John Giddy wrote:
I think what you are saying Mark is that we need a Government owned
telecommunications monopoly, where the uneconomic areas are funded out
of general revenue (yours and my taxes).
Pretty much. I don't see any possibility that the corporate world
is going to sink large quantities of capex into the bush.
For what it's worth, quite a lot of the infrastructure required is
already there, but the cost of using it has been priced high by Telstra
to ensure that competitors can't enter the market. For example, there
is plenty of spare fibre capacity from cities to hundreds of bush
telephone exchanges, but there's no way for anyone except Telstra to
access it.
http://www.internode.on.net/about/news/20050323-ruralbb.htm
Maybe you are right, but I don't see ANY government buying back into
that scenario.
There are precedents (e.g., the Brits renationalizing the chemical
industry in the 1980's)
Simply "declaring" unused DWDM spectrum on existing fibre backhaul
capacity would be a good start, though.
Regarding the "propaganda" about regulation from Telstra, the main
beef is that it is ONLY telstra which has to comply with the Universal
Service Obligation, and hence has a financial millstone around its
neck.
Categorically false.
The way the USO works is like this:
Every licensed telecommunications carrier in Australia (about 200 of
them, from memory) pays a percentage of its revenue (not profit) into
a pot of money administered by the Government.
Then the Government manages a contract, which aims to use that money to
provide untimed local calls and flat-rate line rentals. So regardless
of where you are in Australia, your first phone line costs the same
amount to own and operate, and you have a local call tariff (whether
there's anyone else within local call distance to talk to is another
matter :-)
Telstra claims the USO costs it a huge amount every year; But they
never quite mention that they get a hundred million dollars or so
*from their competitors* every year to do it. Every industry participant
except Telstra subsidizes the USO fund, then Telstra gets to implement
USO contract conditions on a for-profit basis using that subsidization.
Earlier this year when Telstra complained about the enormous imposition
caused by the USO, Optus said, "Hey, we'd love a hundred million dollars
per year worth of free money in exchange for a couple of modifications
to our pricing tables. If Telstra hates the USO so much, why doesn't
the Government just give it to us instead?"
... which was greeted with deathly silence and a stony stare by
Telstra, briefly interrupted by the sound of some embarrassed
foot-shuffling.
The USO is a huge cash-cow for Telstra. Not only does it net them millions
in profit annually, it also morphs the competitive landscape to make it
uneconomical for other carriers to enter the market, thereby sustaining
Telstra's monopoly. Their public disdain for USOs is just more of the
posturing they do to make it look as if they're corporate saints who
have to suffer against their will under a regulatory system which is
turning them into paupers. That's if you ignore the record quarterly
profits they keep turning-in, of course.
- mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 -----
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
