<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000066">
On 12/08/2010 7:20 PM, Curtis Bayne wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:FA0CD0970E4B7F439846F7C7670841C9049CC3@bnehnex1.SONET.local"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<title>RE: [AusNOG] background radiation was: "i want a
pony!"(wasRe:Longlive the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal])</title>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<p><font size="2">Wait. I'm confused. We're using the construction
and subsequent sale of PMG (now Telstra) as the definition of success
of a state-owned telco monopoly, whilst on the other hand, a consortium
of providers are complaining about anti-competitive practices?<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
The difference being that this time around it has an inbuilt wholesale
/ retail separation, as a 'lessons learnt' from the last time around.<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/354465/bigpond_price_cuts_anger_internode_iinet/"></a><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FA0CD0970E4B7F439846F7C7670841C9049CC3@bnehnex1.SONET.local"
type="cite">
<p><font size="2">What's to say that once independent infrastructure
is eliminated that the same practices won't emerge (especially if the
new shareholders of the NBN have a vested interest in the
telecommunications industry)...<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
This is an open issue for sure - and an argument for keeping it in
government hands, if tthat is an effective may of ensuring it doesn't
get retail ambitions.<br>
At the moment, its a moot point until 5 years after the network is
completed, realistically 15 years minimum. Many potential changes of
government in the meantime.<br>
<br>
Paul.<br>
</body>
</html>