Telstra muscles in on access debate

From
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...013408,00.html

FEDERAL Communications Minister Stephen Conroy must think Christmas has come
early this year, watching Telstra's chairman Don McGauchie at his bully
best, trying to set the parameters of the regulatory debate.

Conroy should enjoy his moment of fun now, because the real test will come
when, as seems probable, Telstra emerges as the only one that actually bids
to build a fibre-optic network.

Conroy has said nothing about what he wants for the network's regulation. In
fact he has said he doesn't want anyone saying anything publicly.

McGauchie said yesterday there was some chatter from the Government,
indicating Conroy was sliding away from his commitment not to enforce
structural separation.

He is not, because there is no need for that at this stage. Even if he
wanted to change his mind, he won't need to until he sees what bids are on
the table.

Right now it would make life a lot easier for him if Optus and Telstra did
bid, after the disappointment of Macquarie's no-show.

Macquarie's decision was based on the fact that in the present financial
markets, given Telstra's enormous advantages -- 17.6 per cent return on
assets and earnings margins of 44 per cent -- it was impossible to outbid
the incumbent.

Whether SingTel wants to back Optus is also problematic, given that in its
own backyard it is joining a consortium to bid for Singapore's proposed new
network.

At a press lunch in Melbourne yesterday, McGauchie went out of his way to
say the company had not yet decided whether to bid. Like most of his speech,
this was self-serving nonsense.

Afterwards, potential rival Michael Egan from the old G9 team confided that,
if Telstra did not bid, that would be good for him because he would be the
only bidder.

Amid all the noise and rhetoric, such as McGauchie's description of Optus as
"the dole bludger of Australian telcommunications", the facts are as
follows:

Tomorrow submissions are due for potential bidders to suggest the best
regulatory framework for a new fibre network.

McGauchie says Telstra won't bid if it is forced to separate ownership of
the network from the service arm -- which is so-called structural
separation.

That part is fine because no one is seriously demanding that happen if
Telstra wins the bid.

This is classic lobbying: argue you don't want to be turned into a Martian,
knowing no-one planned to do so.

It also suits Conroy because it sets the scene for him to go part-way
towards the New Zealand model, which would require the fibre network to be
held under a different transparent arm of Telstra.

McGauchie rejects that notion as well, arguing correctly that it would
increase costs.

This is where the debate gets serious.

As much as McGauchie says Telstra has an option of building the network or
not, if it is serious about HDTV and being in the entertainment game, it has
no choice.

His own chief Sol Trujillo has made it clear that wireless is fine, but as a
shared network it is not the best medium for delivering moving pictures.

If we just want fast broadband, then Telstra has it already and, thanks to
its brilliantly successful Next G network, has already delivered on Conroy's
promise of making fast internet available to everyone.

This point is important, in case Telstra wants to hold a gun at his head
about election promises.

Last year, Telstra delivered 19,000 telebytes of data compared to 200 in
2001, and is now capable of delivering broadband at speeds of 35 megabytes
by cable and 40 by wireless. McGauchie's team has done the job so well that
one could argue there is no need to build the fibre network.

---

› See More: Telstra muscles in on access debate

Alan Poxington <[email protected]> wrote

> From
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...013408,00.html

> FEDERAL Communications Minister Stephen Conroy must think Christmas
> has come early this year, watching Telstra's chairman Don McGauchie
> at his bully best, trying to set the parameters of the regulatory debate.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

> Conroy should enjoy his moment of fun now, because the real test will come when, as seems probable, Telstra emerges as
> the only one that actually bids to build a fibre-optic network.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

> Conroy has said nothing about what he wants for the network's regulation.

Pig ignorant lie. The labor party spelt that out in the election campaign and the dud
has been very careful to stick with what he has promised wherever that is possible.

It aint up to Conroy, ****wit.

> In fact he has said he doesn't want anyone saying anything publicly.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie.

> McGauchie said yesterday there was some chatter from the Government, indicating Conroy was sliding away from his
> commitment not to enforce structural separation.

He never ever made any such commitment, liar.

> He is not,

As if you'd know if he was doing that.

> because there is no need for that at this stage. Even if he wanted to change his mind,

He hasnt said anything that needs to be changed, ****wit.

> he won't need to until he sees what bids are on the table.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue.

> Right now it would make life a lot easier for him if Optus and
> Telstra did bid, after the disappointment of Macquarie's no-show.

No one with a clue ever expected Macquarie to bid.

> Macquarie's decision was based on the fact that in the present
> financial markets, given Telstra's enormous advantages -- 17.6 per cent return on assets and earnings margins of 44
> per cent -- it was impossible to outbid the incumbent.

Wrong again. The real reason is that with the current state
of the market, that sort of money isnt available to Macquarie
anymore and they aint actually stupid enough to get into the
situation that Babcock and Brown has got into either.

The world's moved on and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Telstra.

> Whether SingTel wants to back Optus is also problematic, given that in its own backyard it is joining a consortium to
> bid for Singapore's proposed new network.

No reason why they cant do both, ****wit.

> At a press lunch in Melbourne yesterday, McGauchie went out of his way to say the company had not yet decided whether
> to bid. Like most of his speech, this was self-serving nonsense.

We'll see...

They've never like the govt requirements and may well decide they still dont,
particularly if it looks like doing that may see the govt relax some requirements.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that telstra has ALWAYS
attempted to monster the govt on its requirements for years and years now.

> Afterwards, potential rival Michael Egan from the old G9 team confided that, if Telstra did not bid, that would be
> good for him because he would be the only bidder.

So much for your **** about what Singtel is interested in doing.

> Amid all the noise and rhetoric, such as McGauchie's description of Optus as "the dole bludger of Australian
> telcommunications",

Corse Telstra never ever does anything like that, eh ?

Corse the govt's $4.7B is nothing like that, eh ?

> the facts are as follows:

You wouldnt know what the facts were if they bit you on your lard arse, child.

> Tomorrow submissions are due for potential bidders to suggest the best regulatory framework for a new fibre network.

Wrong, as always.

> McGauchie says Telstra won't bid if it is forced to separate ownership of the network from the service arm -- which is
> so-called structural separation.

Great, **** off then.

> That part is fine because no one is seriously demanding that happen if Telstra wins the bid.

Wrong, as always.

> This is classic lobbying: argue you don't want to be turned into a Martian, knowing no-one planned to do so.

Wrong, as always.

> It also suits Conroy because it sets the scene for him to go part-way
> towards the New Zealand model, which would require the fibre network to be held under a different transparent arm of
> Telstra.

They already said that that is a requirement LONG ago, ****wit.

> McGauchie rejects that notion as well, arguing correctly that it would increase costs.

You're always welcome to **** off McGauchie.

> This is where the debate gets serious.

Nope. Because the labor party has already said that that is a non negotiable requirement
and the dud has been careful to stick to his promises wherever that is possible.

And with his new found stupidity of not spending any govt money
because of the effect that might have on inflation, which is actually
driven by other things, it would be a good excuse to defer that massive
spending if no one is prepared to comply with the govt's requirements.

That would no longer be a broken promise.

> As much as McGauchie says Telstra has an option of building the network or not, if it is serious about HDTV and being
> in the entertainment game, it has no choice.

Wrong again.

> His own chief Sol Trujillo has made it clear that wireless is fine,

No he hasnt for that, ****wit.

> but as a shared network it is not the best medium for delivering moving pictures.

Completely useless in fact.

> If we just want fast broadband,

We've already got fast broadband, ****wit.

> then Telstra has it already

It aint just Telstra that has it already, ****wit.

> and, thanks to its brilliantly successful Next G network,

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue.

> has already delivered on Conroy's promise of making fast internet available to everyone.

Pity about the cost of that route, ****wit.

> This point is important,

Nope.

> in case Telstra wants to hold a gun at his head about election promises.

Only your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.

Telstra gets to do nothing of the sort, ****wit.

> Last year, Telstra delivered 19,000 telebytes of data compared to 200 in 2001, and is now capable of delivering
> broadband at speeds of 35 megabytes by cable and 40 by wireless.

Not to 98% of the population simultaneously it aint, ****wit.

> McGauchie's team has done the job so well that one could argue there is no need to build the fibre network.

Only a pig ignorant terminal ****wit like you would actually be that stupid.

Hey McGauchie, guess what - the Federal Government gets to decide what it
does with its $4.7B - you get to comply or lose out you little annoying
****.

"Alan Parkington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> From
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...013408,00.html
>
> FEDERAL Communications Minister Stephen Conroy must think Christmas has
> come early this year, watching Telstra's chairman Don McGauchie at his
> bully best, trying to set the parameters of the regulatory debate.
>
> Conroy should enjoy his moment of fun now, because the real test will come
> when, as seems probable, Telstra emerges as the only one that actually
> bids to build a fibre-optic network.
>
> Conroy has said nothing about what he wants for the network's regulation.
> In fact he has said he doesn't want anyone saying anything publicly.
>
> McGauchie said yesterday there was some chatter from the Government,
> indicating Conroy was sliding away from his commitment not to enforce
> structural separation.
>
> He is not, because there is no need for that at this stage. Even if he
> wanted to change his mind, he won't need to until he sees what bids are on
> the table.
>
> Right now it would make life a lot easier for him if Optus and Telstra did
> bid, after the disappointment of Macquarie's no-show.
>
> Macquarie's decision was based on the fact that in the present financial
> markets, given Telstra's enormous advantages -- 17.6 per cent return on
> assets and earnings margins of 44 per cent -- it was impossible to outbid
> the incumbent.
>
> Whether SingTel wants to back Optus is also problematic, given that in its
> own backyard it is joining a consortium to bid for Singapore's proposed
> new network.
>
> At a press lunch in Melbourne yesterday, McGauchie went out of his way to
> say the company had not yet decided whether to bid. Like most of his
> speech, this was self-serving nonsense.
>
> Afterwards, potential rival Michael Egan from the old G9 team confided
> that, if Telstra did not bid, that would be good for him because he would
> be the only bidder.
>
> Amid all the noise and rhetoric, such as McGauchie's description of Optus
> as "the dole bludger of Australian telcommunications", the facts are as
> follows:
>
> Tomorrow submissions are due for potential bidders to suggest the best
> regulatory framework for a new fibre network.
>
> McGauchie says Telstra won't bid if it is forced to separate ownership of
> the network from the service arm -- which is so-called structural
> separation.
>
> That part is fine because no one is seriously demanding that happen if
> Telstra wins the bid.
>
> This is classic lobbying: argue you don't want to be turned into a
> Martian, knowing no-one planned to do so.
>
> It also suits Conroy because it sets the scene for him to go part-way
> towards the New Zealand model, which would require the fibre network to be
> held under a different transparent arm of Telstra.
>
> McGauchie rejects that notion as well, arguing correctly that it would
> increase costs.
>
> This is where the debate gets serious.
>
> As much as McGauchie says Telstra has an option of building the network or
> not, if it is serious about HDTV and being in the entertainment game, it
> has no choice.
>
> His own chief Sol Trujillo has made it clear that wireless is fine, but as
> a shared network it is not the best medium for delivering moving pictures.
>
> If we just want fast broadband, then Telstra has it already and, thanks to
> its brilliantly successful Next G network, has already delivered on
> Conroy's promise of making fast internet available to everyone.
>
> This point is important, in case Telstra wants to hold a gun at his head
> about election promises.
>
> Last year, Telstra delivered 19,000 telebytes of data compared to 200 in
> 2001, and is now capable of delivering broadband at speeds of 35 megabytes
> by cable and 40 by wireless. McGauchie's team has done the job so well
> that one could argue there is no need to build the fibre network.
>
>


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **