COMMENT: 15 years of noise continues

Some 15 years or so ago a group of hyperactive Optus executives mounted a podium in Canberra and breathlessly accused Telstra of deliberately under-provisioning their interconnect gateway, thus causing Optus customers to receive busy signals when they called Telstra lines. It was a charged time for the then new concept of competition: Australia’s unique leg-up to Optus in the way of the “preselection ballot” was taking place (a regulated courtesy I understand was extended only in one other country globally, Mexico) and Optus was very concerned that its first customers appeared to be the victims of foul play.

That event set the tone for the subsequent decade and a half, where Telstra is usually depicted as bad and the competitors as aggrieved victims. Never mind that a subsequent regulatory investigation into the great Canberra interconnect incident showed the reality was more complex and that both parties should have shared some blame.

Fifteen years later it is somewhat depressing that these spats are still occurring, more so that again antagonists and protagonists are still shouting at each other and yet to get over their characteristic rhetorical positions.

I’m not fully sold on this week’s substantive complaints about Telstra as they seem to subscribe to conspiracy theories rather than accepting that the issues probably have as much origin in simple disincentives to optimise systems—not surprising, since Telstra’s financial incentives to be a smiling wholesale supplier keep on being reduced as a matter of ACCC pricing policy by a neat 12% a year (plus a lot more if you backdate it!).

At the same time, it’s not really clear how Telstra’s logic about not offering ADSL2+ wholesale services can be reconciled with the fact that it does offer ADSL1 wholesale services and plans to offer FTTN access services. I understand the strategic impulses, I don’t understand why it already offers what it does and why it promises to offer more in the future.

BLAME TELSTRA: But as with all these spats, it’s not particularly intelligent to just blame Telstra foul play for everything, especially given that the environment has been so sharply influenced by external regulatory market design. I’m not just talking about the obvious ACCC strategy to manipulate the market up those “stone steps” by regulating unbundled local loop access at lower and lower prices while doing nought to encourage resale or bitstream models.

For example, over the dying days of the last government, hundreds of millions of dollars were handed out in subsidies to regional DSLAM deployments, not just by Telstra but also by Internode, as part of the Australian Broadband Guarantee. One catch: these subsidies were expressly for retail services only, use to subsidise wholesale builds was prohibited. Indeed, Internode managed to bump Opel out of the Yorke Peninsula this way—not a great win for open competition.

Then there was the Opel grant of nearly one billion dollars aimed precisely at creating a wholesale-only ADSL2+ and WiMax network. Although the original rhetoric suggested this network was only to serve areas not currently covered by broadband at all, various public domain statements imply that Opel will switch on WiMAX and ADSL2+ in regional centres and outer metro Australia covering 30% or more of total households. It’s worth remembering that in June 2007, then Communications Minister Helen Coonan said that “the switch on of the 426 exchanges to ADSL2+ will commence immediately across 426 outer metropolitan, regional and rural areas,” qualifying this commitment to mean “weeks, not months” at a press conference.

To date, only two exchanges have been enabled and publicly announced as part of the Opel plan and neither appear to offer the promised wholesale access. Nevertheless, presumably any obligation on Telstra to facilitate competition in the regions will have a massive negative impact on Opel’s own plans. That’s what makes Optus’ most recent complaints about Telstra Wholesale’s lack of common courtesies so bizarre, given it has been handed a quite attractive opportunity to become a genuinely national wholesale supplier in its own right. (And why do the competitive carriers refuse to make any criticism of the Opel delays—hardly consistent now is it?)

It is now a matter of Optus policy not to make use of Telstra resale products as it has its own DSLAM and HFC infrastructure, what’s more it uses unbundled elements to provide its own fully-fledged fixed wholesale offering that turns over the very healthy annualised sum of about $640m or so a year covering voice, business grade DSL and transmission services.

Optus has installed DSLAMs in over 330 exchanges, drilling down deep enough into regional Australia to reach the likes of Albury, Bunbury and Noosa. Apparently there is still plenty of capacity on about 80% of these DSLAMs—doesn’t this represent a substantial wholesale opportunity to sell to those apparently aggrieved by Telstra? And what of the fact that those apparently capped exchanges are already site to DSLAM installations from others, presumably few of which are “sold out” in their own right? Is it beyond the access seekers to come to some form of resale, customer exchange or informal sharing arrangement—just as TV networks use pool crews, doctors on leave use locums, florists pool international ordering services and, ahem, competitive carriers form joint FTTN bidding and lobby groups? The answer to this is probably the simple one—the cheap and low entry-price ULL and LSS mandated by the ACCC does little to foster the consolidation or alternate wholesale market development that would solve what economists would call information issues but what the competitive carriers see as monopoly issues.

Which leads us to where I think Internode’s Simon Hackett does have a point. Why is the ACCC still so so keen to put everyone on a DSLAM when it is a matter of government policy to throw everyone back off them and on to a FTTN bitstream service over the next few years? It is a massive and gaping contradiction—as Hackett says, FTTN is just xDSL with the ports further down the street. As has happened so many times in recent history, the pledges of the politicians run up dramatically against the long laid if somewhat opaque intentions of the competition regulator.

Grahame Lynch 

No ADSL available

While the thrust of this article is generally correct - that wholesale access could be available to a wider audience through Optus etc infrastructure, Grahame makes a flaw in stating that the fact that there is capacity in many of the exchanges means that there is a market for wholesale use of these ports. My own exchange - Ipswich QLD - has hundreds of free ports and multiple DSLAMS from other ISPs, however Telstra has rolled out RIMS nation wide (and still continues to do so) where houses are too far from the exchange. Some of these RIMS have mini DSLAMS installed in them for ADSL access, however these RIMS are limited to Telstra infrastructure only with no space for competitors - therefore it doesn't matter how many hundreds of ports are free in my exchange for wholesale access, the market is artificially limited by Telstra, and I can't get ADSL in my (already full) 48 port RIM.

Optus said what?

To be honest, I actually don't remember hearing anything out of Optus this week - It was mostly Internode and iPrimus.

But you make some good points about Government policy. We need some coherent policy, and we need it fast! And structural separation of Telstra wouldn't go astray either.

I agree with the previous

I agree with the previous commentator that you make some good points Grahame, but there are some important points you appear to miss or gloss over:

* TEBA (Telstra Equipment Building Access) is expensive, arduous, time consuming and can be knocked back for "capacity" (that's capacity in the exchange, not on a Telstra DSLAM) reasons that don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny. This is a pre-requisite to each location where a competitive ISP would like to take advantage of these "cheap" ULL and LSSes.

* Optus has never been the incumbent carrier or held a monopoly on infrastructure. While parallel, exclusive infrastructure is a ridiculous way to compete, it's not as if Optus had a head start that needs to be addressed with regulation.

* Telstra do not help their cause of preventing shrill complaints such as those you mention by communicating with customers/third parties/peers in the manner that they do. Obtuse, uncooperative, slow, messy, unwillingness to admit fault even where patently obvious are some of the descriptions that come to mind (these are based on actual experiences). It would not be the first or last time if a service provider assumed the worst after discussions with Telstra that went nowhere.

Ah yes, the noise certainly does continue!

Seems by the tone and content of the previous comment, Grahame's title is most apt indeed - LOL!!

I think Graeme should

I think Graeme should perhaps do a little more research on this topic, as Optus and numerous other ISPs already can and do wholesale their ADSL2 products for use by other providers. At significantly lower cost than what Telstra charges for a 8000mbps port, I might add. Telstra has taken an obvious and calculated step to stifle competition in this area, and it should be investigated by the ACCC. Preventing and slowing down access to their exchanges by competitors whilst allowing BigPond instantaneous and full access is clearly anticompetitive.

LYNCH'S REPLY: The article acknowledges the existence of Optus and others' wholesale services - why then is their existence seemingly ignored in the rhetoric about blocked and capped exchanges? Instead we're hearing about the death of Telstra Wholesale from Optus as some kind of lament! That's one of my points. The other point is that Optus/Opel has been given funding to expand wholesale to another 400 plus exchanges and appears to lack, shall we say, urgency in making this happen even though it was a matter of "weeks" away some 8 months ago.  It seems that concerns about delays, blockages and slippages don't apply equally to everyone in this debate.

Optus, like all competitors

Optus, like all competitors access Telstra infrastructure through Telstra Wholesale. If TW ceases to exist, then how does Optus gain access to exchanges for the purpose of deploying DSLAMs? If Optus and others can't gain access to exchanges because of TW ceasing to exist or because the exchanges have been capped then they are unable to wholesale.

Internode

If you got your facts right you would know that Internode had all ready started to install in the Yorke Peninsula they actually halted the installations due to money running out in the original handouts. This statement is incorrect : not a great win for open competition : as Simon Hackett may reply to you on this in much more detail than i have. He has invested a lot of his business money into a lot of Broadband areas before Broadband was even pushed for public use in Country South Australia. Maybe you need to research your facts first. As Internode is probably one of a few private run company's which is South Australia owned by one person.

LYNCH REPLIES: My facts are correct. There are probably about 50 such government subsidised installations across regional Australia that were/are being overbuilt by Opel if it proceeds to plan. Internode was one of them. It lobbied DCITA at the time and, according to Mr Hackett, secured an agreement which would roll back Opel out of the service area. The catch is that the Opel subsidy was for a wholesale network available to all comers, the Internode funding is specifically tied, under ABG subsidies, to retail connections only. You are welcome to read the direct exchange I had with Simon on this very topic starting here:

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=840478&r=13327897#r13327897

With due respect to Mr Hackett who is obviously a very gifted and talented business operator there are also scores of similar other such installations across Australia. As far as I know, none of them have secured an agreement to roll Opel out of their service areas. 

Thanks for your post.

I speak from experience, how about you?

Steve, ever seen the TEBA requirements? Ever attempted to deal with Telstra Wholesale?

Grow Up

"Yes a lot of people are shareholders and NO why should Telstra give anymore freekicks to their competitors. The "truth" is that ISP/Telcos have had a gravy train ride for years with the Anti Telstra bashing argument. What about the 1 Billion dollars of Taxpayers money handed out to Singtel/Optus a foreign owned company. Guys grow up. The "Gravy train" ride is over. Invest in your own infrastructure & stop the whingeing."

Gerard, pay attention.

Gerard, pay attention. Competitors are attempting to invest in their own infrastructure, but without access to the exchange, it's rather difficult. What do you propose they do, stick the DSLAM on the nature strip? A quarter of a mil just to get in the door (if Telstra deign to let you in) is about the priciest "free kick" you can get. Paying Telstra Wholesale more for a DSLAM port than what BigPond retail them for in some cases is a pretty slow "gravy train".

Telstra

Can someone tell me who actually paid for all the Infrastructure in all the Telstra System.

If my memory is right TAX PAYERS!!

So when the stupid Liberals sold Telstra all they wanted was to get the money.

Without thinking of the long term problems ahead.

Which is now evident, it is hard to fix a problem.
With what is happening in the UK this will help us.
Thing will have to change, and Telstra know this, but are trying everything in the book to delay the inevitable.

With Internode you still

With Internode you still have not acknowledged that Internode was one of the First to do testing on ADSL check Agile site look at the Coorong Council Area.
Where you are you don't know all the facts.
I looked at the Whirlpool Web Site. SO, a lot of people had to wait till there was more money available to finish the first round of moneys well before the Opel System.
Check all your fact first and on the web you are not the only one to get it wrong.