Conroy: Coalition NBN bill edits "redundant"

 

Read the bill, he says.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has criticised amendments proposed by the Coalition to the Government's Telstra split bill, labelling them "misguided" and several as "redundant".

The Coalition revealed its intention to move amendments following a joint party room discussion on Tuesday.

It demanded that NBN Co not be exempt from the Competition and Consumer Act (formerly the Trade Practices Act) - something the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) chairman Graeme Samuel had already said was not part of the proposed laws.

Conroy today backed Samuel's earlier clarification, saying Turnbull's repeated claims "that the agreement between Telstra and NBN Co will not be subject to ACCC scrutiny [was] wrong".

"The Bill already includes provision in section 577A for the ACCC to scrutinise and approve the competitive impacts of the agreement between Telstra and NBN Co. This agreement would need to be incorporated into the undertaking that Telstra lodges with the ACCC," Conroy said.

"The Bill authorises entering into the agreement and associated conduct for the purposes of trade practices law only if the ACCC accepts the undertaking.

"This removes any need for multiple authorisation inquiries, while still ensuring appropriate scrutiny of the arrangements."

The Coalition also called for amendments that would remove "gun at the head" provisions that it said threatened Telstra with losing the right to bid for future mobile spectrum "if it does not structurally separate in a way acceptable to the Government."

Conroy criticised the amendment as "redundant" and urged the Coalition to "actually read the bill."

"The bill no longer includes an automatic prohibition on the acquisition of spectrum if Telstra does not structurally separate and divest its interests in its HFC network and Foxtel," Conroy said.

"Malcolm Turnbull has been briefed by my Department on the bill so he knows his amendments are unnecessary.

"The Opposition are only interested in delaying and obstructing the bill."

The Coalition proposed two other amendments to the bill.

It wanted Parliament to be empowered to "disallow Ministerial directions to the ACCC regarding the NBN Co/Telstra deal".

And it wanted "merit reviews and procedural fairness [to be] restored... to the ACCC's enforcement of the new access pricing regime" under the NBN.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Conroy: Coalition NBN bill edits "redundant"
"Maxxi2 wrote: The ACCC is there to regulate competition, not create competition where it is not required. And in regulating the competition they killed competition in another area ..."
By deteego
 
 
 
Comments: 34
noelpeters
Oct 28, 2010 1:02 PM
We all know Samuel and Conroy are bum buddies.
mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 1:23 PM
@noelpeters,

If your not going to discuss the NBN/legislation seriously, then don't, stupid comments like that won't make you friends.

Perhaps yourself needs to look at the bill, rather than trying to make a funny comment on serious matter to Telco Industry as a whole, epsecially those who work within the Industry.
sydneyla
Oct 28, 2010 1:48 PM
It is a fact that if Telstra agrees to the requests of the NBN Co and Government the automatic splitting of Telstra (Wholesale/Retail) will occur.

The question must be asked however, did Telstra agree freely or were they under threat of blackmail when their decision was made? If I am in the car-park and a robber with a gun asks if I would like to donate funds to him I too would probably say OK.

mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 2:51 PM
@sydneyla,

The fact remainds it's not a blackmail, please look up the definition.

And they already agreeing to do this, simply because there is money involved and a better future for them (and a new network).

How can it be blackmail if the company is recieving compensation as well as a brighter future for it?

wikipedia says this:

whether involving revealing information or not. However, from a libertarian perspective, blackmail is not always considered a crime [1][2]. Some libertarians point out that it is licit to gossip about someone else's secret, to threaten to publicly reveal such information, and to ask that person for money, but it is illegal to combine the threat with the request for money, which raises the question, "Why do two rights make a wrong?"[3]

Please explain to me that Telstra always refused to seperate on the bases of it costing money, yet they are being compensated heavely ($11 billion) and access to our new network?
anonymous
Oct 28, 2010 3:23 PM

@sydlala, your robber analogy is a good one, except you got the identity wrong.

For many years, your Telstra has been the robber holding the monopoly gun at the heads of endusers to demand their cash, and it's about time somebody in government realised this and applied the handcuffs.
mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 3:38 PM
@anonymous, not to mention 201 Exchanges that gave the ability for Telstra to compete more, $98 Million.

Services that are currently subsidised such as Broadband Guarentee is government funded as well, giving the opputinity for Telstra and others competing.
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 3:56 PM
Uhh, mad1k5, I dunno about you, but disallowing a private company to invest in technologies for purely political reasons (such as preventing spectrum for Telstra when they have spent all their money upgrading/investing in the wireless sector) sounds like political blackmail to me

Edited by deteego: 28/10/2010 04:17:32 PM
sydneyla
Oct 28, 2010 4:08 PM
Me too deteego and probably to any reasonable person.
mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 4:27 PM
@Deteego,

You don't need to be political to do this, Telstra refused to upgrade their network (or even seperate) on the bases of cost, unless it was benificial (financially) to them, and not to the benifit of the Nation.

This whole situation has been brought on them, because they want to continue to control the situation.

This is why they were laughing all the way to the bank when they had the opportunity for FTTN Network, it would create a monopoly again, and back to square one.

With the NBN, the situation is entirely different, especially the fact the NBN being a Layer 2 Network, it would be harder for PIPE Owner to monopolise the entire network.

This is why the deal for $11 billion was made, freeing those burdens and allowing it to compete properly without the regulation hurdles (including USO/ACCC).

I don't understand peoples hatred doing it this way, and it always upsets me, to make some progress with incumbent telco's sometimes you have to push alittle to get done.

In the USA, Telco Incumbent was forced to Seperate, would you rather that option or to be left under a monopoly provider on a dying network ?

Blocking is not blackmail,

Blocking would be simular to blocking of shutting down of the CDMA Network, when NextG coverage was not upto scratch.

Get your facts straight you two.
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 4:31 PM
mad1k5 wrote:
@Deteego,

You don't need to be political to do this, Telstra refused to upgrade their network (or even seperate) on the bases of cost, unless it was benificial (financially) to them, and not to the benifit of the Nation.

So is this admitting they are being blackmailed, but its ok because they did some bad stuff in the past (due to being unregulated for way too long)

Thats not helping your argument at all

And what evidence do you have of Telstra refusing to upgrade their network, as far as I am aware we are running ADSL2+ and not dialup

Edited by deteego: 28/10/2010 04:35:17 PM
mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 4:44 PM
And what you know, 12Mbps claims by Turnbull is all we ever need.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/366022/12mbps_enough_all_applications_turnbull_-_updated/

Stil sprouting the Wireless idea's i think, smoking something as well.
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 4:48 PM
mad1k5 wrote:
And what you know, 12Mbps claims by Turnbull is all we ever need.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/366022/12mbps_enough_all_applications_turnbull_-_updated/

Stil sprouting the Wireless idea's i think, smoking something as well.


And you know what, you are changing the topic and coming up with a strawman

You claim that Telstra never ugpraded their network, this is a blatant lie

And you still haven't addressed the fact that Telstra is being blackmailed by those parts of the legislation
mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 4:48 PM
@deteego,

Upgrading networks, yeah right, your upgrading parts of the network, not entire networks, and private companies like Telstra, who hasn't been porforming well cannot build it, thats why they build the cheap horrible versions instead.

And as I said, Telstra had plenty of Help of upgrading their Exchanges to accept ADSL2+ DSLAM's.

Such as the example I provided earlier.

"So is this admitting they are being blackmailed, but its ok because they did some bad stuff in the past (due to being unregulated for way too long)"

If the Government were blackmailing Telstra, what is Telstra doing to the entire country? Blackmailing since privitisation!

Again, I ask deteego, get facts right.
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 4:49 PM
mad1k5 wrote:
And as I said, Telstra had plenty of Help of upgrading their Exchanges to accept ADSL2+ DSLAM's.


Plenty of help?

The most help they got, as far as I am aware, is 100 million dollars to upgrade DSLAMS in some rural areas of victoria. 100 million dollars is like a drop in the ocean

mad1k5 wrote:


If the Government were blackmailing Telstra, what is Telstra doing to the entire country? Blackmailing since privitisation!

Again, I ask deteego, get facts right.

Except that ACCC sets the prices, not Telstra (so you can blame ACCC then)

Edited by deteego: 28/10/2010 04:50:42 PM
mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 4:50 PM
Deteego, you also NOW claiming that they are blackmailing via parts of the legistation (not every part of the legislation), point to us what parts of the legislation ?

Backup your facts with facts.
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 4:51 PM
mad1k5 wrote:
Deteego, you also NOW claiming that they are blackmailing via parts of the legistation (not every part of the legislation), point to us what parts of the legislation ?

Backup your facts with facts.


Did you read this news post? You know thats the whole point of this news article (its stated there......). This article is talking about the coalition (Malcom Turnbull) making amendments to certain parts of the legislation, one of those amendments address the issue where the legislation blackmails Telstra

Edited by deteego: 28/10/2010 04:54:21 PM
mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 4:53 PM
@Deteego

"The most help they got, as far as I am aware, is 100 million dollars to upgrade DSLAMS in some rural areas of victoria. 100 million dollars is like a drop in the ocean"

$100 million for DSLAM rollouts, Broadband Gurentee and other associated programs.

And now the removal of the USO and difficulty of owning a network that has plagued them by court cases as well as help pay for costs of seperation.

Telstra has continued to block Competiters into building additional DSLAM's, claims of running out of SPACE in Exchanges, Capping RIM's and DSLAM's.

Do you want this to continue deteego ?
mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 4:55 PM
@deteego

"Did you read this news post? You know thats the whole point of this news article "

What where the part the claims by the Opposition, the same lines you are spruking ?
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 4:56 PM
mad1k5 wrote:
@Deteego

"The most help they got, as far as I am aware, is 100 million dollars to upgrade DSLAMS in some rural areas of victoria. 100 million dollars is like a drop in the ocean"

$100 million for DSLAM rollouts, Broadband Gurentee and other associated programs.


Yeah and the 100million dollars was for certain DSLAM rollouts in some suburbs in Victora. Are you saying that Victoria is the only area with ADSL2+ DSLAMS?


Quote:
And now the removal of the USO and difficulty of owning a network that has plagued them by court cases as well as help pay for costs of seperation.

Telstra has continued to block Competiters into building additional DSLAM's, claims of running out of SPACE in Exchanges, Capping RIM's and DSLAM's.


Well if they run out of space, they run out of space, and that has happened. Problem with RIMS is them being congested. This still does not constitute not upgrading their network, if they didn't upgrade their network there wouldn't be any exchanges there in the first place
HubertCumberdale
Oct 28, 2010 5:02 PM
mad1k5 wrote:
And what you know, 12Mbps claims by Turnbull is all we ever need.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/366022/12mbps_enough_all_applications_turnbull_-_updated/

Stil sprouting the Wireless idea's i think, smoking something as well.

Ha! Ha! LOL. I was wondering what Turnbull would do to embarrass himself today. 12mbps? He must be joking.

mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 5:06 PM
@deteego,

"Well if they run out of space, they run out of space, and that has happened. Problem with RIMS is them being congested. This still does not constitute not upgrading their network, if they didn't upgrade their network there wouldn't be any exchanges there in the first place"

There is a problem with your arguement, the fact that Telstra admitted that it was there problem, and not the telco's, we've heard these stories before, anything from loosing the keys to exchanges, to not allowed to install extra space beside the existing exchange.

Unfortnatlly for both you and telstra, fell on deaf ears.

You really need to check up your facts with history, even this site alone has the information to get your facts straight.

Stop smoking what the Coalition is smoking.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/152286,telstra-admits-to-exchange-access-deception.aspx

"Telstra admitted in a defence filing dated July 31 that it had "engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or was likely to mislead or deceive, contrary to section 52(1) of the TPA (Trade Practices Act).""

They continue to try and try the current set of laws/legislation/regulation, till push comes to shove.

And right now, we are currently at the shove phase.
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 5:19 PM
mad1k5 wrote:
@deteego,

"Well if they run out of space, they run out of space, and that has happened. Problem with RIMS is them being congested. This still does not constitute not upgrading their network, if they didn't upgrade their network there wouldn't be any exchanges there in the first place"

There is a problem with your arguement, the fact that Telstra admitted that it was there problem, and not the telco's, we've heard these stories before, anything from loosing the keys to exchanges, to not allowed to install extra space beside the existing exchange.

Unfortnatlly for both you and telstra, fell on deaf ears.

You really need to check up your facts with history, even this site alone has the information to get your facts straight.

Stop smoking what the Coalition is smoking.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/152286,telstra-admits-to-exchange-access-deception.aspx

"Telstra admitted in a defence filing dated July 31 that it had "engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or was likely to mislead or deceive, contrary to section 52(1) of the TPA (Trade Practices Act).""

They continue to try and try the current set of laws/legislation/regulation, till push comes to shove.

And right now, we are currently at the shove phase.


That still doesn't provide any proof that Telstra hasn't been upgrading their network

And if you think that is happening for the majority of Australia, I would tell you to take the wool off your eyes.
mad1k5
Oct 28, 2010 5:26 PM
@deteego, your making excuse after an excuse.

"That still doesn't provide any proof that Telstra hasn't been upgrading their network

And if you think that is happening for the majority of Australia, I would tell you to take the wool off your eyes."

Then tell me what have they done in the past 5 years, without any goverment help? Upgrading DSLAM's to compadible ADSL2+ is easy to archive, compeditors have already been doing that before Telstra did.

Competitors already also did the Following before Telstra:

1. Bigger Value Plans
2. IPTV.
3. VOIP.
4. Annex M.
5. Expanding Freezone, making content available locally.
6. Expanding Networkings, Datacenters, Help Desk Centers locally (and I'm talking like players like Internode and iiNet, TPG to some extent).
7. DSLAM Coverages.
8. Providing more Wirless competition (such as trial of iiNet Wireless already).

Again, please tell me where Telstra have "Upgraded" their network to benifit their customers?

Do I need to add to their billing systems is a complete mess.
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 5:32 PM
mad1k5 wrote:

1. Bigger Value Plans

As far as I am aware, Telstra has one of the best value ADSL2+ 200 gig plans (which is ironically why they got complained to about iiNet/internode), also nothing to do with wholesale
mad1k5 wrote:

2. IPTV.

Nothing to do with wholesale
mad1k5 wrote:

3. VOIP.

Nothing to do with wholosale
mad1k5 wrote:

4. Annex M.

No real market for it, and also nothing to do with wholesale
mad1k5 wrote:

5. Expanding Freezone, making content available locally.

This has nothing to do with wholesale
mad1k5 wrote:

6. Expanding Networkings, Datacenters, Help Desk Centers locally (and I'm talking like players like Internode and iiNet, TPG to some extent).

Nothing to do with wholesale
mad1k5 wrote:

7. DSLAM Coverages.

Telstra has the most DSLAMS in the country (1500), the next is TPG, at around 500
mad1k5 wrote:

8. Providing more Wirless competition (such as trial of iiNet Wireless already).

Uh, Telstra has the best wireless network by far, and they don't have a monopoly in wireless, and it wasn't even vertically integrated. They invested all their money into wireless themselves
mad1k5 wrote:

Do I need to add to their billing systems is a complete mess.


And this is related to wholesale prices how?????????????

3/4 of the stuff you are complaining about has nothing to do with Telstra wholesale prices, or their infrastructure, or the ULL or any stuff like that. If you don't like Telstra as an ISP, change to someone else, gods sakes

Edited by deteego: 28/10/2010 05:33:47 PM
umbria
Oct 28, 2010 6:43 PM
@deteego, you're quite a deep thinker, aren't you?
"If you don't like Telstra as an ISP, change to someone else, gods sakes"

Well, when Telstra pockets a few billion of subsidies and assistance to roll out DSLAMs to underserved areas, yet undercuts other ISPs and loses court cases after it was proven they lied that some of their exchanges were full, leaving the big T the only game in town - how exactly are we supposed to change to someone else?
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 6:53 PM
umbria wrote:

Well, when Telstra pockets a few billion of subsidies and assistance to roll out DSLAMs to underserved areas, yet undercuts other ISPs and loses court cases after it was proven they lied that some of their exchanges were full, leaving the big T the only game in town - how exactly are we supposed to change to someone else?


Because there are providers there. There are plenty of ISP's that service through Telstra's wholesale (iinet, Internode, exetel etc etc)

And you can't blame Telstra for undercutting the ISP's, that is ACCC's fault, they are the ones controlling the prices. Have a look at ULL bands, bands 3-4 are like $50-150, and those prices are set by ACCC. The ACCC also ignored earlier requests to cut wholesale prices when iiNet/Internode complained when ACCC are controlling them (which is something they admitted was wrong recently).

Can't really blame Telstra for that

Edited by deteego: 28/10/2010 06:54:23 PM
Maxxi2
Oct 28, 2010 6:59 PM
First and foremost, I think some folks need to get a better understanding of laws and legislation, anti-trust measures monopolies, federal infrastructure and competition:

1. When an organisation is notified that they have broken federal laws and are to be subject to the consequences of those laws, and given options to address thos econsequences, then that is not, has never been and will not be blackmail. Laughable folks.

Is it blacklmail when you are caught speeding and get a fine in the mail, and are told either pay, go to court to defend or face a higher fine or loss of license?

Of course not, that is a laughable and misrepresentative twisting of what the law is doing.

2. Telstra broke various anti-trust laws, privacy laws, USO and privatisation contractual committments and Anti-Competitive Business laws.

The consequences were rectification of the contracts and laws pertaining to their market position, vertically intergrated and anti-competitive monopoly position, licensing arrangements and access to further markets.

Happens to companies all the time: Break the law, break the agreed arrangements and you lose access to future market access and licensing.

That is not blackmail, it is standard commercial and legal consequences.

3. Duress is an illegal application of force to bring about an action: The govts actions are fully legal, have been agreed to by Telstra who have recognised massive blunders and know they need to reposition.

Remember, it was Teslstra themselves who hired an army of lawyers to fight the ACCC all the way and every day to maintain their model.

Being made to adhere to Australian law is not duress nor blackmail, it is called compliance.

The coalition did not have the will, gonads nor intestinal fortitude (courage) to face down Telstra for over a decade. Now that Conroy did face down Sol and his fleeing Banditos, did face off their litigation threats, and won the stare down, now the coalition is kicking ad scraming about blackmail and "guns to the head"...

lol, political expediency, obstructionism, fear of ALP success, etc etc.

Just answer this question for yourself:

Did Telstra agree to the USO when they were privatised, and have they tried over many years to evade fulfilling that committment?

Have a nice debate guys...
deteego
Oct 28, 2010 11:34 PM
The ACCC involvements in disrupting the Telecommunications market has actually been a catch 22

While it did provide great short term benefits in costs for broadband in current infrastructure (reason why companies such as iiNet/Internode and TPG have suddenly become so profitable) it has basically killed the chance of any major private investment into Fibre. It has forced all the competition off the wholesale level and into the ISP level (which is why ever since ACCC started interfering that no private networks have really invested in building infrastructure apart from wireless). Consumers were winging about extortionate Telstra prices (which they were charging), so the ACCC took forcefully lowered the prices of telcos (instead of, for example, providing benefits for private companies to provide competing FTTH networks)

ACCC mandates the prices for any wholesale network that is built, which basically means that there is no incentive for private companies to build a new wholesale network if ACCC will force them to drop wholesale prices and let all the other RSP's/ISP's pillage off their network for nothing (which is currently what is happening with Telstra). This is one of the major reasons why there has been no private investment into other infrastructure (such as Fibre and whatnot). Fibre networks have sprung up, but only in new housing estates that haven't already been expanded to by Telstra

So, be careful what you wish for ;)

Edited by deteego: 28/10/2010 11:36:29 PM
Mark D
Oct 29, 2010 9:36 AM
good to see the forum troll is posting hard as it can.
advocate
Oct 29, 2010 11:30 AM
If that's the best you can do in providing constructive criticism deteego hasn't anything to worry about!
Maxxi2
Oct 29, 2010 1:11 PM
The private investment in fibre (specifically FTTN) fell over when the govt was not prepared to guarantee exclusivity regionally and to allow private monopoly scenario infrastructure to be built.

The bidders for these contracts wanted guranteed rates of return far above industry averages for these examples of implementation, as well as access to vertically integrated monopoly situations.

Everyone, all of a sudden, thought it would be great to be a mini-Telstra...

That was then and is now a detriment to the industry, to our economy and to the public.

There is a HUGE difference between vertically integrated private monopolies (non-bevolent and anti-competitive across wholesale/retail borders) and a national wholesale "monopoly" that provides equity of access and wholesale equity pricing across all players in the market place.

National wholesale infrastructure builds to provide equity of access and competition in the retail services provisioning and USO compliance, whereas private vertically integrated monopolies will drive to restrict access equity through technical (sorry no space in that exchange...) and pricing (where the end user buys at the same price from Telstra as the service provider...).

The ACCC is there to regulate competition, not create competition where it is not required.

Competition for competitions sake is a massive blunder in critical national services provisioning. The national telecoms infrastructure has reached that level of significance and the Telstra model has proven to be an unmitigated disaster.

The issue for private companies is that they want rates of reurn that a properly implemented national fibre network will not return in the profits driven timeframes that they desire. Their thinking and balance sheets demand short term profits, and they wqere demanding that in their FTTN RFP responses.

Thus they all failed. This proved the ACCC summasation of the market dynamics, and Conroy's, like it or not.

They all wanted the easy street Telstra style guaranteed cxash cow business. Here today, gone tomorrow and make $$$ by cutting corners everywhere...
Tom Brown
Oct 29, 2010 1:31 PM
The article shows how little Turnbull has to go on, grasping at any straw to be seen as doing the parties bidding.
anonymous
Oct 29, 2010 2:49 PM

@Mark D: "good to see the forum troll is posting hard as it can."

Yes, apparently we all have to put up with it now that it's been kicked out elsewhere. Now, there's a thought...
deteego
Oct 29, 2010 4:21 PM
Maxxi2 wrote:

The ACCC is there to regulate competition, not create competition where it is not required.


And in regulating the competition they killed competition in another area (wholesale), thats what happens when government institutions meddle with the market.

It means that wholesale prices (and ULL) went down to access Telstras copper network, but it also meant that no private company could possibly hope to compete against the CAN, so they simply didn't bother building their own infrastructure. If ACCC didn't meddle and Telstra continued to charge extortionate prices for wholesale, then other private companies would have surfaced creating their own infrastructure to take advantage of that, undercutting Telstra

Telstra's CAN network is horribly devalued (thanks to the ACCC setting its prices) which is why they are more then happy to sell it, (its definitely worth less then that $11 billion, but shhhhh, don't tell Conroy). This is also the same reason why Telstra shares have been dropping (on average) ever since ACCC started regulating Telstra's wholesale

As I said, its a catch22. You must be living in lala land if you think that artificially setting prices in market has no effect in other levels of the market

Edited by deteego: 29/10/2010 04:27:49 PM
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 500

Vote