Conroy brands Coalition NBN changes 'Stalinistic'

By Ry Crozier on Mar 24, 2011 7:02 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Political pawns of the telcos.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has traded barbs with Coalition senators over proposed NBN legislation, accusing the Opposition of channelling Telstra and Stalin.

The Opposition sought to have their amendments to the bills accepted in the final text, with Senator Birmingham arguing the need for "very clear and emphatic ring-fencing of NBN Co to ensure it's a wholesale-only service".

Birmingham and others accused the Government of creating broad exemptions in amendments revealed yesterday that could allow NBN Co to deal direct with some companies - effectively becoming a service retailer.

The fear was that large corporates could obtain a carrier licence to take a direct feed from NBN Co for their own communications.

The Coalition sought to limit that possibility and exemptions that could allow it to occur in the legislation before the Senate.

Conroy said that telling customers of NBN Co what they could and couldn't do with a service was "Stalinistic".

"You should hang your head in shame," Conroy told Senator Birmingham.

"You want to tell corporations who pay for a service how they can use the service they've bought.

"You're saying they can only use it for one purpose. Talk about anti-competitive," Conroy said, between rising interjections from Liberal senators.

"Could you be more Stalinistic in [your proposed] intervention? Could you be more anti-competitive?

"Joe Stalin would be proud of you."

Conroy accused the Coalition of adopting a policy on telecommunications regulation that amounted to "just do Telstra's bidding".

"I appreciate you've been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Telstra for so long you've got a big orange T on your forehead," Conroy told Senator Birmingham.

Liberal Senator Mary Jo Fisher fired back, accusing Conroy of "doing the bidding of NBN Co and its current master Mike Quigley".

When it came to the serious point to the Coalition's proposed amendments - preventing NBN Co from increasing its ambit by stealth - Conroy argued it could provide only a wholesale service.

"[Customers] can only buy a wholesale service [from NBN Co]," he said.

Debate was adjourned for the tea break.

Conroy brands Coalition NBN changes 'Stalinistic'

7 comments in this discussion

"umbria wrote: NBNCo already undergoes far higher standards of public oversight and transparency than that offered behind closed doors by the ACCC - for instance it is grilled and scrutinised ..."

By advocate

Tags

conroy, brands, coalition, nbn, changes

ACCC approves Optus NBN deal

Photos: Corning's NBN cable manufacturing facility

NBN rollback to cost at least $1.8 billion

NBN Co chief promises no volume discounts

Breaking Stories

Hackett steps down from Internode

ACCC approves Optus NBN deal

Australia shares $2bn Square Kilometre Array

RIM to cut 2000 jobs

NSW retains right to veto data centre co-tenants

Readers of this article also read...

Comments: 7

hunter Mar 24, 2011 8:08 PM	Conroy Look in the mirror and see your only voter. You are now in Australia and do not forget that we do not like dictators . Oh what do you want to be when you grow up and finaly spit out your dummy mate. Grow up.
Maxxi2 Mar 24, 2011 9:06 PM	@hunter: The problem you and the Coalition are having and will continue to have is that Conroy is right on this point and right on the fundamentals of the NBN and NBNco. His approval rating has actually risen due to the NBN and NBN debate, which makesa mockery of your assertion about how many voters he has... Conroy is a democratically elected Senator in a democratically elected senate and part of a democratically elected government. The NBN and NBNco is being openly debated in both chambers of government and is subject to multiple oversight committees, public scrutiny, ACCC decisions and industry input. So where the heck you come up with your reference to dictators, apart from perhaps listening to the Coalitions Pyne too often, will remain a mystery for most folks. As for growing up and dummy spits mate, your's is not too bad either. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on growing up, we all have some of that to do, but you might want to spend some time researching the democratic and government processes of Australia and how that operates today... You also might want to research the history of the Coalition and Telstra, and how they failed epically to rein in Telstra or curb their monopolistic practices, how they nobbled the ACCC and refused to act on the problematic Telstra challeges of a vertically integrated industry monopoly. Good luck. Edited by Maxxi2: 24/3/2011 09:09:18 PM
Rossyduck Mar 25, 2011 8:19 AM	Stalin ? - Given Conroy's nationalising the industry and pumping Government money in to compete with establsihed industry, suspending ACCC oversight of NBN Co - is he really intending this as an insult or a compliment ?. Competition - How can there be competition if he is pumping Government money into competing with private enterprise ? Why has he suspended ACCC oversight of NBN Co if there is indeed competition ? Australians need to ask themselves these questions.
djzort Mar 25, 2011 8:26 AM	the problem is not how the NBN is chartered, the problem IS the NBN. people find loop holes to abuse centrelink, people will loop holes to abuse NBN. you cant legislate every single possibility - people will find a way around it. the correct solution is to incentivize private investment. after all, the government who governs best is the government who governs less.
MerariSchroeder Mar 25, 2011 10:53 AM	"Conroy argued it could provide only a wholesale service." So devious. No one is fooled by this continuous ploy. Everyone agrees that NBNCo will effectively be restricted to Layer 2 wholesaling. It actually wouldn't make a difference if they were wholesaling Layer 3. The danger is NBNCo pulling a large amount of customers from under the RSPs, a significant baseline of revenue. It should be noted though, that before the RSPs such as Telstra and Optus were effectively reselling their own infrastructure. Now with NBNCo, it becomes possible for a new bootstrap carrier to bypass RSPs. One could argue that this equates to competition and forces the RSPs to offer better value to deter such instances. This is however a flawed view. The very fact that all RSPs have equal access to infrastructure means there should be more competition in the Retail space. There should be no need for bootstrap carriers. I am aware of at least one government owned group which wholesales from Telstra, and resells to several other government groups as well as adding value such as aggregated information services and co-location. In an NBNCo world this should continue through an RSP, why leave the option open for direct wholesale from NBNCo? The only reason I see for the Government to allow bootstrap carriers is due to to have a backup option in the likely even of poor take-up. If take up is poor, the elected government can mandate all federal government agencies band together to force money directly through NBNCo. Conroy's communist flavoured rant is purely diversionary. Sealing shut any means for by-passing (effectively) the whole telecommunication industry, would be prudent, and is certainly not anti-competitive. Constructing a Government controlled centric network (and filter), and legislating against "cherry-picking", aka innovation and competition is anti-competitive, and much more deserving of disrepute. An effective amendment could have simply read: "NBNCo must not sell directly to Government owned carriers". This would allow a Government carrier to still operate, buying in bulk from an RSP and still adding value, with aggregation of closed network services, etc..
umbria Mar 25, 2011 1:02 PM	NBNCo already undergoes far higher standards of public oversight and transparency than that offered behind closed doors by the ACCC - for instance it is grilled and scrutinised on live radio by four parliamentary committees and appears three times a year before Senate Estimates hearings. Now, after the coalition, at Optus' behest, screamed for weeks that if utilities and emergency services wanted direct VPN-style contracts with NBNCo they should be required to apply for a carrier licence, the flaws of that approach became obvious when someone pointed out that Woolworths and others might just do that if permitted. This whole argument is no more than a time-waster, because the NBN is a publicly answerable entity with a mandate to deliver universal broadband infrastructure and offer any RSP equal wholesale access to every customer premises in Australia regardless of the fact that a tiny number are not on fibre by 2020 (though many more will be in subsequent years). It will be stretched to the limit to do this without adding further services, although if directed to do so by parliament then it would have to expand its mandate. Why is the opposition working to 'demolish the NBN' (Tony Abbott's instruction to Malcolm Turnbull), which John Howard first attempted in 2004? @djzort, this is the question Australians must ask themselves, and the obvious answer is that they consider that if the NBN is slowed or hindered it will be to their political advantage. It will not be to any public advantage.
advocate Mar 28, 2011 9:51 AM	umbria wrote: NBNCo already undergoes far higher standards of public oversight and transparency than that offered behind closed doors by the ACCC - for instance it is grilled and scrutinised on live radio by four parliamentary committees and appears three times a year before Senate Estimates hearings. As it should, any infrastructure roll-out of this magnitude spending billions of public funds based on a dubious business case (if you could call it that) needs all that scrutinising and more, it's a pity the Labor insulation debacle didn't get it. Now, after the coalition, at Optus' behest, screamed for weeks that if utilities and emergency services wanted direct VPN-style contracts with NBNCo they should be required to apply for a carrier licence, the flaws of that approach became obvious when someone pointed out that Woolworths and others might just do that if permitted. Well Woolworths or any other corporation could apply for a carrier licence today if they decided their core business was not retail, in the same way a Telstra or SingTel could diversify into retail and open a chain of supermarkets if they wished. The point is to ensure the NBN Co does not become a retailer, the taxpayer should not be funding a organisation whose aim is to take retail business away from existing ISP's, and I also mean corporate business including hospitals schools,universities etc. Why is the opposition working to 'demolish the NBN' (Tony Abbott's instruction to Malcolm Turnbull), which John Howard first attempted in 2004? @djzort, this is the question Australians must ask themselves, Well the answer is obvious, the NBN rollout is not Coalition policy, it was not their policy before the last election it still is not. if the NBN is slowed or hindered it will be to their political advantage. Well any slowing especially because of the current legislative process is because of the Independents and Greens wanting safeguards as well, it is not just the Coalition. The fact that Telstra and Optus are playing hard to get is not helping either, but then they have to ensure their shareholders interests are not steam rolled by Conroy in the blind haste to get NBN numbers looking healthy It will not be to any public advantage. Any detailed scrutiny of this turkey will be to the public advantage