[Chapter-delegates] Structural separation in Australia

Thu Jun 2 19:45:42 PDT 2011

Hi Holly,

Unfortunately the audio on the webcast of your talk at at INET Colombo
wasn't too good, and so I haven't taken the time to watch it. Is the stack
available? I'm hoping ISOC-LK will come up with better quality video. I know
I should read it it up, but if I could I'll ask a couple of dumb questions..
Feel free just to tell me to go read the docs.

So, am I correct that Telstra will still own the pure real-estate and
structure assets, and still be in the mobile business? Rent ducts etc at
regulated rates to NBNco who will own the its own fiber and sell access to
RSPs - including backhaiul so that hey don't even have to have kit at the
hed-ends?

And the separation we are talking here is thus between the Telstra
real-estate and the NBNCo service? Or what

And these RSPs also be content providers a la cable companies? Triple play?
and other "managed services".

BTW what about incumbent non-telstra cable tv providers - are they being
disintermediated by all this, forced to become RSPs, or aren't there any to
begin with?

As far as the level 2/level 3 thing goes one has to feel, whatever one's
partiality to Open Internet/IP it does give the wider potential for
innovation. When I talked of level 1 above I was thinking that maybe - like
Allied Fiber here in the US - they were going to rent out actual strands
with no service at all. As long as there is sufficient choice in providers
surely Open Internet will always be in demand and available - but you can't
force it on people. Some people liked walled gardens.

As far as the US goes we see the phone companies -  having achieved back
door deregulation as the cable companies got in to the "information service"
business - spinning off their last mile copper, which is rotting in the
ground, to binge on spectrum and towers. They are now happily contemplating
"segregating" the wireless market with caps and tiered pricing so as to
manage demand, not to mention charging content and service providers - hence
the pact between Google & Verizon. The wireline business is in the process
of being ceded to the cable companies, who are doing there best to get
leverage with content plays.  Could be argued that if we hadn't forced
divestiture down their throats 30 years ago, the telcos might have done a
better job of building out the promised fiber, rather than spending their
effort on recombining and the bait and switch to DSL. With one company we'd
be in a better position to push for structural separation here. As it is
it's a total non-starter.  The only hope is, that we'll be in a leapfrog
position after everyone else gets ahead :)

j

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>wrote:

> Hi Everyone
>
> First, thanks to Paul and Tony for shedding light on what the Government's
> policy on a national broadband network is and means in Australia.  Please
> note, ISOC-AU received a Community Grant from ISOC to look at the NBN
> policy, including the technical and regulatory aspects of the policy and
> what it means for users.  The resulting paper, that more fully explains all,
> is on our website, with references for those interested in further
> information (along with the many submissions we have made on a national
> broadband network).
>
> Tony is right about our concerns for Layer 3.  In our submission to NBN
> Company in February 2010, we called not only for Layer 2, but also for NBN
> Co  to provide aggregated Layer 2 and Layer 3 services.
>
> And on structural separation issues, the first thing to be said is that
> what is happening is NOT structural separation.  Structural separation in
> the context of utilities, has always meant the actual corporate separation
> of one corporate entity into two distinct corporate entities - the supplier
> of the actual infrastructure and the supplier of services.  That is NOT what
> is happening here.
>
> What the recently formed Government owned NBN Co will do is provide the
> local access network and, where there is no competitive backhaul, provide
> that. As Tony said, that access network will be fibre to 93% of the
> population, and for the remaining 7%, either fixed wireless or satellite.
> Under the yet to be finalised agreement between Telstra (the existing
> vertically integrated incumbent) and NBN Co that Paul referred to, NBN Co
> will use Telstra's pits, ducts etc to install the local access network.
> Telstra will retain ownership of that infrastructure, and its other
> infrastructure that delivers mobile services. So Telstra will still be the
> both the owner of infrastructure and the provider of services using (in
> part) that infrastructure.  It simply will no longer be the owner of the
> local access network - now at law to be provided on an open access wholesale
> only basis - by NBN Co. (if any other infrastructure provider wants to
> install a high speed local access network as well, it also must be provided
> on an open access wholesale only basis)
>
> The reality is that, although the Government is calling for more
> 'structural separation' of Telstra, it is really calling for a more
> stringent functional separation regime, (there is a functional separation
> obligation on Telstra now - which has been largely ineffective).  This is
> part of significant changes to the competition regime for telecommunications
> that will give our competition regulator more power to determine the prices,
> terms and conditions on which service providers can access transmission
> services of others.
>
> We are all hoping that these very significant changes to our
> telecommunications environment will result in the Government's stated policy
> aims: high speed broadband, that is affordable and accessible to all
> Australians, in a more genuinely competitive environment that provides
> genuine user choice of both services and service providers. Watch this
> space.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Holly Raiche
> Executive Director,
> Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
> ed at isoc-au.org.au
> Mob: 0412 688 544
> Ph: (02) 9436 2149
> *
> *
> *The Internet is For Everyone*
>
>
>
>
> On 03/06/2011, at 8:45 AM, Tony Hill wrote:
>
> Paul has been very helpful in responding with this information about the
> Australian NBN project.  But there is a small challenge with terminology
> that is currently affecting the debate in Australia and people can get
> confused.  We need to recognise that there are two concepts that are
> different here but sometimes called by the same name.  They are NBN and
> NBNCo.
>
> NBN stands for the national broadband network.  This is the high speed
> broadband network that government is seeking to have built.  It will serve
> 100% of the Australian population, but in different ways.  For at least 93%
> of Australia's population there will be new fibre links to each premises.
>  For the other 7% there will be either fixed wireless or satellite solutions
> depending on how remote the location is.  The whole of the NBN currently is
> being designed to deliver services by layer 2.
>
> NBNCo stands for the government owned company that is charged with building
> the NBN. In general terms, it is limited to providing ONLY wholesale
> services into the telecommunications market.  NBNCo will provide its
> services to other companies, which it calls retail service providers (RSPs).
>  In general terms, those RSPs have the responsibility for designing and
> delivering any services delivered over the NBN, including what protocols or
> layer 3 services will be involved.
>
> In my view, government policy has not dealt properly with the layer 3
> issues.  I think there is a general assumption that the competitive market
> will deal with those issues.  But at the moment, there is no policy
> guarantee that layer 3 services will be delivered by the Internet Protocol
> or any version of the Internet Protocol, eg IPv6.  Also, there is no policy
> guarantee of the nature of services that will be provided, eg will the
> service be delivered by an open access Internet as we currently know it, or
> will the services be delivered by some sort of walled garden architecture
> (maybe still by IP).
>
> The latest announcement by the Australian Government about the rules for
> structural separation of our major telecommunications company, are a step in
> the right direction for achieving a competitive market, but only one step.
>  Australia has been wrestling with issues around the competitive market
> since policy moved in that direction in the early 1990s.  We still have to
> see how all this will play out.
>
> regards, Tony Hill
>
>
>
>
> On 02/06/2011, at 4:07 PM, Paul Brooks wrote:
>
> On 2/06/2011 10:25 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
> Thanks. Interesting.
>
>
> I'm sorry. I'm always getting my models mixed up, I meant levels 2 and 3 as
> in
>
> http://www.isoc-au.org.au/Submissions/NBNCo_Feb2010FINAL.pdf
>
>
>
> Ah - layer-2 (Ethernet) vs Layer-3 (IP) as the preference for NBN wholesale
> tail circuits.
>
>
> Yes, that has been resolved - the NBN is purely Ethernet (layer-2),
> providing Ethernet
>
> VLAN bitstream links between end-user premises and the interconnect with
> service
>
> providers. All IP processing, IP address assignment, routing etc is done by
> the
>
> service provider outside the NBN.
>
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>
> --
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20110602/13beec29/attachment.htm>