[AusNOG] Screw the NBN, says TPG: We’ll do our own FTTB

[Robert Hudson]

TPG have just announced plans to service 500,000 dwellings which are easily
and cheaply serviced. They are not doing this out of the goodness of their
hearts - they are doing so because they believe it will be highly
profitable for them to do so.

They won't offer these kinds of services to locations that arent highly
profitable (and as a profit-driven company, nor should they be obligated to
do so). But the problem is that no profit-driven company will - if it is
left to commercial interests to invest in building high-speed broadband,
some people will get it, and some people will not. This is what the NBN is
designed to defeat.

The cherry picking rules make sense (at least the idea behind them does),
because if you leave commercial interests to provide services to the most
profitable areas, the government will pay a significantly higher amount per
premise to cover the less profitable areas. A single provider with a flat
price per port regardless of where it is means that everyone gets (roughly)
the same thing at the same price.

And that is what govt should be about.
On 17/09/2013 6:09 PM, "Paul Wallace" <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au> wrote:

> I can see it now ...
>
> Q: Minister Conroy, .. why build an NBN?
>
> A: If the government doesn't build it no one else will.
>
> Q: so .. er, why do you need legislation preventing competition?
>
> A: What are you .. a f$&:5$@/3$&!ing Turnbull supporter?!
>
> !!!
>
> !!!
>
>
>
>
> On 17/09/2013, at 5:37 PM, "Grahame Lynch" <grahamelynch at commsdaymail.com>
> wrote:
>
> They actually talked about it Paul in their verbal commentary today and
> say they think they are covered but just in case they are prepared to
> provide open access or cap speeds at 24Mbps just in case.
>
> Yes there are exemptions in the law but they are ambiguous and clearly the
> spirit of the legislation was to prevent an overbuild equating to 7-10% or
> so of the population. The point is they aren't completely 100% sure of
> where they stand - clearly expanding superfast broadband capable tails to
> half a million apartments could conversely be viewed as an "*extension,
> alteration or upgrade".
>
> *
> *Or put it another way; doubt they would have announced this if Conroy
> was still the minister....
> *
>
>
>
>
> On 17 September 2013 14:28, Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au>wrote:
>
>>  On 17/09/2013 2:09 PM, Grahame Lynch wrote:
>>
>>  This is what the legislation says:
>>
>> *A network unit that belongs to a telecommunications network (other than
>> the national broadband network) must not be used to supply a fixed-line
>> carriage service if: *
>>
>>
>> However S141C:
>>
>> *Certain installations and connections are not taken to be an extension,
>> alteration or upgrade*
>>
>>                    For the purposes of this Part, if:
>>
>>                      (a)  a line<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s7.html#line>is or was installed for the purposes of connecting particular premises to a telecommunications
>> network<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s7.html#telecommunications_network>;
>> and
>>
>>                      (b)  the installation of the line<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s7.html#line>enables or enabled the occupier of the premises to become a customer in
>> relation to carriage services<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s7.html#carriage_service>supplied using the network; and
>>
>>                      (c)  the premises are in close proximity to a line<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s7.html#line>that forms part of the infrastructure of the network; and
>>
>>                      (d)  the network is capable of being used to supply
>> a superfast carriage service<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s142a.html#superfast_carriage_service>;
>> and
>>
>>                      (e)  the network came into existence before
>> 1 January 2011;
>>
>> neither the installation of the line<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s7.html#line>mentioned in paragraph (a), nor the connection of the premises, is taken to
>> be an extension, alteration<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s142a.html#alter>or
>> upgrade<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s142a.html#upgrade>of the network.
>>
>> So if the main  fibre trunk cable was already passing the building prior
>> to 1 January 2011, they could extend it into the basement and claim it was
>> already "in close proximity" to the building, so is not an extension,
>> alteration or upgrade - so isn't required to provide a L2 bitstream service.
>>
>> Similarly S141B allows new network extensions of less than 1 kilometre to
>> be allowed, provided the network being extended existed prior to 1 Jan 2011.
>>
>> Somehow, I suspect they've covered these things off before making the
>> announcement.
>>
>> P.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130917/1ba54b22/attachment.html>