Internode slams NBN cherry-pick rules

 

Could affect Agile data centre link project.

ISP Internode has urged the Government to throw out anti cherry-picking measures in NBN legislation currently before parliament, slamming the current wording as "utterly irresponsible".

Regulatory and corporate affairs general manager John Lindsay said the controversial clause would have "unintended but significant consequences", stalling fibre rollouts for projects not at all related to the National Broadband Network.

"A specific example of how this fails is the construction by our sister company Agile at present of a fibre between two data centres that will be used to provide services to multiple customers at each location," Lindsay said in a senate submission.

"This cable is captured by this section [of the Act] as soon as NBN Co provide a service at these sites.

"As written, these amendments will have the effect of ensuring no new fibre is deployed in Australia other than by NBNCo and to their unspecified multi-year roll out schedule."

Lindsay went on to say that the cherry-picking clauses were not required "in an environment where all operators are required to provide access to the NBN or equivalent access to retail service providers".

Anti cherry-picker measures were first flagged by McKinsey & Co and KPMG in the NBN implementation study released last year.

The consultants pointed to a "risk that carriers other than NBN Co might construct fixed-line superfast access networks (such as Fibre to the Node, DOCSIS 3.0 or competing FTTP networks) only in high-income and low-cost, high-density areas and then undercut NBN Co's average price due to the lack of any need to subsidise operations in higher-cost areas."

That risk looked to become a reality when Brisbane City Council announced it would deploy a fibre-to-the-home network ahead of the NBN. However, the risk has diminished somewhat with the sudden canning of the project.

Draft laws that included the anti cherry-picking clauses were introduced to parliament in November last year.

The wording disputed by Internode could be found at Schedule 1, Part 3, page 47 of the draft bill.

Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has proposed sweeping amendments to the bill text that would knock out the section on cherry-picking rules alongside other parts of the legislation.

Lindsay provided provisional support to Turnbull's amendments, though the ISP made clear it would prefer that a narrower option be considered.

"Mr Turnbull's proposed amendment has some significant merit although Internode considers that it throws away significant regulatory benefits while addressing the anti cherry-picking issue," Lindsay said.

"On balance, Internode would prefer Mr Turnbull's amendment in the absence of a narrower amendment that throws out the anti-cherry-picking provisions."

ISP HaleNET meanwhile backed the full removal of the section as described by Turnbull.

"I don't believe I have even seen such a capital and competition destroying piece of legislation in my working life," HaleNET manager Tim McCullagh said in a separate submission [pdf].

"Given the McKinsey report stated that NBNco could compete then please let it. It is the only way to ensure the efficient use of capital."

The Senate Environment and Communications Committee was due to hand in its report on the Access Bill next month.

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


Internode slams NBN cherry-pick rules
"The interesting thing is that Internode does not have its own network or the capital needed to roll out a CAN or transit backhaul. Therefore it's competitive position is actually protected by ACP ..."
By adavion
 
 
 
Comments: 6
MerariSchroeder
Feb 25, 2011 1:37 PM
It's hard to see how broadband innovation can continue in Australia with such a "cherry picking" clause. All business models start with the highest priced market first, to pay down debt, then roll out to regional areas.

Telstra for example are starting LTE in metro areas only. Just like they did with HSPDA, coverage is then extended to the rest of Australia as sites are upgraded.

What if a new copper, wireless or even fibre technology emerges which enables even cheaper internet and faster speeds? They won't be able to compete in Australia and will be forced overseas. Internationally, we may end up paying the most for relatively lower speeds.

The government is gambling with a lot.
Champski
Feb 25, 2011 2:48 PM
" All business models start with the highest priced market first, to pay down debt, then roll out to regional areas."

Correct me if I'm wrong (likely), wasn't part of the deal that got the independents onside with the current government that regional areas would be given priority in the NBN rollout?
Tailgator
Feb 25, 2011 7:01 PM
Good to see some critical thought going into the proposed legislation. And no matter what negative light the opponents of the NBN may wish to view it in, such actions are a positive.
No framer/writer of legislation can be expected to get it right, first time. Such criticism and review helps ensure the legislation fits the purpose for which it was intended without unintended consequences.

As for NBNCo, then it should be ensured that it is strictly wholesale only and that no 'interpretations' of the legislation allow otherwise.
mad1k5
Feb 25, 2011 10:41 PM
I don't want to go down the road of Cherry picking.

IF we do, there will not be any backhaul competition, just selected area's like now DSLAM's.
advocate
Mar 1, 2011 12:19 PM
Well Internode would know all about cherry picking, what is their restricted DSLAM rollout based on?

Edited by advocate: 1/3/2011 12:20:33 PM
adavion
Mar 2, 2011 5:02 PM
The interesting thing is that Internode does not have its own network or the capital needed to roll out a CAN or transit backhaul. Therefore it's competitive position is actually protected by ACP provisions.

Agile on the other hand as a Greenfield provider is kind of screwed because it can't do new Greenfield FTTP sites....

But the question then is where does Internode make its money from? Could this actually be a case of an ISP saying something that is (true) and against its commercial interests????
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australia turns to homegrown drones
Debating the finer points of unmanned aerial vehicle design.
 
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: 515

Vote