The deal will see the gradual decommissioning of two Telstra networks – the ageing copper network, and the Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial (HFC) broadband and pay-tv cable network. The HFC network will get some reprieve while existing contracts with Foxtel are played out, but will also eventually be decommissioned.

What does the deal mean overall? Well, firstly, this is only what is called a “heads of agreement” – basically, an agreement to work towards reaching an agreement within the scope of the details released yesterday. However, the benefits of getting the final deal over the line will be massive.

• The long desired “structural separation” of Telstra’s retail and wholesale arms will finally become reality. Evidence from all over the world has demonstrated that the separation of retail and wholesale mechanisms is a massive plus for consumers, because all retail service providers will be able to compete with each other on a level playing field. Telstra has long used its monopoly over the copper network to drive home a massive anti-competitive advantage in the wholesale market.

• The NBN itself is now basically guaranteed to receive at least 10 million customers via Telstra, with the telco agreeing to migrate existing fixed line telephony and broadband customers onto the network as the fibre-to-the-premise (FttP) system is rolled out across the country. At the end of this migration process, the copper network will be decommissioned.

• Given the impending decommissioning of the copper network – (albeit in 8 to 10 years) – every other ISP running xDSL services to their customers will have to transfer to the NBN also, because Telstra will be effectively pulling the copper network out from under them. This drags the NBN from what some say is questionnable viability, into the realms of almost obvious ubiquity.

• At the time of the decommissioning of the copper network, Telstra is suddenly relieved of a massive cost burden – the upkeep of the copper network. Although the physical copper cabling will almost certainly remain in the ground, not having to maintain it will release financial resources for other projects. The potential would also be there for the copper network to be sold or leased to someone else for other infrastructure projects.

• Though NBN will be leased access on a long-term-basis to Telstra’s underground infrastructure, this deal is not exclusive. Though Telstra will lose out from the loss of fixed copper line revenues – (somewhat offset by the maintenance savings) – the potential to lease space in the underground pits and ducts to bodies other than the NBN for other services, could see new revenue streams flowing into Telstra, with little or no outlay required to achieve it.

Should the finer details be worked out – and it would be highly surprising that they wouldn’t – the NBN has suddenly taken a massive step forward, and Australians should be excited at the economic possibilities. Under the leadership of Sol Trujillo, Telstra could not have been further from reaching the kind of agreement reached yesterday. New CEO David Thodey has allowed more vision toward to the future to flavour his thinking – (and that of the Telstra board) – and has effectively created a whole new Telstra.

Whether or not that is a good thing, or whether the final form of the agreement can be reached quickly remains to be seen. I have to think that there is a lot more good to come of this than bad.

Time alone will now tell.

Given their monopoly over the copper network, Telstra has been able to charge pretty much anything they like on a service-by-service basis for access to the local loop into any premise. The larger ISPs have been getting a reasonable deal – (simply due to volume) – but smaller ISPs have almost no ability to compete on price, as due to their lower volumes, are generally stung with a higher access charge per subscriber.

This has seen many in the industry calling for the “structural separation” of Telstra into separate retail and wholesale arms, and some kind of governance being put in place to ensure a level playing field for all ISPs in terms of the wholesale charges incurred to access the network.

Telstra have, naturally, been steadfast in their resistance to such a plan, which would obviously hurt their bottom line if the level of access charge became effectively out of their control.

Today has seen a landmark compromise with the signing of an effectively $11B deal between Telstra, the Australian Government, and the National Broadband Network (NBN Co). NBN Co is responsible for the design, and construction of Australia’s forthcoming Fibre-to-the-Premise (FttP) wholesale network.

In effect, NBN is buying the network assets of Telstra – (pits, ducting, cabling) – in return for $9B cash over time, and another $2B in sweeteners to assist in the migration of all Telstra services currently on the ancient copper network, onto the NBN. Telstra would then have little to do with eventual, actual wholesale fibre network.

In effect, structural separation by another name.

While the $11B deal appears to suit Telstra’s board, something more important, and worth far, far more comes from the deal. The effective abandoning of the copper network means that the millions of xDSL connections in place around the country must transfer to the NBN, as the copper network will gradually disappear.

There have always been questions on whether the NBN would be taken up in significant enough numbers – today’s deal basically ensures that almost everyone will be on the NBN in some form or another, even if it is just for basic telephony.

The NBN has just taken a massive step towards reality, and the much needed structural separation of Telstra has come about.

Finally.

Of late, Melbourne’s Herald Sun newspaper has been particularly good at missing really obvious stuff, but it is a phenomenon that finds its way into many media outlets. Spelling and grammar is sometimes so bad, you wonder if anyone is proof-reading anything before the “publish” button is clicked.

Without jumping to Orwellian conclusions – (lets remember, this is only a proposal at this time) – this concept would have massive implications for society in this country, should it ever come to pass.

Imagine you are a professional wrestler, with an image of power and aggression to satisfy your fans. You are rippling with muscles, and you shine you muscles with baby oil before every bout, and women just love you for your oozing masculinity.

However, secretly in your own home, you enjoy looking at pictures of little pink pussycats, wearing linen bonnets. No harm in that, but knowing that it might harm your public image, you prefer that it not be public knowledge.

So you keep it to yourself, and carry on with your wrestling career.

A year from now, a system administrator at your ISP, having a bad day, is threatened with the sack from his or her job. In an attempt to stave off the inevitable, they illegally take a copy of the ISP browsing history of all customers of the ISP. Including yours. Covering several years of your online activities.

A few days later, the administrator loses their job, but still has a copy of the logs at home. Enraged for losing their job, they collate the logs user-by-user.

They notice your logs, and your frequent visits to “littlepinkpussycatsinlinenbonnets.com” and – (probably correctly) – deduce that you are into that. As revenge on their former employer for losing their job, and against you for beating up their favourite wrestler the week before, they release the log of your activities onto an internet forum.

Your public image is severely compromised. You could seek an apology and compensation, but the “truth” is already out there, and can never be taken back.

Should you have refrained from entertaining yourself online with a subject you are interested in, just because the information might become public someday?

No – your right to privacy has been infringed, because although my example is a bit “out there”, the mere collection of such data opens the possibility for the abuse of that data.

The government may swear that they will have “checks and balances” in place to protect it, however you can never guard against everything. Does a traffic light turning red actually FORCE a driver to stop?

Any person with access/exposure to the data has the potential to abuse it – and you can never guarantee that someone with a grudge to bear won’t use the data for evil purposes.

Sure, they would face consequences, but the deed is done. The information is out.

The government say they would just be following a similar model to that which is in place in the EU. Who says the EU is right about this?

Our government may think it is a good idea to keep this data, and certainly there would be advantages for law enforcement agencies if such data was collected and kept.

But the data would exist. Data that exists can be leaked, stolen, and/or abused.

What “little pink pussycats” do you have in your closet?

I have no intention of delving into this case in any particular detail, however I did find a statement made today in relation to the matter by St Kilda coach Ross Lyon to be interesting:

“We’re not into naming players … once it’s concluded, we will make a statement.”

Not into naming players? Even though St Kilda was more than happy to drop Andrew Lovett into the mire in a very public fashion in regards to an as-yet unproven rape allegation?

I have no love for Andrew Lovett – (as an Essendon supporter, I was more than happy to see him leave the club) – but when the rape allegation against him was made, the Saints dropped him in the shit immediately, and completely suspended him from the club. Yet in relation to this latest scandal, they won’t name names, and they certainly haven’t suspended anyone.

It is true that if the players involved today are shown to truly be involved with this schoolgirl, they may not have done anything illegal – but this doesn’t mean that they haven’t done something illegal either, so if the club was consistent, they should be naming and suspending the players until the matter is resolved. Just as they did Andrew Lovett, who is also yet to be shown to be guilty.

Double standard much?

UPDATE 7:39pm: Seems that the players have been cleared, but I believe the point remains that St Kilda treated what for all they knew at the time were very similarly serious cases in a completely different manner.

Some blogs are attacking this as some kind of heavy handed human rights violation. Huh?

This is simply not true, because if you actually READ the first article, his passport was briefly taken from him because it was showing signs of excessive wear. This is normal practice, as passports that are apparently worn need to be properly inspected to ensure that the wear is not a result of tampering or forging, or that it will not be susceptible to such in the future. The article even states that his passport was returned to him “after about 15 minutes”. It also states quite clearly that “passports are routinely taken from travellers for short periods by immigration officials if they are damaged”.

Apparently he was told that “it was about to be cancelled”. Yes, absolutely – the current issue of his passport would be cancelled due to the passport being excessively worn. Again, standard procedure – all he has to do is have it re-issued. This makes him a political prisoner, does it?

Of course not – Assange is just taking the opportunity to blow the incident out of proportion for some cheap and easy publicity. Wikileaks is responsible for good work in many areas, but sometimes won’t let facts get in the way of a good story.

This seems to me like another such instance.