[AusNOG] iiNET Network Engineer

[Mark Delany]

> The NBN seems to be following what I understand is the historical
> pattern of voice networks in the US.

There is one big distinction, which is the decoupling of the access
from the services on top.

Using your Telco analogy, the phone companies owned the access pipes
(copper) which they used or conflated to claim exclusive rights to
provide the service (phone calls) on top.

Of course there was only one service to start with so that distinction
didn't seem important at the time. But it got set in historical
cement.

Telcos where more than happy for internet access to followed that
model - since they still owned most of the access. That is, if you
owned the pipes you had the exclusive right to provide the service
over those pipes - ie connectivity.

As we know, regulation was needed to break that coupling in most
markets to try and introduce competition.

There-in lies the big difference with NBN. It clearly delineates
access from service so that service is a competitive playing field
from day one and critically important: wthe access provider cannot
compete in that market. This is the argument for keeping access as a
boring wafer-thin margin business that is run as a utility. To ensure
a level playing field in the riches of the services above.

You can bet though that as soon as you privatize NBN, the new owners
will be working every angle, funding every lobby group and pushing
every incoming government to gain the ability to compete on services.

Why?  Because that is where the margins are and that is where they can
- over time - regain an unfair advantage. Even if the next ten
governments say no, you only need one to say yes.


Mark.