Telstra and Freedom of speech
Last week I was involved in an interesting but disheartening incident - one that further highlights the problems we are facing with Telstra in Australia.
Tomorrow I will be chairing Day One of the Broadband World conference, organised by terrapin. This event included a panel session entitled ‘Can open access regulation truly work in Australia without retail separation?’ in which Telstra had agreed to participate.
At the last moment, however, Telstra asked the conference organisers to withdraw two people from the panel, saying they wouldn’t participate otherwise. It was also very interesting to see that they even came up with the names of the people they would like as replacements.
To avoid embarrassing the people involved I won’t mention any of the names.
Quite apart from the fact that such a request is shocking, and constitutes a complete disregard of the freedom of speech, there were also commercial factors involved as Telstra’s participation in such an event is important; this did put real pressure on terrapinn. As the Chairman I tried to negotiate an outcome that would be acceptable to everyone, but Telstra refused to even discuss the matter.
The conference organisers attempted another compromise but Telstra refused that also and withdrew itself from the conference.
I would like to publicly thank and congratulate terrapin for maintaining its independent position in this unfortunate matter. That is a courageous thing to do. We are all aware of the market power wielded by Telstra, and it is shameful that they misuse that power in circumstances such as this.
I find the whole situation rather bizarre. If I have definite or passionate views about issues I welcome the opportunity to argue my case with my peers. I would never be afraid to do this.
But, on the other hand, I would be more cautious if I was not certain that my perspective was the correct one. In the present situation it seems to me that by adopting such a negative position Telstra has revealed that it doesn’t really believe in its own viewpoint.
This further highlights what I have been saying for the last three years - Telstra is not interested in a genuine debate on open access, separation and so on. It is good at shouting and abusing anybody who doesn’t toe its line but that’s where their ‘discussion’ finishes.
It is easy to accuse others of being unbalanced and biased but if you never sit down with those people then I don’t believe you have any right to abuse or ridicule them. That is another example of Telstra blatantly misusing its market power. It can spend millions on PR and spinning to insult and ridicule people, knowing full well that the victims are not in a financial position to adequately respond.
As I have stated previously I can see Telstra’s point in relation to maximising profits and hanging onto its monopoly - so why not just be open and address the financial issues that arise from this. I do understand their position on this, and I can see that it is a serious problem that needs to be looked at.
I am also a keen advocate of getting Telstra involved in the NBN. From the very first day I have very publicly stated that we can’t build an NBN without Telstra - that the incumbent needs to be engaged. This is also what has been behind the Minister’s reasoning when he embarked on the rather difficult tendering path. However, Telstra’s response has consistently been: you do it my way or otherwise we’re not going to be involved.
One thing is for sure there will be lively debate tomorrow at the terrapin conference on the NBN. One of our most respected telecoms experts in the country David Havyatt has agreed to take up the position at the conference to present the Telstra case, I am certain that he will do this genuinely and will do this well. The rest of the industry is certainly not afraid of having the debate. So I invite you all to be there tomorrow!
For more info see: http://www.terrapinn.com/2008/broadbw/
Paul Budde
See also:
November 4th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
This is nothing more than the fault of the organisers. Any real attempt at an even handed debate would involve equal representation from both sides of that debate. At our CommsDay Melbourne Summit last month we had a debate involving Maha from Optus and a Primus executive on one side and Tony Warren from Telstra and Kevin Morgan, who is broadly pro-Telstra or at least sceptical of access regulation on the other. Last year we held a debate with representatives from Telstra, the IPA and a free market consultancy on one side and ATUG, Macquarie Telecom and AAPT on the other. It’s not hard to do these things unless you are incompetent. It’s not hard to get a balance unless you are trying to manipulate the outcome of the debate. Unless you are poorly connected or ignorant it is not hard to find non-Telstra people to forward a Telstra POV - but getting David Havyatt of all people? He works for a Telstra competitor! I feel sorry for the sponsors and delegates of an event that has clearly not been very well thought through by the organising conference producer.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Hi Paul,
Telstra habitually abuses it’s market power. The ONLY solution is separation! It is no longer an Australian company. It doesn’t give a fig for the country, it’s people or it’s economy. As a publicly listed company, it is only concerned with it’s profit & the return to it’s share holders, who are not predominantly Australians.
In my 40 years of IT & Telecommunications involvement, (now retired), it has been my experience, Telstra & ALL it’s predecessors used their market & engineering power to enhance their own power at the expense of all Australians.
Australia languished in the back waters of technology, as a direct result of their power, even though their engineering restrictions, which gave them the power of Judge, Jury & Executioner, is now controlled by a separate authority.
Australia continues to remain years behind the Northern hemisphere, due entirely to Telstras’ continuing obstruction & abuse of it’s overwhelming power in our market place..
Absolute power corrupts absolutely!
regards…Keith
November 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Paul with respect to you, never in my life have I read such a litany of slippery tongued oratory and diversionary comment to confuse the fact that the Panel is erected to ambush Telstra.
This attitude is understandable considering the desperation situation that Terria now finds itself. I am pleased that Telstra has dignified itself by its withdrawal from the debate. We will watch with interest and am sure David Hayvatt will acquit himself with dignity.
November 4th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Dear Paul,
I read the report in today’s Australian.
I am not surprised at Telstra’s position. They cannot afford to be present and expected to respond when their attitude to the rest of the industry is under attack. To do so would require them to try and defend the indefensible. They have no viable defence that would convince anyone but a shareholder. A thinking shareholder would realise that eventually the Government will have to step in and either nationalise Telstra as a monopoly or regulate it to greatly reduce its market power.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
I also saw the article in the Australian today. Tsk, Telstra.
@Sydney Lawrence: are you this Sydney Lawrence? http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/shareholder-stories/sydney-lawrence-from-manly-qld
November 5th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Thx for your response Sydney, I have seen your profile on Telstra’s website nowwearetalking, so I am aware of your position on issues like this.
However, your comments defy logic. Why would an independent conference organisation stack a panel in the way you describe it. In my contacts with the conference organisation they were at pains to indicate how important Telstra is to them as a commercial organisation as well as a conference participant. They have tried at length to come up with a compromise to facilitate Telstra. Furthermore I think you are doing the company - that you so clearly admire on their website - a disfavour by suggesting that this company would not be capable to expose, as you suggest, the ‘desperate situation’ Terria is in at such a panel. I know Kate McKenzie very well and I also very much respect her. She is not a lady that would let herself ambush, nor would she miss an opportunity to expose any weaknesses from the other party. And in an open debate these are exactly the issues for such a discussion.
I am all for an open debate on these issues be it at this conference or anywhere else. Let Telstra organise such a debate if they feel threatened by independent conference organisations I am sure the industry will show up. At least Telstra was invited and would have been represented at a very senior level. The only thing that I would suggest is that if Telstra organises this it should equally allow the other side to bring their position forwards.
Paul Budde
November 6th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Paul if you cannot accept the pure and simple logic of a balanced debate I think it would have no useful purpose for me to attempt to persuade you.
Keith Styles eight mis-truths in the first paragraph must be something of a record, even for you.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Let’s agree that we differ on this one Sydney
Best Regards,
Paul
November 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Thanks Paul agree totally and wish you well.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Grahame if this was the case than Telstra could have made that known to the organisers when they accepted the invitation to participate. Or even on Monday when they made the threat. If they had suggested to add people such as yourself to the panel than I don’t think there would have been any problems. But by demanding to replace people I think they went one step to far. I tried to discuss this with Kate McKenzie but she didn’t want to take my call nor where they interested in discussing a compromise with the organisers.
I also reject that your criticism on David Havyatt according to the delegates – including people from Telstra, or those who do have a neutral or pro Telstra position (eg their vendors) - he did a good job, for you to make these harsh judgments without being there is a bit much.
Paul Budde
PS Kevin Morgan also participated in this conference.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Yes indeed Kevin Morgan was at the event which begs the question as to why he wasn’t invited to put the “integration” views as opposed to David Havyatt who could, by definition, bring nothing more than a “debater’s pose” to the floor.
They are not criticisms of David at all, simply the appropriateness of using someone like him to represent views he is paid in his real life to more or less oppose.
I stand by my contention that a professional conference organiser should a) not bill a panel as a debate when the spread of views falls 3-1 and b) when provided with an opportunity to replace Telstra with someone would perhaps look to some obvious candidates such as Kevin Morgan or some of the others that we have used at CommsDay.
Telstra might have shown poor form in cancelling at late notice but Terrapinn showed worse form in charging delegates and sponsors for an unprofessionally managed event that could have and should have anticipated these problems in the first place by programming a balanced debate structure.
It really isn’t that hard. We have done it twice in a year as have others.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I would also add Paul, why no mention of the fact the Terria chairman also pulled out with little notice?
November 8th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Grahame the question I posed was not who is the best conference organiser in town.
The issue I put on the blog under Freedom of Speech was if it is acceptable for a company such as Telstra to demand the withdrawal of people with the intention to replace them with some of their own choice. Would you accept this at your conferences?
Of course people are pulling out all the time, you know that too, but they than make sure there is a replacement as was the case with Terria, but again that was not this issue of the topic of the blog.
Paul
November 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Paul I don’t want to get into a tit for tat on this but to answer your question… I extremely doubt that, say, Juniper would have been happy with Cisco as a keynote. I don’t let people bully me either - in fact I have sacked a very famous IT company from my events, but I didn’t allow it to turn into a media circus. I wouldn’t have allowed the situation to develop re Telstra (nor its competitors) in the first place - I would have programmed a more “bullet proof” format. Sorry but from this vantage point there’s a smell of stitch up about this and I can’t fathom at all why Terrapinn let this happen in the first place except to put it down to the observation that there is more to this than meets the eye and they weren’t necessarily engaged enough with their speakers.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Grahame Lynch asks why David Havyatt “of all people”, and assumes that as I work for a Telstra competitor I would have been just another anti-Telstra voice.
The simple facts are that my employer Unwired allowed me to present as me not on behalf of Unwired, and that I simply presented the Telstra case. I’m happy to hear from anyone who said I didn’t do their position justice, but the feedback I got was that I did an OK job (including from Telstra people in the audience and Kevin Morgan).
Why me? Because I just happen to have spent a long time in the industry and regulation and could do the position justice. As a matter of intrest the sixteen years I spent with Telstra still represents more than half my 29 years in the industry.
November 10th, 2008 at 8:47 am
And another thing - I don’t want to buy into the argument of who is or isn’t a good conference organiser. All I want to note is that in the last twelve years I have taken part in many regulatory panels and it has been common for the structure to be something like Telstra, Optus, plus two others - depending on the issue Voda and AAPT, CCC and AAPT, CCC and a smaller ISP.
Don’t shoot the oganisers for the fact that they structured the way they have been in the past.
November 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Grahame,
Using this forum to disparage our organisation of the event seems a fairly transparent strategy on your behalf to score cheap brownie points with Telstra while at the same time promoting the wares of your own forums. I am thankful that the event sponsors are intelligent enought to see this sort of grandstanding for what it is and are more familiar with background events leading up to the event than you are.
We have an exemplary global track record of organising quality conference in the media and telco space, and the reason we have the suport of the key vendors in this space is because we bring the right people together around quality content.
There seems to be a distinct flavour of sour grapes in your comments, which possibly stems from the fact that we had the audacity to launch a broadband conference against you which gained more sponsor support.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
It might be time to close this item for further comments before anyone says something that will not stand the test of posterity, unless Sol wants to add his two pesos’ worth about the S-word.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
John,
With apologies to Paul for using his blog to reply.
Your conference did not gain more sponsor support than ours by any measure. Hardly have sour grapes, we are very pleased with our events. And indeed we were happy to afford your events media coverage as well which benefits your sponsors and delegates - many of whom also support our events. The cake is quite large from my vantage point. And I don’t really see you as a similar competitor to us - Terrapinn is just a professional conference organiser, it doesn’t really play a meaningful daily role in the information and networking activities of Australian telecoms. And as I have stated, we try hard not to stack our events with one point of view - we aim for a balance of all views.
Yes Terrapinn does have a good global record, however low ebbs sometimes to occur don’t they. Accusing the largest company in your market of bullying you and playing into the press release strategy of their competitors because they wanted a fairer panel than the one you constructed doesn’t sound like something you would list as a milestone now hey?
As far as David is concerned, I have no criticisms of your credentials as a debater or an industry figure. I very simply suggested you make a poor replacement for a Telstra figure when a better one - Kevin Morgan - was actually available at the same event.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Mate (Grahame) all I can note is that Kevin thought I did a good job.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Cheers David and let me say for the record, that when you kindly agreed to participate in a CommsDay formal debate on competition last year and I was the adjudicator, I gave you either the top or second highest score. I have no intention of disparaging your debating skills. I simply think that a broadband conference aimed at collecting the “right people around quality content” would be better served using you in your capacity as the leading policy guy at Unwired, not as a proxy Telstra representative.
For what it’s worth, when Unwired gets its WiMAX net rolled out it will have one very distinct advantage in the market place - loads of spectrum which certainly makes things very interesting in terms of the capacity loads it can handle and the pressure it can put on fixed broadband.
Good luck to everyone here. Even John
November 11th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
We agree with Francis’s comment.
As such comments on this blog post have been closed.