Groups warned they are missing the point in the public debate over NBN in Sydney

During the recent highly-anticipated debate both Telstra and Terria were issued a warning from iiNet which called for both parties to focus more on their customers’ best interests and stop the current theoretical and historical arguments.

The warning during the debate on the National Broadband Network which was often quite heated came as a final thought from the telco. The debate itself seemingly degenerated into the expected battle regarding structural separation, mobile networks, pricing regimes and open access between the panel ‘representatives’ from Telstra and Optus.

In an effort to show a readiness to begin the building of the NBN network, if they decide to enter the process for tendering, a positioning statement lasting 10 minutes had earlier been presented by the prospective bidders.

In speaking to the delegates the director of Government and corporate affairs at Optus, and the Terria representative, Maha Krishnapillai said that Terria is ‘playing to win’ with regards to its bid ‘but we must get the regulatory framework [around it] right’ so the best outcome for its consumers can be achieved.

Although he did confirm again the intention of the consortium to make a bid, when asked about the building of the network were Terria to be successful Krishnapillai was unwilling to discuss the manufacturers of the equipment it would use.

He said “The NBN is a highly attractive infrastructure investment. Ultimately we believe it will result in a good rate of return and we have the financiers to back that up.”

Pulling apart quotes made in the public domain by Telstra executive was the main area that Krishnapillai spent his time, and the groups wish, if it were to be successful with its bid for the network, to achieve a return of more than 60 percent was an area he heavily criticized.

The case for Telstra was presented by the principal for Havyatt Associates, David Havyatt. The fact that Telstra had called for open access without structural separation consistently over the past years, he claimed, had the biggest area of criticism by Terria.

David Forman, the executive director of the Competitive Carriers Coalition gave a harsh rebuttal to the claim saying “The term open access in Australia is presently undergoing a ‘Telstra’ing’. Telstra is trying to use the term in such a way as to none to subtly change its meaning to suit the purposes of its National Broadband Network proposal. For years open access has been inextricably linked with the structure of a business and what a business does and does not do. It is an arrangement that ensures a network owner or wholesaler deals with all retailers on the same basis.”

He went on to add “Ask yourself this question – if Telstra is truly committed to open access, and if open access means there is no advantage in owning the infrastructure, why is Telstra so vehemently opposed to any form of separation? The answer is as plain as the nose on your face. Telstra is proposing an arrangement where it will gain a competitive advantage over everyone else, and dressing it up as open access.”