 proposed to pay Telstra at least $5 for the copper tails from the node (very close to the customer house) to the customer.

The user couldn’t seem to provide a valid answer to either of those.

Simply because, I define confiscation the same manner that P-platers in Melbourne would define it after having their cars confiscated for being a bloody idiot.

They get an item of theirs (car) / (copper network) taken away from them against their own free will, and without any form of compensation offered, and they lose all ownership rights to that item.

Just for the sake of highlighting this a little more, I also questioned why the G9 are paying Telstra if they are also confiscating the network.

I don’t see the Victorian government paying those people for taking their cars off them for being dumb wankers.

(Note, I don’t live in Victoria, but I do recall reading a story in the news where a P-plater lost his car for 48hrs whilst driving through a city street at 213kM/hr (a wanker)).

And again we get to revisit the issue of compensation, something the expert taskforce will also be visiting.

Compensation is defined as repayment for the undue damage done to someone, or someone’s assets, without their consent, either deliberate or otherwise, where there is reason to believe the defendant could have otherwise avoided the problem from occurring. This is my definition of it, Google probably has a better one, but for the sake of dumbing it down, that’s as dumb as it gets.

Actually, no, it gets dumber.
Compensation is the repayment, either in the form of asset, or cash, where asset repayment is not possible, as a direct result of damage committed by someone who could have otherwise prevented such damage from occurring, but did not take action despite being fully aware of the problem.

Telstra state that if a FTTN network is rolled out by anyone else, requiring access to their copper network, without adequate compensation, then they will certainly sue for compensation.

I don’t see what damage has been done? If anything Telstra did the damage themselves by sitting on their asses for too long. They had years to move to FTTN / FTTH, but did not do so.
They’ve had all the time in the world to start implementing FTTN even without the ACCC’s permission, so long as they maintained pricing, of a basic service (this is why RIMs are a common occurrance in areas, they could have done FTTN instead of RIMs).

They sat on their hands.

Now a competitor (group of) has decided that, we can do FTTN, and this will also give us a leg up into FTTH when it emerges as viable, and Telstra aren’t happy.

They sat sucking consumers dry and didn’t spend the money they were making and when someone else decides they want to upgrade the network for the benefit of consumers, Telstra cries foul for compensation.

The G9 proposal is somewhat like this:

Add a Fibre to the node “node” at a point near a Telstra pillar.
Install A Fibre cable to the node (this does not need Telstra’s duct, can easily be strung from power pole, ran through sewer, or dig a new trench / use someone elses ducts).

With the node prepared to offer FTTN services, they now just take the distribution side of the pillar’s cable, so this is the copper wires going back to the exchange, and get them plugged into their node on a remote switching platform.

Then, on the customer side, they get all customer lines connected to the node.

Now, with all that connected, customers can remain connected to exchange services, as well, they can be provided a service from the node instead.

Using remote switching they are capable of swapping a customer’s service from node to exchange remotely.

The goal here is to save on technician visits to the node each time the customer might want to change a provider.

The G9 propose a range of possible payment to Telstra for the copper wire they will be renting from them.
They will also likely pay for Pillar Migration service as well, and Telstra won’t be keen to let anyone else but Telstra do such a task, so Telstra still profit massively there too.

I don’t see what Telstra are whinging about really, they are getting their own network upgraded, at someone elses expense, and Telstra will be able to supply services across that network cheaper than what they claim it costs them to provide a service.

If I were Telstra, I’d be shaking hands with them and helping them out every where I could, after all, cheaper costs means higher profits.

That is of course, assuming Telstra is telling the truth when they state the costs of providing a service, I don’t believe them one bit, but oh well, that’s there problem if someone else can do it cheaper.

I go back to the topic now though: Confiscation, What confiscation??

If the G9 are paying for Pillar Migration, and any duct rental, and rental of the last mile copper at regulated (and therefore agreeable) rates, what’s the big whinge about? Telstra not happy being treated better than they treat their competitiors? Oh well, it’s not that hard to get used to paying cheaper for a service than they state they pay themselves.. Of course, they are full of sh*t, but that’s not for me to decide.

What compensation? They still get the revenue from the copper network, so .. what compensation? If anything, I am sure the G9 can sort this out.

Appparently, it costs 17.70 for a copper ULL, so I say the G9 might just do that, give Telstra their 17.70, and shut them up, and still take revenue anyway from offering competitively priced services via a wholesale only model which creates competition.

I do hope the Expert Taskforce chooses a G9-like proposal, not because Telstra are who I dislike, but because we’ve seen Telstra, and they’ve done a pathetic job, I’m sure the G9 couldn’t be worse, and should in fact be better, considering they are the ones responsible behind the majority of Telstra’s fines and anti-competition notices they’ve had dished out over the last few years and have been forced to stick to.

So, how could they do worse? They’d be hypocritical to be doing the same as Telstra did to them, so we can only expect better.


This entry was posted in Random. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Confiscation? What confiscation?

  1. Daniel says:

    I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100% regarding Confiscation? What confiscation?, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong 🙂

  2. Daniel says:

    I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Confiscation? What confiscation?, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *