Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The government, like NZ, could have gotten the wholesale part of Telstra to start upgrading network infrastructure.

They couldn't, though, without a lot more difficulty.

You're missing the context that at the time of Rudd's election and the NBN design/build plan, Telstra was actively hostile towards the government. Solomon Trujillo was the CEO at the time, and actively fought against any suggestion that Telstra might be structurally separated (a-la Telecom NZ's split into Chorus and Spark), or be required to build a nationwide wholesale fibre network.

Telstra under Trujillo was the company that famously gave a last minute 13-page (non-compliant) response[1] to a call for bids to build the NBN, that was effectively a giant middle finger to the government.

Forcing a structural separation when the government own a minority stake in the company[2] would've required either re-purchasing it at market rates, or some kind of legislative change, and thus opening the government up to a shareholder lawsuit. At the time, the CAN and Fibre back-haul networks were considered some of Telstra's greatest assets, those would've been some major purchases.

There were a bunch of bad options, but having been backed into this corner by previous government decisions - there wasn't a whole lot they could've done.

[1] https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/270911/telstra_bann...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra#Privatisation



You misunderstand, I'm saying that if Telstra were properly separated right from the start (when the Howard government privatised it), the Rudd government could have easily gotten Telstra wholesale to do what Chorus in NZ is doing now. Most of Australia would probably have FTTP by now, or at least FTTN/HFC.

I do agree with the rest of your comment though.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: