<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>No amount of customer complaints through the TIO will fix the underlying problem if the original service delivery platform is inadequate.</div><div><br></div><div>The final "solution" is the customer ends up with no access at all.</div><div><br></div><div>In this case Pipe providing backhaul fixed an ugly mess caused by an overly optimistic retailer.</div><div><br></div><div>In other cases Telstra end up providing the bare minimum USO service with support for superfast 19.2K modem. Amazingly many local governments are willing to accept this from a property developer.</div><div><br></div><div>Australian Broadband Guarantee provides a 512K minimum service so if you're not getting ADSL or Optus 3G you can have satellite while you wait for the NBN.</div><div><br></div><div>I can't see the current government getting any telco legislation through in the life of the parliament. It isn't clear what the opposition's policies are on broadband but Paul Fletcher gave an interview on Friday that I haven't listened to in which he appears to be signalling a Liberal government would cave to Telstra on the basis that not doing so would not be fair to Telstra shareholders.</div><div><br></div><div>How doing so would be fair to all Australians is not spelt out.</div><div><br></div><div>A summary of the interview is here:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/37892-fletcher-backs-telstra-in-alan-jones-chat">http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/37892-fletcher-backs-telstra-in-alan-jones-chat</a></div><div><br></div><div>jsl</div><div>
--<br>John Lindsay - GM Regulatory and Corporate Affairs - Internode and Agile<br></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><div>On 28/03/2010, at 10:38 PM, Paul Brooks wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 27/03/2010 11:11 AM, Bevan Slattery wrote:<blockquote cite="mid:6855B462D756004D9A700E875EF936B92FB704@pwkcrkex1.pipe.pwk" type="cite"><p><font size="2">
The developer could not legally take back the infrastructure he paid
for as it was now owned by the FttH operator. The development started
to get a bad name. Apparently there were people in the estate with
serious health issues and a first line service was critical. It almost
went completely pear-shaped and for a last minute plea to us, I agreed
to backhaul the operator back to the city. Incredibly scary.<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
Yup, that sort of crap happens, no question. You'd have to think that
those services wouldn't be treated as 'equivalent to what NBNCo would
do themeselves', and in that case the initial operators should and
would be taken over/overbuilt and the problem fixed when NBNCo get to
that location. Incidentally (and possibly off-list) why weren't the
operators of that development subject to legal action or at the very
least complaints through the TIO - or did that happen?<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>