7 posts • joined 30 Aug 2012
Re: Is this is a trick?
This submission makes it pretty obvious why there is almost nothing spent on communications infrastructure in this country.
The HFC cables were strung out by Optus and Telstra respectively in order to provide a cable TV service.
Unlike the copper cables inherited (bought) by Telstra, there was no existing plant to leverage off. The two carriers paid for teh infrastructure, lock, stock and barrel from their own resources.
Yet here we have a 3rd party DEMANDING that they be given access to this infrastructure, paid for by the shareholders of Telsra and Optus, for next to nothing.
Now do you understand why no private company has rolled out modern broadband service that would require investment in new plant? Our regulatory system denies any company that did so any possibility of recovering their investment costs let alone making a commercial return on the investment.
Would YOU build a 100 room apartment block if the moment it was finished you had to rent out most of the rooms to homeless people for the cost of cleaning (maintenance)?
All great from a public good perspective but teh bank might be just a little concerned about how you are going to repay the loan.
My problem with the study was that it was too little and far too late.
The kind of NBN we get will be determined by the coming federal election.
The best way to do it is completely irrelevant, the two options are now set in stone according to political doctrine.
A study that will tell us what we need to know AFTER the decision has been made was just a waste of time, effort and money.
""pits and pipes "will not be touched" over last 500m,""
Actually, this would rule out any FTTN deployment also. You would struggle to do nodes and it positively rules out mini-nodes.
Seems the coalition NBN will consist of ADSL only.
"By comparison, he said, for players like Vodafone and Optus, “the backhaul charges are extremely high”, with consequent impacts on what services they can offer."
Then they should put in their own cables.
The fiber routes didn't just materialize out of thin air. They were installed by Telstra from money that would have been payed as dividends to it's shareholders (including me).
If I forgo my income in order to invest it in infrastructure then surely I am entitled to earn a fair return on that investment. The limit to the "fairness" of that return? The market place. If they don't consider it fair, they can just build a competing product.
Turnbull KNOWS it's a dog, but he is looking for SOMETHING that he can pull the figures for (hopefully paid for by someone else) that could support his policy in carefully worded and carefully controlled context.
The code name Longhorn was one of the most appropriate chose.
The final product certainly was a cow.
The problem lies not with patent law so much as the weakness of the checks done before one is granted.
Here is Australia, where it tends to be significantly harder to get a patent granted, someone actually managed to be granted a patent on a circular device facilitating transport, ie a wheel.
Clearly this patent could never be granted but, where the area is a bit greyer it is possible to sit on a general patent and screw millions out of a true innovator in licensing fees while the battle is fought over whether the patent is valid. Sadly, having proven that the patent should never have been granted in the first place (which may yet end up the case in Apple vs The World), there is no way to recover the license fees already paid.