John Linton ......yet another ill considered total fiasco in concept proposed by intellectual pygmies whose pig ignorance of the topic they are addressing is of mind blowing minimality and is simply impossible to execute....and that's the kindest view you can hold.
I read some of the various commentaries on the submissions on how Australian telecommunications should be structured in the future and the most rational of the public domain information is summarised here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25627958-643,00.html
Not that it provides any detail but it does touch on the crux of the situation which is how commercially sensibly can access to the exchange network be obtained in any "new iteration" of The PMG/Telcom Australia/Telstra/?. I cannot possibly have any sensible opinion because I have absolutely no detailed knowledge of any of the aspects of the incredibly complex details - a lack of detail I share with 99% of the people who do pontificate on this issue including the cretins who dreamed it up to rescue their "political credibility".
So, when no detail is available any comment can, and probably should, be dismissed on that basis. However, and if it served any purpose, it is possible to simply go back to before the previous coalition government completed the legislation to privatise Telecom Australia/Telstra first proposed by the Hawke/Keating Labor governments some years before.
It was done simply as a part of the initial 'Thatcherite' political stance that Govenment should get out of commerce (I know it's not that simple but it'll do for a 1,000 word musing that doesn't pretend to be 'serious'). The Coalition government wanted to maximise the financial return from the sale (frequently mentioning how Hawke/Keating sold off the Commonwealth bank and Qantas "far too cheaply") and between that ambition and a poor selection of commercial advisors the current mess was created (ignoring the advice that there had to be a separation of the "network" from the "retail" parts of Telecom Australia).
So the base problem was created deliberately - maximising the money paid by the investors who would then, not unreasonably want a maximum return from their investment perpetuating the rationale that Telstra should charge every customer as much as 'the market would bear' because the Telstra decision makers first duty was to maximise the return for their shareholders. Of course when you have an effective monopoly (such as Telstra Australia) you can charge what you like because there is no competition and if ever see some competition arising then you use your monopoly position to make that competitive erosion to your monopoly as slow, painful and expensive as possible.
As Krudd - fair shake (he presumably meat "suck" but his 'posiness' blew it) of the sauce bottle might say - "Blind Freddie could see that"....and indeed, anyone including the apochryphal Blind Freddie could indeed see exactly that. So the completely understandable and predictable result ensued - prices went up to pay the Telstra drones fatter salaries than previously and prices kept rising to pay for those salaries in the 'sheltered workshop' that all monopolies are - as an inevitability.
The ACCC was meant to prevent the worse excesses of monopoly power but unscrupulous monopolists are almost impossible to defeat which has proven to be the case and will always prove to be the case moving forward....I doubt there is any 'commentator' that sees it any differently.
So Krudd, to cover up the total fiasco that was his $A4.9 billion national broadband network by Christmas 2008 has bus ticketed out his multiple tens of billions of NBN2 and has re-engaged with Telstra to see what can now be done. Obviously the best thing for Australians (other than the shareholders in the Telstra monopoly) is not to have two or three or a dozen infrastructure builders but one (monopoly) that has no retail operation and a sensible structured pricing policy together with a sensible engineering interface policy that provides some form of competitive environment that is 'real' and sustainable.
But, even "Blind Freddie" can see the problem with this scenario.....it's just creating two monopolies to replace the one that currently exists....and even worse it is creating an even more incompetent monopoly than already exists - and I realise how hard that is to believe but you have read that the Kruddster states that the government will own a fair chunk of the new monopoly....yes you didn't miss the irony....the Telecommunications Act was meant to get the government out of telecommunications. Not only is it doubling the monopolies but it is ensuring that Telstra retains the same level of domination that it has now. How does it do that? Well just how do you think the new monopoly is going to price any service it supplies?
Personally I couldn't care less what happens - it will just swap one monopoly for two monopolies (one of which will have the dead hand of government interference to ensure prices remain sky high - the reason for privatising Telstra in the first place).
I do fail to understand why the whole mess isn't left alone and the ACCC simply ensures that the current monopolist is forced to sell any 'declared' service at a realistic wholesale price that can be determined as the cost of delivering any service to any agreed point before one cent of retail cost is added.
Too simple? Seems to work in every other industry in every other country around the world for the past 4,000 years.