iiNet

[Underdog]

I do kind of feel for telstra (and the shareholders) in that telstra has to service the whole country were their competitors only cover the profitable areas (thus eating into Telstra’s profits) and now people are complaining that telstra is dragging their feet so the people can use telstra infrastructure for free.....

The government should not have sold the basic infrastructure when telstra was floated - but they did and now telstra is left carrting the can.

I remember a few years back 1 case in particular, there was a remote property and Telstra had to provide a service to it. It was $120,000 worth of cabling and manpower with practically no returns. They MUST provide everyone in the country with a service regardless of its viability...other ISP's don't

 

[TurboHead]

Your understanding is as good as your typing. No one uses Telstra infrastructure for free. The ACCC has ruled on pricing for LSS and ULL. The fact that Telstra wants to abuse their monopoly powers and stamp their feet when they are not allowed is a sore point for them. Tough shit, thats the rules that Telstra was sold under

Your understanding on this subject is about as small as your ****. I was reffering to the end user (the subscriber to iinet's naked DSL) will still be using the Telstra infrastructure between the house and exchange without paying any line rental etc....

But I bet if something happens to that line which cuts the connection to their internet, they will still expect Telstra to fix it yesterday....

 

[dockertor]

Your understanding on this subject is about as small as your ****. I was reffering to the end user (the subscriber to iinet's naked DSL) will still be using the Telstra infrastructure between the house and exchange without paying any line rental etc....

But I bet if something happens to that line which cuts the connection to their internet, they will still expect Telstra to fix it yesterday....

iinet do pay for the line, Just not a telephony service on the line. The ULL rental price is built into iinets price to the customer. Not for free at all. Once again it's your understanding that's lacking.

 

[Underdog]

iinet do pay for the line, Just not a telephony service on the line. The ULL rental price is built into iinets price to the customer. Not for free at all. Once again it's your understanding that's lacking.

I think what he is saying is that Telstra gets paid a pittance by the ISP to "rent" the line yet Telstra are still always held accountable for anything that happens to this line. In that sense, the ISP is always passing the buck to Telstra. Fair enough in a sense...it is Telstra's property.

It's especially apparent on the Whirlpool forum where the other resellers are quick to lay blame on Telstra for faults or whatever issues they are having. Of course they could resolve that by investing in their own infrastructure...but they know that it's more trouble then worth...it's easier to lay blame on Telstra

I think what he is trying to convey is that other ISPs are talked up and talked up despite providing nothing but a call centre (iinet and Optus being exceptions) whilst they use all of Telstra's enforced bargain priced equipment.

 

[dockertor]

I think what he is saying is that Telstra gets paid a pittance by the ISP to "rent" the line yet Telstra are still always held accountable for anything that happens to this line. In that sense, the ISP is always passing the buck to Telstra. Fair enough in a sense...it is Telstra's property.

It's especially apparent on the Whirlpool forum where the other resellers are quick to lay blame on Telstra for faults or whatever issues they are having. Of course they could resolve that by investing in their own infrastructure...but they know that it's more trouble then worth...it's easier to lay blame on Telstra

I think what he is trying to convey is that other ISPs are talked up and talked up despite providing nothing but a call centre (iinet and Optus being exceptions) whilst they use all of Telstra's enforced bargain priced equipment.

This what Telstra would like you to believe. But the pricing is being enforced by a government body (accc) whose job it is to stop Telstra abusing its monopoly powers. The pricing is independently arbitrated as fair. Telstra spends a lot of money trying to tell you otherwise.
Their billion dollar profits would suggest they do alright.

 

[Underdog]

This what Telstra would like you to believe. But the pricing is being enforced by a government body (accc) whose job it is to stop Telstra abusing its monopoly powers. The pricing is independently arbitrated as fair. Telstra spends a lot of money trying to tell you otherwise.
Their billion dollar profits would suggest they do alright.

No. The ACCC are encouraging competition with these restrictions. I have no problem with that, it's a good thing. Doesn't mean that the restrictions are particularly fair to them as an organisation.

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone can doubt the restrictions are needed. I'm just saying that it's still worth noting.

 

[YOTC]

Their billion dollar profits would suggest they do alright.

Says it all really. They can't complain about a lack of money because we all know they have it....

 

[Underdog]

Says it all really. They can't complain about a lack of money because we all know they have it....

what's your point?

If you were making an tremendous salary and your bosses came up and said, "look, you're earning too much, it isn't fair on the others, so we will be implementing policies to reduce your pay and raise everyone elses"...you would be OK with it?

 

[YOTC]

what's your point?

If you were making an tremendous salary and your bosses came up and said, "look, you're earning too much, it isn't fair on the others, so we will be implementing policies to reduce your pay and raise everyone elses"...you would be OK with it?

Swing and a miss.

 

[dockertor]

No. The ACCC are encouraging competition with these restrictions. I have no problem with that, it's a good thing. Doesn't mean that the restrictions are particularly fair to them as an organisation.

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone can doubt the restrictions are needed. I'm just saying that it's still worth noting.

Yes the restrictions are required. As for the fairness question, Tel$tra try to make out they are patently unfair, Their line of bullshit is laughable and they have been laughed out of every court in the land.
At the risk of repeating myself I'll say again the ACCC is an independent body that looks into these matters and arbitrates. The big T just don't want to accept the umpires decision.

 

[Underdog]

Yes the restrictions are required. As for the fairness question, Tel$tra try to make out they are patently unfair, Their line of bullshit is laughable and they have been laughed out of every court in the land.
At the risk of repeating myself I'll say again the ACCC is an independent body that looks into these matters and arbitrates. The big T just don't want to accept the umpires decision.

From memory, some of those decisions have been overturned thereby suggesting they weren't fair in the first place. I'm not sure how you can state for a fact that the restrictions on Telstra are fair when the high courts of Australia, aided by all necessarily documentation, struggle to find outcomes. If anything, that suggests that everything is NOT black and white. No doubt the majority of the ACCC enforced restrictions are appropriate, but they do at times step over the line. Telstra have every right to stand their ground and at times the courts agree.

I already said the restrictions are required so I have no idea why you keep repeating that. As I said, it limits Telstra's potential but increases competition. That can only be a good thing with current technology.

The situation gets more complicated when it comes to investing in new technology and it's more then likely that the government is the only real player that can make progress as the other Telcos don't have the resources or desire to invest in major infrastructure and Telstra sees no point in rolling out a high-risk multi billion dollar network with minimal returns.

 

[dockertor]

From memory, some of those decisions have been overturned thereby suggesting they weren't fair in the first place. I'm not sure how you can state for a fact that the restrictions on Telstra are fair when the high courts of Australia, aided by all necessarily documentation, struggle to find outcomes. If anything, that suggests that everything is NOT black and white. No doubt the majority of the ACCC enforced restrictions are appropriate, but they do at times step over the line. Telstra have every right to stand their ground and at times the courts agree.

I already said the restrictions are required so I have no idea why you keep repeating that. As I said, it limits Telstra's potential but increases competition. That can only be a good thing with current technology.

The situation gets more complicated when it comes to investing in new technology and it's more then likely that the government is the only real player that can make progress as the other Telcos don't have the resources or desire to invest in major infrastructure and Telstra sees no point in rolling out a high-risk multi billion dollar network with minimal returns.

I don't recall a decision that Telstra has had turned over, its possible something small may have gone their way and escaped my notice. By and large they have lost in the courts and heavily.

Just agreeing with you on the restriction, my main point went to the fairness question.

Indeed the situation does get sticky when it comes to new technology. The aim should be not to end up in the same monopoly quagmire the we find ourselves in at the moment.

What Telstra considers minimal returns would be considered excellent anywhere that real competition existed.

 

[Underdog]

What Telstra considers minimal returns would be considered excellent anywhere that real competition existed.

So why are you not criticising other ISP's for not investing substantially in infrastructure rather then piggy backing off Telstra's?

Ill tell you why, because it is too cheap, viable and easy for them to rent Telstra's equipment. There is no need to compete

 

[dockertor]

So why are you not criticising other ISP's for not investing substantially in infrastructure rather then piggy backing off Telstra's?

Ill tell you why, because it is too cheap, viable and easy for them to rent Telstra's equipment. There is no need to compete

Other ISP's do invest heavily in infrastructure. IINET,Internode ect have spent large sums of money to install equipment. These guys are not interested in using telstra equipment, its too overpriced to do so. Check out the price difference between ADSL2 on their own gear and adsl 1 on TW gear. It is not practical to duplicate "the last mile" of copper to the house, thats the only part that they cant get away from using Telstra.

 

[Underdog]

iinet, Internode and Optus are the only real companies investing substantially in infrastructure. Even then, it's nowhere near the amount as Telstra and it's only in highly lucrative suburban areas.

 

[Reveler]

iinet, Internode and Optus are the only real companies investing substantially in infrastructure. Even then, it's nowhere near the amount as Telstra and it's only in highly lucrative suburban areas.

I'd like to see figures on the investment since the sale of telstra. iinet, Internode, Optus and a few other companies have been investing in New technologies alot more than telstra.

if we had to rely on telstra we'd all still be on ADSL1 on stupidly high prices with our 2g phones. Competition in this case has driven advancement.

Telstra can bleat all they like about having to serve the regional population, but that was a term of sale so they should just suck it up.