The ISP Q&A Series: Optus
- 29 August, 2009 07:00
- Comments 8
The ISP Q&A Series is a look at the opportunities Australian ISPs have for resellers. It also profiles their views on some of the more contentious issues affecting the industry. In the fifth part of this ARN series, Optus wholesale marketing and strategy director, Gavin Williams, provided answers on how the carrier views the market, how it ran its ISP filtering trial and the NBN.
You can also view the responses from:
1. What is your company's background?
Optus is an Australian leader in integrated telecommunications, delivering an extensive range of mobile, high-speed internet, voice, wireless and IP based services to over eight million customers each day. We are committed to listening to our customers and delivering innovative solutions that connects them to who and what’s important in their lives. Through our diverse network and dedication to outstanding customer experience, Optus continues to be the challenger in the Australian telecommunications industry, providing real and sustainable competition. Optus is part of the SingTel Group, Asia's leading communications group with operations and investments in more 20 countries and territories around the world.
2. Please explain the opportunities you have for resellers.
Optus Wholesale has been a vibrant and successful part of Optus since the company’s inception in 1992. We deliver cutting-edge communications services to resellers using one of the largest and most diverse telecommunication networks in Australia; a network that Optus has invested considerable amounts of money to create. Our customers can leverage this investment to create their own competitive offers. Optus benefits from the increased scale this brings. Optus Wholesale provides a range of wholesale communication solutions to other Australian telecommunications carriers, service providers and internet service providers (“ISPs”) including some of the most recognised retail brands in Australia.
3. What additional opportunities do you see for resellers who want to use your products?
Optus has been a consistent and reliable provider of wholesale services. It has been the first to offer a number of product categories on a wholesale basis. These include 3G mobile services and mobile broadband services, amongst others. Right now, we are seeing very strong interest and growth in the area of mobile broadband. A number of resellers with various backgrounds are seeking to exploit the growth in this product category, blended with their core strengths. These might include, for example, the strengths in operational management and the existing customers of ISPs, or the retail strength of a business traditionally focussed on consumer finance. Really, there are boundless opportunities through unique offers and business models.
4. What are some of the challenges they should be aware of?
It’s a competitive market. The most successful players in the wholesale market understand this and focus on their points of difference. They are committed to their resale businesses.
5. What is your prediction for the ISP market in the next 12 months – do you forecast any big changes?
We expect to see continued growth in the fixed and wireless broadband market. As I mentioned, Optus Wholesale is experiencing significant growth in wireless broadband with traditional ISPs using their knowledge, expertise and skills to enter the wireless market. I suspect this will represent just an entrée for ISPs into mobility and might develop with offers based on devices such as netbooks and smart-phones. Their value propositions might expand to include mobile data content, especially in email applications and voice-over-IP (VoIP).
6. What is your stance on ISP content filtering?
Optus confirmed it would participate in the government’s ISP filtering Live Pilot in early 2009. Participation was strictly limited to filtering only the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) blacklist which contains URLs of illegal content. The trial operated in a specific geographic area, with customers given the option to ‘opt-out’ of the trial. Optus participated in order to accurately gauge the impact that this type of filtering would have on its network, including download speeds and customer experience
Come socialise with us! Facebook | LinkedIn
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- What is Wireless 2.0
- HiveManager Online: Less Dollars, More Sense
- Market Potential-Strategy Guide to the Active Archive Market
- Premier Media Group Fast Study
- Churchtown Primary School UK Primary School Chooses Aerohive's Reliable, Manageable, Scalable and Economical Controller-less Wireless LAN Architecture
-
REVIEW: Is the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 the new king of Android tablets?
-
MySpace: The next hot social network?
-
Datacom joins AFP, Microsoft and ninemsn to support ThinkUKnow
-
Lenovo awarded NSW DET netbook contract
-
Telstra-NBN Co wholesale broadband agreement “imminent”
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
JC
ISP content filtering
Like many Gavin Williams seems to be misinformed about the nature of the ACMA blacklist. He says, "...Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) blacklist which contains URLs of illegal content." which is untrue, the balcklist does NOT contain URLs of illegal content, it MAY contain SOME URLs of illegal content but is primarily a list of URLs of completely legal content.
JC - Brisbane.
Terry
Who's misinformed?
Actually JC if you read what Gavin said he's 100% correct, the list does contain illegal content (and you even acknowledged that). I didn't read anything Gavin said in those answers which said that the ACMA list contained ONLY illegal content and nothing more.
Gavin actually chose his words very well, he didn't say that the list didn't contain legitimate content nor did he deny it. I'm betting there is a fine line that has to be walked to keep the ACMA happy with regards to public statements about the filtering, and this was a very good answer.
JC - Brisbane
Who's misinformed?
Yes, I think I alluded to that. However the implication to many is that it only contains illegal content and that is not the case, it may in fact contain no illegal content, who's to know. He really has no idea if it is illegal or not, after all, it's secret :)
Is there really a fine line? Internode and iiNet don't seem to think so. Gavin seems to use the fact that it is illegal content as an excuse to justify filtering, he could have just said we were involved in the trial that blocked the ACMA list. Of course that's purely speculative on my part.
Anonymous
Optus' statement may not be technically incorrect, but at best its still misleading.
And at worst you could argue that it is a direct lie. For content to be classified 'illegal', it needs have been assessed by a judge in an Australian Court and deemed to fall into a category which makes it illegal. (such as child abuse material). Correct me if I'm wrong but I would assume you don't know for sure if any material on the ACMA blacklist has gone before an Australian Court (neither do I), so you can't say its definitely not a lie.
Mark Newton
Optus' statement is factually incorrect
ACMA does not maintain, and never has maintained, a "list of URLs of illegal content."
It is outrageous that Mr. Williams would say such a thing. What he's doing is effectively vouching for ACMA on behalf of Optus.
Not even Senator Conroy claims that ACMA's blacklist is illegal content anymore -- After it was leaked in March and everyone got to see exactly what was on it, he'd be opening himself up to even more ridicule than ever if he did.
- mark
Regoers
Mincing peoples words for them...
Well. I read Gavin's response carefully, noting his actual words:
"Participation was strictly limited to filtering only the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) blacklist which contains URLs of illegal content. "
Some of the URLs in the ACMA blacklist do contain illegal content. No matter which way you want to twist his words and add your own meaning, he is correct. Some of those URLs do contain content which is illegal in Australia.
You might want it to mean something else Mark & Anonymous, but his words are correct. He did not say exclusively, or only.
In any case, this is all too much like the pedantic splitting of hairs... I am all for "maintaining the rage" over inequities and justice, but this carry-on about who said just what about which list about whatever content is slowly becoming boring.
Reading meaning into this guy's words that he may or may not have meant is pure speculation, and speculation is a high risk habit that usually proves to be wrong.
One thing is for sure though, any thoughts of bringing Optus onside of the anti-filtering movement just got burnt by one of your key players.
Anonymous
Well. I read Gavin's response carefully, noting his actual words
I too read Gavin's response carefully, noting his actual words.
His response was a carefully neutral avoidance of an answer. He was asked what his stance was and simply provided a bland statement that they participated in a limited trial to determine the impact of filtering. So? We all knew that. But what is his STANCE on it - does he approve or disapprove?
I am completely unable to find anything in his words that would support an assertion like "any thoughts of bringing Optus onside of the anti-filtering movement just got burnt by one of your key players". However, I guess you are entitled to speculate in the absence of a meaningful answer to the question he was posed. Certainly, if he makes mistakes of a factual kind in his answer, others are entitled to point that out, especially given that his comments were a simple statement of the facts devoid of any worthwhile opinion.
Regoers
Well. I read Gavin's response carefully, noting his actual words
His response was their stance on it. They are little interested in arguing and taking some public position on the right and wrong of the policy. Their stance is to be a part of the process and see what the Australian government decides to introduce as guidelines, regulations and/or legislation.
His statement had no factual errors, the ACMA blacklist does have URLs that contain illegal content. Sure the whole statement says little, it can be considered bland. Whether or not his statement of facts is of any worthwhile opinion does not change the reality that it was statement of facts.
Why would you expect any other response to a leading question on a very contentious subject for some people, a subject that often attracts loads of very negative and attacking responses. Even here someone is outraged at the response, and Optus did not even say yay or nay...?
But still the ever present outrage....
Post new comment