John Linton ....which must make the NBNCo the only business in Australia that hasn't seriously considered that scenario. Whether there will be a change of government at the next Federal election or not - it is inconceivable that any organisation in Australia hasn't made their future plans without seriously considering how such a change might affect them:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-23/nbn-could-be-a-salable-asset/3595870
If Mr Quigley had been attached to a polygraph when he made that remark I suspect that the needle would have bent double. How could any currently operating business in Australia not have determined what a change of government might mean for its future - particularly one where the current opposition continually states that it will almost certainly significantly amend its future? Wouldn't you, if you were a senior planner within NBNCo, just HAVE to plan for a possible change of government when the likelihood of that happening is a significant probability? If you bother to watch this clip to near the end you can make up your own mind as to just how honest NBNCo's CEO addressed the questions addressed to him. His replies to the questions about the embedded "CPI plus 5%" price rise clause and why has he not talked to Malcolm Turnbull and his statement that prices will go down over time were just the sheerest nonsense.
Then his comments on voice only prices were pure casuistry - or for the vocabulary challenged - mealy mouthed lies. The interview was a total embarrassment in terms of content and the stuttering and glassy eyed staring were clear indications of the interviewee's acknowledgment that he was not telling the truth. It is obvious from the statements in this interview that the current Labor government has changed tack, by more than 90 degrees, and is now pitching the 'NBN2' as a cross subsidy by city dwellers to provide communications services to 'the bush" - a turn around of epic proportions and, in itself, a gigantic lie that totally contradicts its other claim of "lower cost for everyone" and "we will sell it off to commercial interests as a profitable going concern once it is built". But then what is one more giant lie to the current, illegitimate, 'prime minister' - "There will be no carbon tax if you elect me".
I have no interest in what happens regarding any possible change of government or any build out of a government monopoly fibre network. From the time the Australian electorate decided that Krudd should be allowed to run riot with his version of neo-socialism we decided that there was, probably, no long term future in our continuing participation in providing residential communications services.This view was not based on politics it was based on the upheavals that would plague the industry throughout the 'build phases' and the resultant commercial problems that would bring with them. I also looked at the GSM road map and formed the only conclusion that anyone else who was even vaguely familiar with that document would form. What has always concerned me (from those first vote seeking lies by Krudd) is how does a communications company of Exetel's size cope with the "seven years of famine" that government meddling in the communications infrastructure would bring with it before it all ends in tears?
The only solution that has ever been practicable in such circumstances has involved doing something else until "the rains return" and crops can be grown again in the requisite quantities to provide a living. It cost Telstra $800 million last year for it to survive the neo-socialism of the 'NBN2' and, from the figures on the public record it cost all of the other companies comparable, with their revenues, similar amounts. I have seen no estimates of what it may cost in the coming year but there is no reason to believe that it will be any less - irrespective of how it is 'dressed up'. So we are in to year five of seven years of "famine" and the number of communications businesses that have not survived continues to climb. Perhaps that's a good thing and with the "cross subsidising" of communications costs "in the bush" perhaps the murderous discounting to retain market shares in "the city" will actually benefit, at least in the very short term, communications users in the city.
Who knows - Ms Faustus promises of cheaper and faster communications for everyone may not be the obvious lie every fact says it is? Just don't ask how it is being paid for - "subsidies" always have to be paid by someone - unless you are very naive.
Copyright © Exetel Pty Ltd 2011
ABN 350 979 865 46