No LL Unbundling.....because?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by steve, May 20, 2004.

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    It occurred to me that the announcement of no local loop unbundling came
    immediately after the Aussie Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, more or
    less to NZ to get stuffed over the issue of tax incentives for small
    Australian wine producers.

    The NZ position is that the tax incentive illegal under CER and the WTO.
    The Aussie position is simply "We won't be removing that incentive."

    In NZ, the primary beneficiary of local loop unbundling would
    be.....TelstraClear - owned mainly by Telstra...who are owned by the
    Aussie government (they weren't silly enough to sell it).

    Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to get
    stuffed?

    They don't...and didn't.
     
    steve, May 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:50:21 +1200, steve
    <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote:

    >It occurred to me that the announcement of no local loop unbundling came
    >immediately after the Aussie Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, more or
    >less to NZ to get stuffed over the issue of tax incentives for small
    >Australian wine producers.
    >
    >The NZ position is that the tax incentive illegal under CER and the WTO.
    > The Aussie position is simply "We won't be removing that incentive."
    >
    >In NZ, the primary beneficiary of local loop unbundling would
    >be.....TelstraClear - owned mainly by Telstra...who are owned by the
    >Aussie government (they weren't silly enough to sell it).
    >
    >Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    >major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to get
    >stuffed?
    >
    >They don't...and didn't.




    BT are having the same problems as it just can't be done..
     
    The GHOST of WOGER., May 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. steve

    steve Guest

    The GHOST of WOGER. wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:50:21 +1200, steve
    > <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It occurred to me that the announcement of no local loop unbundling came
    >>immediately after the Aussie Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, more or
    >>less to NZ to get stuffed over the issue of tax incentives for small
    >>Australian wine producers.
    >>
    >>The NZ position is that the tax incentive illegal under CER and the WTO.
    >> The Aussie position is simply "We won't be removing that incentive."
    >>
    >>In NZ, the primary beneficiary of local loop unbundling would
    >>be.....TelstraClear - owned mainly by Telstra...who are owned by the
    >>Aussie government (they weren't silly enough to sell it).
    >>
    >>Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    >>major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to get
    >>stuffed?
    >>
    >>They don't...and didn't.

    >
    > BT are having the same problems as it just can't be done..


    The same problem?

    Did they have trouble with the Aussies too? *sigh*

    22 of the 24 countries in the OECD have done local loop unbundling - at
    least for broadband.....only Mexico and NZ have not.
     
    steve, May 20, 2004
    #3
  4. On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:40:41 +1200, steve
    <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote:

    >The GHOST of WOGER. wrote:
    >> On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:50:21 +1200, steve
    >> <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>It occurred to me that the announcement of no local loop unbundling came
    >>>immediately after the Aussie Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, more or
    >>>less to NZ to get stuffed over the issue of tax incentives for small
    >>>Australian wine producers.
    >>>
    >>>The NZ position is that the tax incentive illegal under CER and the WTO.
    >>> The Aussie position is simply "We won't be removing that incentive."
    >>>
    >>>In NZ, the primary beneficiary of local loop unbundling would
    >>>be.....TelstraClear - owned mainly by Telstra...who are owned by the
    >>>Aussie government (they weren't silly enough to sell it).
    >>>
    >>>Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    >>>major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to get
    >>>stuffed?
    >>>
    >>>They don't...and didn't.

    >>
    >> BT are having the same problems as it just can't be done..

    >
    >The same problem?
    >
    >Did they have trouble with the Aussies too? *sigh*
    >
    >22 of the 24 countries in the OECD have done local loop unbundling - at
    >least for broadband.....only Mexico and NZ have not.




    Just some things that I read on THEREGISTER over the last few months.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/
     
    The GHOST of WOGER., May 20, 2004
    #4
  5. On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:40:41 +1200, steve
    <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote:

    >The GHOST of WOGER. wrote:
    >> On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:50:21 +1200, steve
    >> <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>It occurred to me that the announcement of no local loop unbundling came
    >>>immediately after the Aussie Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, more or
    >>>less to NZ to get stuffed over the issue of tax incentives for small
    >>>Australian wine producers.
    >>>
    >>>The NZ position is that the tax incentive illegal under CER and the WTO.
    >>> The Aussie position is simply "We won't be removing that incentive."
    >>>
    >>>In NZ, the primary beneficiary of local loop unbundling would
    >>>be.....TelstraClear - owned mainly by Telstra...who are owned by the
    >>>Aussie government (they weren't silly enough to sell it).
    >>>
    >>>Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    >>>major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to get
    >>>stuffed?
    >>>
    >>>They don't...and didn't.

    >>
    >> BT are having the same problems as it just can't be done..

    >
    >The same problem?
    >
    >Did they have trouble with the Aussies too? *sigh*
    >
    >22 of the 24 countries in the OECD have done local loop unbundling - at
    >least for broadband.....only Mexico and NZ have not.




    I was thinking about Phones...


    So you are referring to ADSL type of things..

    I just got a nee DECT phone and had Caller ID enables my mate in Wellington
    told me that the Telstra fee for this option is 1/2 the Telesum one, similar
    case with the Phone line rental $29 from Telstra & I think its now $38 from
    Telescum..

    Its about time the government got of its arse and did some thing about this,
    but them we have a wanker involved with this..
     
    The GHOST of WOGER., May 20, 2004
    #5
  6. steve

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>,
    steve <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote:

    >
    > The same problem?
    >
    > Did they have trouble with the Aussies too? *sigh*
    >
    > 22 of the 24 countries in the OECD have done local loop unbundling - at
    > least for broadband.....only Mexico and NZ have not.


    so what, who cares what overseas countries do, they also have farm
    subsidies, etc etc.
     
    whoisthis, May 20, 2004
    #6
  7. steve

    SNOman Guest

    The GHOST of WOGER. wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:50:21 +1200, steve
    > <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It occurred to me that the announcement of no local loop unbundling came
    >>immediately after the Aussie Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, more or
    >>less to NZ to get stuffed over the issue of tax incentives for small
    >>Australian wine producers.
    >>
    >>The NZ position is that the tax incentive illegal under CER and the WTO.
    >> The Aussie position is simply "We won't be removing that incentive."
    >>
    >>In NZ, the primary beneficiary of local loop unbundling would
    >>be.....TelstraClear - owned mainly by Telstra...who are owned by the
    >>Aussie government (they weren't silly enough to sell it).
    >>
    >>Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    >>major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to get
    >>stuffed?
    >>
    >>They don't...and didn't.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > BT are having the same problems as it just can't be done..
    >
    >

    Why not? The Government sold it so they should just buy it back. It's
    just the same as the councils deciding to put a new motorway through and
    oh dear your house is in the way. Too bad we'll buy it off you at x
    dollars. Same thing for local loop.
     
    SNOman, May 20, 2004
    #7
  8. steve

    JohnO Guest

    "steve" <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It occurred to me that the announcement of no local loop unbundling came
    > immediately after the Aussie Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, more or
    > less to NZ to get stuffed over the issue of tax incentives for small
    > Australian wine producers.
    >
    > The NZ position is that the tax incentive illegal under CER and the WTO.
    > The Aussie position is simply "We won't be removing that incentive."
    >
    > In NZ, the primary beneficiary of local loop unbundling would
    > be.....TelstraClear - owned mainly by Telstra...who are owned by the
    > Aussie government (they weren't silly enough to sell it).
    >
    > Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    > major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to get
    > stuffed?
    >
    > They don't...and didn't.


    Oh great... Our government is engaging in puerile tit-for-tat games at our
    expense, thereby protecting 75% foreign owned Telecom's network monopoly?
    And thereby shooting itself on the foot as far as another aspect of
    international competitiveness is concerned?

    Sheesh.
     
    JohnO, May 20, 2004
    #8
  9. steve

    Don Gould Guest

    steve wrote:
    > Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    > major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to get
    > stuffed?


    ROFL!

    OMG I've read some silly things on lists today but yours just about
    takes the cake!

    Tell me...

    Have you even read any of the submissions on the CC web site?

    http://www.comcom.govt.nz/telecommunications/localloop.cfm

    Woosh put in the best presentation that I've read so far...

    http://www.comcom.govt.nz/telecommunications/llu/woosh29oct2003.PDF

    Let's consider what's happening in Australia....

    The ULL has been unbundled.

    The first provider into the market with DSL services was RequestDSL (see
    www.request.com.au).

    They installed 52 exchanges in mainly CBD areas (that are now better
    serviced by fibre than any other technology) at an investment cost of
    ~$50 million AUD. (Optus spent $100 million AUD on it's XYZed project
    to deliver less)

    After three years in operation they were pleased to announce a
    subscriber base of 5,000 customers.

    Sense installing their initial 52 exchanges they signed a wholesale
    contract with Telstra and stopped rolling out more exchanges until
    demand warranted.

    They pay ~$46 per month per ULL they rent of Telstra. That's double
    what a standard PSTN line costs from Telstra for business use.

    Compare that to the number one ISP based in Western Australia (Telstra's
    biggest wholesale customer) who has 30,000+ DSL customers on Telstra's
    Wholesale DSL network and is just now starting to look at putting DSLAM
    equipment into exchanges with just 2 pilot programs running.

    You guys rant and rave, present little in the way of facts, don't seem
    to have done much reading and seem to have given little consideration to
    what Webb and co have set up.

    Think harder!

    Cheers Don
     
    Don Gould, May 21, 2004
    #9
  10. steve

    steve Guest

    JohnO wrote:
    > "steve" <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>It occurred to me that the announcement of no local loop unbundling came
    >>immediately after the Aussie Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, more or
    >>less to NZ to get stuffed over the issue of tax incentives for small
    >>Australian wine producers.
    >>
    >>The NZ position is that the tax incentive illegal under CER and the WTO.
    >> The Aussie position is simply "We won't be removing that incentive."
    >>
    >>In NZ, the primary beneficiary of local loop unbundling would
    >>be.....TelstraClear - owned mainly by Telstra...who are owned by the
    >>Aussie government (they weren't silly enough to sell it).
    >>
    >>Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    >>major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to get
    >>stuffed?
    >>
    >>They don't...and didn't.

    >
    > Oh great... Our government is engaging in puerile tit-for-tat games at our
    > expense, thereby protecting 75% foreign owned Telecom's network monopoly?


    Telecom isn't 75% foreign-owned. Can you point to some current
    information on that?

    > And thereby shooting itself on the foot as far as another aspect of
    > international competitiveness is concerned?


    I was making a suggestion.....the timing seemed to fit.

    No clear link has been shown between cheaper broadband and international
    competitiveness.

    The US is certainly no example. They have cheap broadband.....and their
    jobs are all moving tho China.
     
    steve, May 21, 2004
    #10
  11. steve

    steve Guest

    Don Gould wrote:
    > steve wrote:
    >
    >> Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    >> major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to
    >> get stuffed?

    >
    > ROFL!
    >
    > OMG I've read some silly things on lists today but yours just about
    > takes the cake!


    It was a suggestion based on the tight timing of the Aussie
    put-down....and the very-soon-after NZ govt announcement on the local loop.

    > Tell me...
    >
    > Have you even read any of the submissions on the CC web site?
    >
    > http://www.comcom.govt.nz/telecommunications/localloop.cfm


    Submissions need have no affect whatever on outcomes when 'matters of
    state' are in play.

    If submissions mattered, NZ would still have a moratorium on GM organisms.

    > Woosh put in the best presentation that I've read so far...
    >
    > http://www.comcom.govt.nz/telecommunications/llu/woosh29oct2003.PDF


    Fine. I'm not saying my suggestion is right. I'm making an observation -
    and a suggestion - based on the timing of recent, trade-related events.

    > Let's consider what's happening in Australia....
    >
    > The ULL has been unbundled.


    ................

    > You guys rant and rave, present little in the way of facts, don't seem
    > to have done much reading and seem to have given little consideration to
    > what Webb and co have set up.
    >
    > Think harder!


    I know very well that in Australia, the LL unbundling has been a "have'.
    I have recently and for several years been selling those very
    services to a global set of clients.

    All the more reason our government doesn't want to favour Telstra here -
    at the expense of local companies.....especially after the way Downer
    behaved during the past week.
     
    steve, May 21, 2004
    #11
  12. steve

    steve Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > steve <steve@mozilla-thunderbird0.6.org.nz> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The same problem?
    >>
    >>Did they have trouble with the Aussies too? *sigh*
    >>
    >>22 of the 24 countries in the OECD have done local loop unbundling - at
    >>least for broadband.....only Mexico and NZ have not.

    >
    > so what, who cares what overseas countries do, they also have farm
    > subsidies, etc etc.


    I bet your head is nice and warm down that hole.
     
    steve, May 21, 2004
    #12
  13. steve

    Enkidu Guest

    On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:06:21 +1200, The GHOST of WOGER.
    <> wrote:
    >
    >>> BT are having the same problems as it just can't be done..

    >
    >>The same problem?

    >
    >>22 of the 24 countries in the OECD have done local loop unbundling - at
    >>least for broadband.....only Mexico and NZ have not.

    >
    >Just some things that I read on THEREGISTER over the last few months.
    >

    BT have the same problem? What problem??? I know of people in the UK
    who use a *very* expensive ISDN connection because there is NO
    alternative.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, May 21, 2004
    #13
  14. steve

    Enkidu Guest

    On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:59:52 +1200, "JohnO" <> wrote:
    >
    >Oh great... Our government is engaging in puerile tit-for-tat games at our
    >expense, thereby protecting 75% foreign owned Telecom's network monopoly?
    >And thereby shooting itself on the foot as far as another aspect of
    >international competitiveness is concerned?
    >

    If Telstra get a shot at the NZ market, there won't BE a NZ market.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, May 21, 2004
    #14
  15. steve

    Enkidu Guest

    On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:22:46 +1200, Don Gould
    <> wrote:

    >steve wrote:
    >> Now....why would the NZ Govt want to give an Aussie govt-owned telco a
    >> major leg up in the NZ telecoms market.....after OZ just told NZ to get
    >> stuffed?

    >
    >ROFL!
    >
    >OMG I've read some silly things on lists today but yours just about
    >takes the cake!
    >
    >Tell me...
    >
    >Have you even read any of the submissions on the CC web site?
    >
    >http://www.comcom.govt.nz/telecommunications/localloop.cfm
    >
    >Woosh put in the best presentation that I've read so far...
    >
    >http://www.comcom.govt.nz/telecommunications/llu/woosh29oct2003.PDF
    >
    >Let's consider what's happening in Australia....
    >
    >The ULL has been unbundled.
    >
    >The first provider into the market with DSL services was RequestDSL (see
    >www.request.com.au).
    >
    >They installed 52 exchanges in mainly CBD areas (that are now better
    >serviced by fibre than any other technology) at an investment cost of
    >~$50 million AUD. (Optus spent $100 million AUD on it's XYZed project
    >to deliver less)
    >
    >After three years in operation they were pleased to announce a
    >subscriber base of 5,000 customers.
    >
    >Sense installing their initial 52 exchanges they signed a wholesale
    >contract with Telstra and stopped rolling out more exchanges until
    >demand warranted.
    >
    >They pay ~$46 per month per ULL they rent of Telstra. That's double
    >what a standard PSTN line costs from Telstra for business use.
    >
    >Compare that to the number one ISP based in Western Australia (Telstra's
    >biggest wholesale customer) who has 30,000+ DSL customers on Telstra's
    >Wholesale DSL network and is just now starting to look at putting DSLAM
    >equipment into exchanges with just 2 pilot programs running.
    >
    >You guys rant and rave, present little in the way of facts, don't seem
    >to have done much reading and seem to have given little consideration to
    >what Webb and co have set up.
    >
    >Think harder!
    >

    Seems like you are arguing that ULL is BAD idea.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, May 21, 2004
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. www.BradReese.Com
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    540
    www.BradReese.Com
    Aug 2, 2006
  2. Chris
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    963
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Dec 27, 2003
  3. Chris

    Rivals pressure Swain on unbundling

    Chris, Feb 10, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    449
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Feb 11, 2004
  4. bill
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    317
    Richard
    May 6, 2004
  5. Don Gould
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    693
Loading...

Share This Page