Since this didn’t want to make Now We Are Talking, probably because they like to censor content, as they don’t seem to believe their shareholders and website viewers are able to find fiction from fact, I will post what I want on Now We Are Talking (trash) here.
It’s really poor of them to censor comments that are seemingly perfectly acceptable, simply to avoid the public seeing just one possible solution to all the drama.
Telstra Corporation owns Telstra’s Retail Business Units, Telstra’s Wholesale Business Units, and Telstra’s Network Business Units.
Those 3 business units are all owned by Telstra Corporation, and as a result, give Telstra Corporation, and its child companies and business units conflicts of interest when it comes to participating in a competitive market.
The reason Telstra get so strongly targetted by regulation is because of a few FACTS (the ones they don’t want the Australian public knowing about either):
- They have been fined repeatedly for breaching the Trade Practices Act
- They have repeatedly been taken through court for breaches of the Trade Practices Act
- They have been ordered to pay competitors back funds, to the tunes of millions, as a result of court and legal action.
- They maintain a strangle hold on the industry, with uncompetitive, and very restrictive prices on backhaul, that it likely doesn’t charge itself, or Bigpond for, making ADSL2+ rollouts in regional areas bad options for competitors.
- They don’t seem to charge Bigpond a cent, and further, Bigpond still seem to get cheaper prices, just looking at the recent $14.97 campaign for Fraudband.
So, as a result of Telstra having a complete conflict of interest between being the infrastructure provider, the wholesaler and the retailer, they can’t seem to price in a manner that is “competitive”, or not favouring Bigpond, or its other conflict of interests, such as Telstra’s backhaul.
Removing that conflict is VERY, VERY simple.
Here’s how they do it.
Split that Network Services Business Unit into a seperate company. One that they can only maintain a 40% interest in, and encourage private investment into that new company.
That rids Telstra completely of its network services company, and places it in a new company.
Telstra wholesale buy services directly from the network services company. Telstra retail, Bigpond, and other companies by services from Telstra Wholesale, or other wholesale entities that deal with the network services company.
No Wholesale services entity can retail services, they may only wholesale them. Wholesales can only supply to retail businesses.
Retail businesses service the consumer.
It’s the job of the network services company to invest in, maintain, and upgrade the network, and provide services of a reliable nature, as well as take over the USO.
Telstra will at that point be a company that is no longer a monopoly. They maintain their brand name, and they should lose regulations.
That is what you call a “level” playing field.
Something Telstra didn’t want to be showing on Now We Are Talking, because Telstra refuse to face reality.
The telecommunications market is a market that is driving, with strong force, competition, and they don’t want to face that reality. They want that monopoly, and they want it unregulated.
I fail to see, any reason whatsoever, how a post of this nature is somehow in breach of the rules of Now We Are Talking (trash).
I find it a completely unreasonable move on their part, considering the solution could help them!
Also, holding a 40% interest in the network services company would ensure value. They would hold a great amount of value of the network services company, and enjoy the profits, and avoid the dilution of the share price.
Telstra claim they can’t compete due to the regulatory stranghold, well, lose the regulations by removing the need to have them. That need is clearly the monopoly network they have in their posession. Place it in a seperate company, and lose the controlling interest in the company, and Telstra can really show us just how they will compete in a competitive market.
Alternatively, they can shut their cakeholes, and let the G9 get on with business, and stop playing down their proposal, it’s a great proposal, in fact, it’s likely to do more for this country in the words of competition, compared to anything Telstra has ever done to help competitors into the industry.
So, I’m still pondering, why else would they not let such a comment be posted? I just don’t find a reason in their rules that fits “describing a workable solution” as a reason for a comment to not be allowed on the site.