Separation: the true facts

From
http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/ne...the-true-facts

Separation can take different forms. The most onerous forms include
structural separation where the business is formally broken into different
listed companies and functional separation where different divisions within
a single business are forced to operate at arms length.

Countries that have imposed (or flirted with) structural or functional
separation have seen little if any investment in high speed broadband. In
the UK, New Zealand and Ireland, separation has resulted in no significant
new investment and imposed substantial costs that are ultimately born by
consumers.
United Kingdom

Functional separation was finalised in September 2005 with acceptance by
Ofcom of undertakings from BT. The business unit called Openreach, formed to
manage network operations, was established by BT on 21 January, 2006.

BT was threatened with structural separation after a finding that BT was
obstructing the progress of open access agreements1. Functional separation
was a compromise achieved via 250 separate undertakings given to Ofcom, the
regulator, indicating the complexity of the regulatory burden.

According to BT's statutory reports, implementation costs have now reached
AUD$206 million, and work is continuing.

Ofcom points to the growth in unbundled lines in the UK as proof of the
success of functional separation. There were 4.3 million LLU services
reported by BT in their March 07/08 quarterly report. Before the
introduction of Openreach there were just 192,0003 LLU-based services
provided by BT - these figures includes both ULL and LSS.

But separation aimed at improving competition in old technology, is chilling
investment in next generation access. BT provides one of the lowest maximum
broadband speeds offered by an incumbent telecommunications company in the
OECD (4.6Mbps in June 2007). It is ranked 22nd out of 30 countries.

BT has no plans to invest in a fibre upgrade of its access network. In
response the British Government has commissioned an independent review on
barriers to rolling out next generation networks; and pressed the regulator
(Ofcom) for answers. In turn Ofcom has held consultations to develop a
regulatory approach to encourage next generation access.

Ireland

eircom is now the most highly leveraged telecommunications company in Europe
following two private equity leveraged buyouts, most recently in 2006 with
Babcock and Brown purchasing 57.1%.

In October 2007, Babcock & Brown made confidential submissions to the
regulator and the Government outlining a proposal for separating the network
and retail businesses. No details on the costs of this plan were disclosed.

In April 2008, reports suggest that Babcock has shelved the separation plans
following the lukewarm response of the regulator and active hostility from
the unions.

According to the OECD, Ireland has the second slowest maximum broadband
speed offered by an incumbent in the OECD at just 3Mbps.

eircom has gone to the Irish government asking for 150M Euros as part of a
500m Euro plan to upgrade the network (25Mbps to 70 per cent of pop). The
Government has declined.

New Zealand

In New Zealand, Telecom New Zealand was threatened with structural
separation but negotiated a lesser form of operational separation.
Operational Separation was implemented on 31 March, 2008.

TNZ has estimated the cost of compliance with operational separation will be
AUD$164 million over four years plus operational costs of up to AUD$25
million in 2008 and AUD$33 million opex after 2008.

Available broadband data speeds in New Zealand are significantly behind
those available in Australia.

In 2007, Telecom committed to a "cabinetisation" program. This involves the
rollout of fibre to 3600 cabinets to bring new services to all towns with
over 500 population. 99 per cent of the lines within this rollout will be
capable of supporting speeds up to 10Mbps, and 50 per cent will be capable
of speeds up to 20Mbps. This suggests a rollout of ADSL2+ technology at
speed comparable to those already available in Australia.

---

› See More: Separation: the true facts

Nothing to do with the article, just the wording of the Subject:

"True facts" is right up there with "free gift" as one of the most
annoying redundancies in modern english usage!

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email protected]LID

Alan Poxington <[email protected]> wrote

> From
> http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/ne...the-true-facts

Wota stunningly impeccible source...

> Separation can take different forms.

In your case your head from your body is what we need.

> The most onerous forms include structural separation where the business is formally broken into different listed
> companies

It doesnt have to be listed companys, ****wit.

> and functional separation where different divisions within a single business are forced to operate at arms length.

> Countries that have imposed (or flirted with) structural or functional
> separation have seen little if any investment in high speed broadband.

Bare faced lie.

> In the UK, New Zealand and Ireland, separation has resulted in no significant new investment and imposed substantial
> costs that are ultimately born by consumers.


Bare faced lie.

> United Kingdom

No such place.

> Functional separation was finalised in September 2005 with acceptance by Ofcom of undertakings from BT. The business
> unit called Openreach, formed to manage network operations, was established by BT on 21 January, 2006.

> BT was threatened with structural separation after a finding that BT was obstructing the progress of open access
> agreements1. Functional separation was a compromise achieved via 250 separate undertakings given to Ofcom, the
> regulator, indicating the complexity of the regulatory burden.

Nope, just that the poms couldnt organise a pissup in a brewery.

> According to BT's statutory reports, implementation costs have now reached AUD$206 million, and work is continuing.

Corse its in their interests to lie about what they claim it costs.

> Ofcom points to the growth in unbundled lines in the UK as proof of the success of functional separation.

They're right.

> There were 4.3 million LLU services reported by BT in their March 07/08 quarterly report. Before the introduction of
> Openreach there were just 192,0003 LLU-based services provided by BT - these figures includes both ULL and LSS.

> But separation aimed at improving competition in old technology, is chilling investment in next generation access.

Bare faced lie.

> BT provides one of the lowest maximum broadband speeds offered by an incumbent telecommunications company in the OECD
> (4.6Mbps in June 2007).

Bare faced lie.

> It is ranked 22nd out of 30 countries.

Only by fools.

> BT has no plans to invest in a fibre upgrade of its access network.

Neither has anyone else with that sort of density of population, ****wit.

> In response the British Government has commissioned an independent review on barriers to rolling out next generation
> networks; and pressed the regulator (Ofcom) for answers.

Bare faced lie.

> In turn Ofcom has held consultations to develop a regulatory approach to encourage next generation access.

> Ireland

Yawn.

> eircom is now the most highly leveraged telecommunications company in Europe

Meaninless waffle.

> following two private equity leveraged buyouts, most recently in 2006 with Babcock and Brown purchasing 57.1%.

> In October 2007, Babcock & Brown made confidential submissions to the regulator and the Government outlining a
> proposal for separating the network and retail businesses. No details on the costs of this plan were disclosed.

> In April 2008, reports suggest that Babcock has shelved the separation plans following the lukewarm response of the
> regulator and active hostility from the unions.

So ****ing what ?

> According to the OECD, Ireland has the second slowest maximum
> broadband speed offered by an incumbent in the OECD at just 3Mbps.

Bare faced lie.

> eircom has gone to the Irish government asking for 150M Euros as part of a 500m Euro plan to upgrade the network
> (25Mbps to 70 per cent of pop). The Government has declined.

Why should the govt pay for that ? Hardly surprising they were told to **** off.

> New Zealand

> In New Zealand, Telecom New Zealand was threatened with structural
> separation but negotiated a lesser form of operational separation.
> Operational Separation was implemented on 31 March, 2008.

> TNZ has estimated the cost of compliance with operational separation
> will be AUD$164 million over four years plus operational costs of up
> to AUD$25 million in 2008 and AUD$33 million opex after 2008.

Corse its in their interests to lie about what they claim it costs.

> Available broadband data speeds in New Zealand are significantly behind those available in Australia.

So ****ing what ? The stupid sheep shaggers couldnt organise a pissup in a brewery.

> In 2007, Telecom committed to a "cabinetisation" program. This
> involves the rollout of fibre to 3600 cabinets to bring new services
> to all towns with over 500 population. 99 per cent of the lines
> within this rollout will be capable of supporting speeds up to
> 10Mbps, and 50 per cent will be capable of speeds up to 20Mbps. This suggests a rollout of ADSL2+ technology at speed
> comparable to those already available in Australia.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

>> Ofcom points to the growth in unbundled lines in the UK as proof of the
>> success of functional separation. There were 4.3 million LLU services
>> reported by BT in their March 07/08 quarterly report. Before the
>> introduction of Openreach there were just 192,0003 LLU-based services
>> provided by BT - these figures includes both ULL and LSS.
>>
>> But separation aimed at improving competition in old technology, is
>> chilling investment in next generation access. BT provides one of the
>> lowest maximum broadband speeds offered by an incumbent
>> telecommunications company in the OECD (4.6Mbps in June 2007). It is
>> ranked 22nd out of 30 countries.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> 8MBps is standard in the UK - depending, of course, on distance from the

Its the standard here too, depending, of course, on distance from the
exchange.

So whats your point?

> exchange. But 70% of the population have access to ADSL2+ via ULL services
> from other providers.

And 70% of the population have access to ADSL2 here. So whats your point.

Will Kemp wrote...

> And BT is currently in the process of upgrading their whole system to
> what they call "21CN" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_21CN ).
>
> Operational separation in the UK has been a resounding success.
> Broadband access is better, faster, and cheaper than in Australia.
>
> Bring it on in Aus, i reckon!

At the risk of being labeled a Parky-bot, is it fair to compare the UK to Oz?
It's the size of Victoria, maybe a bit bigger, but has 3 times the population of
all of Oz. It would be much easier to set up a national network of DSL2+
standards than it is here.

Also, did NZ go down this path? If so how did it progress there?