Telstra Kicked Out of $15bn Broadband Project 158
An anonymous reader writes "Australia's largest telco and ISP, Telstra, has been
kicked out of the bidding process to build a national broadband network (NBN) estimated to be worth $15 billion. The Aussie government had earlier
given assurances that the proposal would be considered, however it now won't even be evaluated by the expert panel, which will make the recommendations to the Senator for Broadband and Communications. The government may now take steps to legislate so that Telstra can't build a network that competes with the NBN — leaving the incumbent to focus on wireless HSPA+ technology instead."
non compliant (Score:5, Informative)
They submit a non-compliant bid, really what did they expect.
Bid Rejected - http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24800767-15306,00.html [news.com.au]
Govt hits back at Telstra - http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24802044-15306,00.html [news.com.au]
Of particular interest is this snippet form the above stories:
"The independent expert panel charged with assessing the bids obtained five separate pieces of legal advice which said it could not consider Telstra's bid.
That advice was from internal government lawyers; the Australian Government Solicitor; respected private law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth; senior counsel appointed by Corrs; and finally, the Solicitor-General, the Government's top legal advisor."
There were four conditions that RFP documents had to meet:
* The document must be written in English.
* The measurements used within must meet Australian standards.
* The proposal must be signed.
* The document must include a plan for how SMEs will be involved.
Telstra didn't submit anything for point 4. Now for a multi billion dollar proposal, you should at least submit a compliant bid. Instead they submitted a document with their own terms and promised "more information" if the Govt agreed to THEIR terms.
Re:non compliant (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod parent up. This is all part of Telstra's brinkmanship with the government here. They tried the same thing with ADSL2, where they wanted permission to exclude/charge higher prices to competitors (despite having a monopoly on the 'last mile', so delayed making ADSL2 available to the public. In the end, the main competitors got together and put their own ADSL2 DSLAMS in place, so Telstra were forced to start allowing users onto their ADSL2 network after all.
In this case Telstra claim no one else can do it other than them, so have refused to put a proper bid in in the hope they can get more out of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but it's not Telstra per say, it's Sol Trujillo.
Evidently he stuffed up another Telco in the USA. Read about it a year ago but can't find the links. Somewhere in the mid-west I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this is an Aussie thing, but what do they mean when they are talking about "involving" Small and Medium Enterprises? Is this about subcontracting work to other companies? Making the final service affordable to smaller businesses? Etc. It's a very non-descriptive statement.
Telstra tried to pull a Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
They're afraid of being broken up (because they're a monopoly) so they tried to put conditions on their bid. The government slapped 'em back into their place. Now they're crying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're on crack. Take off the tin foil hat. Telstra made demands of the government in their bid, the government declined to be bullied. It's that simple.
Re:Nope. Telstra was anti-censorship. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nope. Telstra was anti-censorship. (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Mr. Rudd,
Could I have 4.7bn AUD please? kthxbye.
Re: (Score:2)
The government had 5 very serious legal consultations on the process including the Solicitor General. The RFP must be answered adequately and correctly from a legal perspective. Every bidder except for Telstra managed to do so. Because Telstra did not meet the requirements of the RFP, the government had no legal choice but to remove them from the process. You cannot suggest with any reasonable degree of sanity that the Australian Solicitor General's interpretation of Australian Law is not at least adequ
No Competition? (Score:2)
Re:No Competition? (Score:5, Informative)
Govt hits back at Telstra - http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24802044-15306,00.html [news.com.au]
Of particular interest is this snippet form the above story:
"The independent expert panel charged with assessing the bids obtained five separate pieces of legal advice which said it could not consider Telstra's bid.
That advice was from internal government lawyers; the Australian Government Solicitor; respected private law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth; senior counsel appointed by Corrs; and finally, the Solicitor-General, the Government's top legal advisor."
Long story short- Telstra screwed themselves becuase they submit a non-compliant bid. They CAN'T accept the bid because if they do, the other parties that did submit compliant bids could possibly sue them.
Re:No Competition? (Score:5, Informative)
They submitted a 13 page 'proposal' at the last minute while (apparently) even the smallest of the bids were throughly detailed.
I bet when each bidder had to front the 'expert panel' on the weekend the panel decided not to waste their time entertaining a 'proposal'. Being a 13-page 'proposal' the lawyers would've had no trouble finding missing bits.
Besides, the process is pretty lame. The goal was to build the exact same proposal that Telstra came out with in 2005 - $4billion AUD for FTTN(which will be obsolete in 10 years anyway), and only do FTTH in brand new developments.
Its been pointed out [mac.com] by the head of another ISP (Internode, who I use) that Telstra could simply build a FiOS-style FTTH network and keep it to themselves, with no strings attached while the older PSTN remains. Keep in mind that Telstra's entire goal throughout this process has been to decimate the competitive environment that exists. There are ADSL2+ plans which offer 100x more value than the proposed wholesale FTTN port price!
Re:No Competition? (Score:4, Insightful)
They submitted a 13 page 'proposal' at the last minute while (apparently) even the smallest of the bids were throughly detailed.
Having been in The Machine before (what Australian contractor hasn't been that hungry at least once?) I suspect they simply couldn't get it together to make the bid. Sol decimated the Telstra bureaucracy. This is both good and bad; the latter because they have utterly no clue how to communicate internally any more. No way is that executive team going to do any bid work to that level any more, they just don't have it in them. Big isn't necessarily muscular. That dog is too old to go hunting.
Re: (Score:2)
I should clarify my point.
They don't win the government grant, fine
But why not let them build their own network with their own money parallel to this? Explicitly forbidding this seems a little too socialist.
Re: (Score:2)
Telstra won't build their own network because they don't want to have to spend their own money on it. They have been given a free ride and are complaining now that they have to actually do some work.
Re: (Score:2)
Directly from the Slashdot summary:
"The government may now take steps to legislate so that Telstra can't build a network that competes with the NBN"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Turns out that speculation about the future doesn't directly influence fact in the present, no matter how hopeful it is.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Turns out that speculation about the future doesn't directly influence fact in the present, no matter how hopeful it is.
You don't follow the stock market much, do you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case though, the real story is that Telstra basically told the government they weren't going to bother with a FTTN network if they didn't get funding for it, and then made a token effort in the selection process. If Telstra don't make a new fiber network, it won't be because the government mandates it; They'll just be focusing on mobile and wireless stuff instead.
Besides, i think it's pretty obvious that laws forbidding Telstra from building a network are pure speculation o
Re: (Score:2)
"The government may now take steps to legislate so that Telstra can't build a network that competes with the NBN"
Now, I'll admit that I'm not that familiar with Australian legislative processes, but from my experience with the US one, wouldn't they be able to do this no matter what's going on, assuming they got a big enough bug up their butt?
Going on, it sounds like I should be glad to not have to deal with Telstra. Deutsch Telecom was bad enough when I was in Germany. Now I'm with a local coop, and love them.
Re: (Score:2)
They submitted 10-20 pages for the Request For Tender (or whatever it's called). That's barely enough to buy half a rack of servers - the technical Aussie term for this would be "taking the f***ing piss".
All or nothing bet (Score:3, Insightful)
Sol gambled and the shareholders lost. A triumph of greed over common sense. Has his reality distortion field finally shattered?
The current Telstra management seemed to have brought a lot of anti-regulation baggage with them from the US. They seemed unable or unwilling to adapt their management style to the realities of operating in Australia.
A lower return to shareholders would still have been a return but they had to be greedy. Now they might be a footnote in the countries broadband history.
Re:All or nothing bet (Score:5, Insightful)
"Trujillo's final dramatic quote to the analysts was "Nothing Stops Telstra"." (Business Spectator [businessspectator.com.au])
The man reeks of arrogance. Nothing good can come of letting the incumbant monopoly. I hope that Australia ends up with the network it really needs, rather than the one that Telstra has given them.
Re: (Score:2)
The shareholders didn't necessarily lose. Simply increasing the size of a business by taking on a new venture is not necessarily good for a business, and it's not clear this whole national network is going to make money for the providers. It could be a lead-in for more profitable services, but it could also be a huge money pit for the telco serving it if they have the wrong technologies, wrong management, or wrong policies to handle it.
In fact, from what I'm seeing about Telstra, it would probably break the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It will be driven into the ground and Sol with leave with his millions. Then the taxpayers will have to take up the bill since no private company will touch whatever smoking ruins are left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think its a bit short sighted to say Sol has lead Telstra into decline. Barring yesterdays stock tumble Telstra stock has been moving up against the tsunami that is the current financial crisis. I'd say that shows something at least. I'm no fan of Telstra, but Sol is infinitely more capable than his bumbling predecessor. The declines were more about restructuring the company, Sol inherited a company in dramatic decline under Zwitkowski, and has turned it around at least somewhat. You have to give him som
Re: (Score:2)
We've had a few years of him now.
That is possible but there is as yet no evidence - any competance has been very well hidden. There have been a lot of loud announcements of success that have been outright and transparent lies and thus had not even the benefit of temporarily raising the share price.
Next Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry mate but we have multiple Mobile providers in Australia and they still refuse to compete on anything beyond a superficial level (just enough to keep the competition watchdog off their backs) and they will attempt to force you into a contract (difficult to find a Pre-paid plan with credit that lasts longer then 30 days in Australia, they want their monthly danegeld from you one way or another).
Also the sha
Re: (Score:2)
French girl get turned on by the accent actually (those that can understand whatever it is you're saying it at least ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a plan because I don't need a plan as I don't spend A$20 a month on my bloody mobile as hard as that is to believe and I'd rather not swallow that cost (I've got better plans for A$240 a year then to waste it on a service I don't use). I want my A$30 recharge to last until I us
As usual headline is totally wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO Trujillo needs to get it through his thick head that 15 billion in tax payers money is going to come with strings attached, like it or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that most customers would prefer to spend their money on a vendor they can trust. With their saber rattling over regulatory constraints (and deregulation is not a popular song just now, is it?) using some fairly egregious terms, I doubt that anybody would want to spend money in Telstra's direction.
You can only insult your customers so often before you lose their attention. We know at this point it would be simply good money after bad, just like the US Bush-era Information Superhighway spe
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to some extent what the parent has written is true, however, he's declined to note a couple of key facts that are vital in understanding the issues at hand.
1) Telstra didn't submit a legally compliant bid. No matter what else is going on, if the government had accepted it, they would be immediately sued by the other bidders, and they would lose. The government had "public servants" look at the situation, but the parent declines to mention that those public servants include such individuals as the So
Re: (Score:2)
Look I agree, but its not entirely true that this was the full tender that Telstra was going to submit. They were saying, I believe, "heres some of it, but we need the rules changed before we give you the rest". This is just how Telstra always works, and I make no judgement as to whether this is a good or a bad thing. I do however assert that excluding Telstra from this whole process is utterly stupid at the end of the day, and that is the shitty situation we are in. Oh and by the way I never said Telstra s
Outside the square (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So why did Telstra not want to win this? It seems the perfect out. Submit a half baked proposal and omit an obvious required detail. It looks like they tried but actually they wanted to fail. Interesting.
The loser gets to focus their workforce on profitable urban customers, while the winner sends their staff into the outback pulling cables through the desert to snare 150 homes.
They are being paid for it but it means taking people away from other tasks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They said, Telstra... (Score:2)
This is good news (Score:2)
Telstra used to be the national government-run telephone monopoly. It's now semi-privatised, though maintains a lot of its monopoly over the network (in particular, the last mile). As a profit-making entity answerable to its shareholders, it has, of course, been squeezing that for all it's worth, at the Australian consumer's expense. It's about time Telstra got smacked down.
Just when I thought Sol couldn't top his antics (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know the USA still thinks of Australia as a place full of convicts but I wish you wouldn't send crims like Sol Trujillo and Robert D. McCallum.
Re: (Score:2)
There was some weird political tie-in that got him the Telsta position, just like the contraversional historian on the Telstra board now who would have a lot of trouble getting an academic position anywhere. It really does seem to have been whoever has lunch in the right place at the right time.
Re: (Score:2)
From the day he was chosen I could not understand Sol's appointment - you normally wouldn't choose somebody with a recent spectacular failure to run a large company.
kicked out of bidding, but not out of the network (Score:2)
Maybe they won't get to build it, but it will be totally entertwined with Telstra's existing network. Lots of last mile hops will be Telstra, and many of the backbone fibers will be leased from Telstra, or bought from them.
We did the same thing in Ohio, and AT&T wasn't allowed to build it, but we are totally intertwined with them anyway. We don't even peer with them, it's all layer 1 or 2 service.
Re:Senator Conroy's handiwork (Score:5, Interesting)
Plenty of other ISP's have refused to participate. ISP's who have like iiNet have publically bagged the entire process.
I think you are really reaching if you think the two are related.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a causal link there is probably a bit of a stretch.
That said it's a convenient distraction from the backlash Conroy has been facing and it must be hard for a lot of Australian internet users to decide who they dislike more, Conroy or Telstra.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Senator Conroy's handiwork (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Senator Conroy's handiwork (Score:4, Interesting)
... Sol has been playing politics on this broadband plan from the start. The trick to win the bid without putting in a proper bid would let him set his own terms.
Aye.
Sol, we've given you every break. We've bent over backwards to give you a chance. What we don't want to do at this point is grab our ankles.
The esteemed Mr. Trujillo is of the "everything's negotiable when you're this big" school. I think, personally, that he has mis-read the Australian psyche.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I think Senator Conroy is an ignoramus of the highest order...
Off-topic, but what is it with tech-ministers in this country? We had the Worlds Biggest Luddite for years, Helen Coonan and now this Conroy bozo.
Do they have to take a test of ultra-basic IT literacy, and only the real no-hopers get the job?
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have to take a test of ultra-basic IT literacy, and only the real no-hopers get the job?
This will hopefully change once it becomes fashionable, because the US President is doing it.~
He's the Ass Sol! (Score:2)
And of course, the Chaser's analysis [youtube.com] is still spot on.
Re:Senator Conroy's handiwork (Score:5, Interesting)
Or rather:
3) Telstra submitted a non-conforming tender and the Government had no choice but to reject it.
Being a Government employee myself, when it comes to tendering you have to apply the same rules to everyone. If the Government had accepted Telstra's tender, even though it did not comply with the requirements in the RFT (and this was well publicised [news.com.au], they would have left themselves open for all sorts of problems, e.g. being sued by other applicants.
Optus was right to say that Telstra's submission was a joke: a 12 page letter to the Minister in lieu of a serious tender for a $4.7bn project is brinkmanship of the worst sort and the Government was right to call their bluff.
Re:Senator Conroy's handiwork (Score:4, Informative)
I'll quote this from ABC earlier on as it shows a different tack:
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the decision to exclude Telstra from bidding to build the national broadband network was made at arm's length from the Federal Government.
Telstra submitted a brief proposal instead of a full bid because it was not satisfied there was enough detail from the Government on regulatory requirements.
Telstra says it has been excluded because it did not say how it would include small and medium businesses in the network's construction.
The telco has accused the Government of using a peripheral issue to block it from winning the tender.
But Mr Rudd has said the decision was made by an independent panel assessing all of the bids and the project is still on track.
"We've regarded this as a necessary investment in the nation's infrastructure and we would do so on the basis of a competitive tender process," he said.
"That panel that's been at work has been full at arm's length from Government and has reached its own conclusions.
*snip*
Still optimistic
However Telstra remains hopeful it still has a chance to build the national broadband network despite being excluded from formal consideration.
A media analyst from stockbroker BBY, Mark McDonnell, has told ABC Radio's The World Today the exclusion is a dramatic development for the telco.
"It potentially spells the end of Telstra's aspirations for re-eingineering its network to provide high-speed broadband," he said.
But in a briefing with analysts, Telstra chief executive Sol Trujillo has argued it is not the end of the road for the company.
He says the Government may decide to reengage with Telstra if the other three national bids are inadequate.
Mr McDonnell says there could be more to the Government's decision than has been publicly disclosed.
"The question then is whether this is really part of some sort of gaming process, trying to soften up Telstra with a plan to ultimately reengage with them," he said.
"That is probably the most optimistic view you could take from a Telstra perspective on this, or in fact whether there is some other agenda."
Telstra shares have fallen more than 7 per cent in an overall strong day for the market.
This was earlier on and has fallen out of the RSS feeds.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/15/2446644.htm [abc.net.au]
Re:Senator Conroy's handiwork (Score:5, Informative)
I loathe Conroy, and everything national internet filtering involves, but in this case, it's more than just a technicality.
Whereas all the other major contenders submitted official proposals in the tender process, Telstra instead submitted an "informal" proposal that lacked significant details that the other official proposals had, not to mention vague estimations on things as minor as "network coverage". Further, many of these estimations fell far short of the government requirements in the first place. Add in the fact that Telstra wanted their flawed and half-baked proposal to be considered with the same standing as the detailed official tenders their rivals had submitted, and you being to realise that Telstra is just a joke.
Today it emerged that they didn't submit details on how they intended to liase with and include small business in the construction and development process; which is oh-so-fitting keeping in mind this is a giant telecom monopoly.
These articles better explain how absurd Telstra's position and conduct regarding the tender process has been to date. I challenge you to read them and not agree that they should have been kicked out of the evaluation process. Frankly, I'd have kicked them out some time ago.
Telstra bends the rules on internet bid [smh.com.au]
Telstra excluded from broadband network tender [abc.net.au]
Re:Senator Conroy's handiwork (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Conroy rarely comments on the filter because he does not support it. The only reason a filter is being "trialed" is to placate senator Fielding from the "Family First" party who under certain circumstances can hold the balance of power in the senate. (ie: the govt of the day is buying his vote by spending ~$100K on his pet project). It's political theater that most people expect to see die in the senate (including Telstra, who called it a 'pipedream'). One of the IPS's who is taking part in the trial is iiNet who's CEO wanted to take part in order to "prove it was unworkable".
2) The NBN has been in the works longer than Conroy has been in his position. When Telstra leaned it was not going to be handed the contract on a silver platter they very publicly refused to play by the rules of the tender. Personally I applaud both our current and previous governments for refusing to bend over for a large corporation.
How does a religious nutter like fielding get elected in the first place? - Culled from wikipedia: "In Victoria, Family First, the Christian Democrats and the DLP allocated their senate preferences to Labor, in order to help ensure the re-election of the number three Labor Senate candidate, Jacinta Collins, a Catholic who has conservative views on some social issues such as abortion. In exchange, Labor gave its Senate preferences in Victoria to Family First ahead of the Greens, expecting Family First to be eliminated before these preferences were distributed. In the event, however, Labor and Democrat preferences helped Family First's Steve Fielding beat the Green's David Risstrom to win the last Victorian Senate seat and become Family First's first Federal parliamentarian."
In otherwords Fielding was a pawn that nobody expected to win, let alone hold the balance of power! Now that he does, both sides of the house come knocking on his door in an attempt to sway his vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Conroy rarely comments on the filter because he does not support it.
You've stated this a number of times but I don't buy it. He may be Labor, but he's right wing and socially conservative. He's a headkicker - a politician who is in it for the politics and not to represent the will of his electorate. He's so religious he earned himself the nickname "the altar boy."
The policy for the mandatory clean feed was written and put in place after he was given the portfolio. Everything I've seen points What evidence do you have to support your claim?
Re: (Score:2)
Everything I've seen points What evidence do you have to support your claim?
*Everything I've seen points to him personally supporting this policy.
Re:Senator Conroy's handiwork (Score:4, Interesting)
That was my point, combined with fact that the NBN was "in the works" under Howard it debunks the OP's "coincidence" idea.
"What evidence do you have to support your claim?"
Conroy maybe the altar boy but Fielding is the rabid preacher who has got labor by the short and curlys (Hanson did pretty much the same thing to the liberals). The greens and the liberals have both stated they will not support a mandatory filter and they intend to block it in the senate - so it's not going anywhere fast. - That, the balance of power thing and the preference deals are all public knowledge but are certainly not proof positive.
Perhaps I've watched to much "Yes Minister" but the test of my armchair theory will be if Fielding consistently votes with Labor on the big ticket items that are opposed by the liberals but supported by the greens. I don't hear Conroy personally supporting a mandatory filter (especially recently), what I hear is another Peter Garrett, ie: someone going through the motions of demonstrating party loyalty. Here is a random article [news.com.au] from a quick "fielding filter" search on google, try and find where Conroy personally supports it, go to the end and read what Fielding said.
"He's a headkicker - a politician who is in it for the politics"
I agree wholeheartedly but you have to get close to someone to kick them in the head, why else would he be forging ahead with what he knows will not pass the senate other than to kick someone's head? - Have any Machevellian theories as to who that someone is?
Re: (Score:2)
Bad news, there's not going to be anything to block - the laws permitting the filter are already in place. Howard may not have been developing the filter itself, but he had already put the legislative framework in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I would be very careful in this area; the filter might not be as dead as you think"
I'm not perturbed by being wrong in my pet political theories, I'm just trying to peel back a few layers and think a good theory needs testing. However in this case I really do hope you're wrong, not the least because if I am wrong that means I will feel compelled to get off my arse and make it 7001 prot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Optus spent $5 million creating a 900 page bid [optus.com.au] proposing an open playing field. I don't think the details are public yet, but that link has the media release. They also fronted a $5 million bond [itwire.com].
Telstra sent in a 14 page memo saying something along the lines of "we'll do it as long as you guarantee our infrastructure monopoly and we wont pay the bond, but we promise to put in $5 billion".
If this gets up, this is a win for all Australian Internet users. "Telstra has said entry-leve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What an idiotic statement. So somehow Conroy, who is a misguided prick, forced Telstra to submit a joke bid of 12 pages, compared to real bids of hundreds of pages. Conroy strong armed Telstra to not mention small businesses, a major pre-requisite of the bid, and the reason they are kicked out of the process.
Coincidence, yes.
Re:What about competition? (Score:5, Insightful)
You say eliminating the biggest provider will reduce competition? Eliminating a virtual monopoly is bad for competition? Wow.
I think it's a bit silly not even reviewing their proposal, but that's ridiculous.
Re:What about competition? (Score:5, Informative)
Their proposal was 12 pages long, compared to serious proposals of hundreds of pages. Telstra were threatening not to bid at all, unless the government gave them some guarantees that no matter who won, they would be involved in the projects.
Telstra were pushing themselves, and the government called their bluff. They have been punished in the markets, dropping 12%, and they should be punished by the government as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I doubt this is only about the proposals. 6 weeks ago, Telstra criticized the government over Internet Filtering. This action to kick Telstra out of the $15bn Broadband Project, is the government's reaction to that criticism.
For example,
"Australia's ISPs Speak Out Against Filtering"
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/01/0248221 [slashdot.org]
"The leaders of three of Australia's largest internet service providers -- Telst
Re: (Score:3)
Telstra has been playing the game of seeing how many fingers it can get away with for the past few years!
The filtering is an annoying and stupid idea but has nothing to do with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments even treat their own members the same way, so they have no problem treating complete opponents like this
Re: (Score:2)
It seems unlikely that the gov't needs to be punishing Telstra on this. The company simply failed to deliver one of five mandatory parts of their bid.
Automatic disqualification.
Telstra seems to have bluffed and been called on it. Sometimes a 900lb gorilla can't sleep anywhere it wants to.
Re:What about competition? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think Telstra wanted to win. They had to put in a bid for sake of appearances, and reports are that what they put in was gratuitously half-arsed. I doubt they plan to play this game by the rules. Perhaps winning would have been quite inconvenient for them.
Recall that a FTN tender was already called, bid, won and accepted, but that Telstra managed to get it canceled, and the process restarted. Maybe they hope to do so again. In truth they haven't been seriously considered, and if they can manage
Re: (Score:2)
You say eliminating the biggest provider will reduce competition? Eliminating a virtual monopoly is bad for competition? Wow.
I think it's a bit silly not even reviewing their proposal, but that's ridiculous.
Apparently it won't be possible to build this new network profitably unless it's given a government granted monopoly. So there is a high-stakes game being played to find out whether there will be a Telstra monopoly or a non-Telstra monopoly. Or alternatively the Labor government could back out of its election promise somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, how about public infrastructure that is publicly owned, there's a genius idea. No monopoly, all carriers can have access to it at standard rates. But then the next Liberal government would just sell it anyway...
I suppose when Labor was writing its election promises, that would have been seen as radical socialist thinking. Today, you'd just have to say "why not?", if the government can prop up the entire financial sector and promise billions on spending for other infrastructure, why not provide the full funding for this other natural monopoly?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you know why they didn't even get to the review process you'd not think it so stupid.
Conroy has stated that Telstra basically wanted top level negotiations to start before the tender was even in place, and to do things the way Telstra wants, not the way the government process is. In essence it was a way for them to bypass the tender process and just get the deal.
I say tough shit Telstra.
Re:What about competition? (Score:5, Interesting)
For those outside Australia Telstra can best be summed up as a combination of some of the worst aspects of the government organisation which it was and the worst aspects of a private telecommunications monopoly that it has become. Add to that a fully imported management team of executative with spectacular failures behind them of the sort that think slavery is a good idea and experise in anything is for the peasants. One was infamous for repeatedly refering to the remaining Australian management and the Australian staff as "savages".
If it wasn't close to a monopoly it would have gone the way of Enron long ago due to being run the same way.
Re:What about competition? (Score:4, Interesting)
I beg to differ.
Consider that the competitor may (yeah, I know, work with me) be able to provide a tender for a FTTH solution, as opposed to the rather short-sighted FTTN solutions bandied about. (Axia has been talking about [news.com.au] FTTH for their bid.)
Suddenly there's no issue with Telstra - the whole legacy copper network is leapfrogged. Competition on pricing and/or quotas rages. Australia is future-proofed and Telstra has to come up with another (distinguishable) technology to stay in the game.
I realise this is not an overnight solution, but we should all be thinking further than ten years into the future. I am very hopeful that FTTH becomes a reality with the new Australian NBN, and now that Telstra is out, it's just that little bit more likely...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the very least it would be difficult for whoever wins the bid to not work with Telstra at some point, because of the amount of infrastructure they control.
So... how about forcing them to sell it back to the People for whom they built it? It's common shared infrastructure, like roads, after all. It will be ridiculously costly, but leaving it in their control will mean that you'll all pay for it time and time and time again. This is exactly the same advice I had for our own Public Utilities Commission; I hope you don't (continue to) repeat every bloody mistake we've made! We had Bush, you had Mini-Me Bush John Howard....
Re: (Score:2)
That was the big failure of telecom privatisation in Australia. The gov't gave away the whole thing, company and network, instead of either keeping the network as a gov't entity or selling it off as a completely seperate company (with controls in place to ensure the two entities couldn't re-merge in future).
The result was a government entity morphing into a public company monopoly, all funded twice by taxpayers - once through their taxes and once through their shares.
Within a few years, Telstra had changed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. I am Michael Smith also.
I was once a member of the Michael Smith webring. Years ago when I worked for Vic Roads another Michael Smith was in management in a different department. He kept applying for these management stream courses but because I was first in a list somewhere (and the incompetence of HR) I kept getting the paperwork and turning up. I was a comp. sci. grad at the time so I was totally out of my depth. Eventually they sent both of us along and we got to exchange email addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was once a member of the Michael Smith webring.
I think I used to work for you during Sol's early tenure. Key=The Russian dev team didn't half suck, did it? The ladies were good looking, but the Russian PM with the bad stammer, who would tell you how to build a clock if you asked him the time ... (shudder).
Re: (Score:2)
I was once a member of the Michael Smith webring.
I think I used to work for you during Sol's early tenure. Key=The Russian dev team didn't half suck, did it? The ladies were good looking, but the Russian PM with the bad stammer, who would tell you how to build a clock if you asked him the time ... (shudder).
Are you talking about Telstra? Fortunately I never worked there. I know some radar engineers who worked for them on JORN though.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Firstly, Telstra is a formerly state owned monopoly (or at very least oligopoly) in the Australian telecommunications industry. Introducing another player into the scene will result in competition, NOT the opposite.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with the successful disavowing future interaction with Telstra, rather only placing limits on how Telstra can compete with the successful bidder.
This post really needs to be re-modded as the logic in it's argument
Re: (Score:2)
Really? So getting a completely new company to build infrastructure to compete with the existing broadband lines owned by telstra will somehow magically decrease competition? I think you need to go read a dictionary sometime.
This is the best news. The only thing better would be if the government broke up Telstra into its Retail and Infrastructure business, allowing other companies to fairly compete.
Telstra is a joke, run by incompetents who shouldn't be allowed to touch a computer, let alone decide Australi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If I may interject here for a second - your Stralyin is lacking in authenticity...
That last phrase should have been should have been: GARNGIT FARKED!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no L in Straya. Mate.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
hehehe.. oi dad there's a broadband network in the trading post for $15 billion...
struth!! tell em their farkin dreamin'!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We haven't succeeded until we have replaced all stories about Thanksgiving and Fall, etc with proper stories about Anzac Day, Two-Up, Autumn, and football codes that don't involve wearing wussy helmets.
Forget the Alamo. Remember Gallipoli.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a huge following of Rugby in Australia, and there's nothing wussy about that!
Re: (Score:2)
they would focus purely on Next-G
Yes, and that is a true monopoly. Next-G is totally owned by Telstra and they are not allowing anyone else to use that technology.
To be clear on this, Next-G uses 800mhz bandwidth while all the other 3G providers use 1800+mhz. What this means is that the Next-G network travels further/kilowatt than higher frequencies, and no-one else can use it.
That really stinks if you don't live in the metro areas as you are forced to use Telstra if you want reliable coverage.
The worst de
Re: (Score:2)
Errmmm... $50/month buys you 12GB@1.5Mbps if you can get ADSL1 (my plan also includes 48GB off-peak). Those who can get ADSL2 get faster speeds and more capacity for the price.
Those who can't get either are on dialup or satellite, both suck very badly.