> G9's proposal also relies on the Government agreeing to provide it with a
> legislated monopoly for 20 years - this is a gross distortion of the
> National Competition Policy which successive Commonwealth Governments have
> supported and pursued for over 15 years.

Crap! Telstra/Telecom/PMG had the monopoly since year dot. Now that they
don't, they put up a screaming match.

> This Government sponsored confiscation of private assets would also
> significantly alter the international investment community's perception of
> "sovereign risk" with investments in Australia. Such confiscation would
> put Australia into the same risk category as quasi-dictatorships around
> the world and would result in the diversion of significant offshore
> investment away from Australia. This will detrimentally affect the
> national economy, Australian business and all Australians.

These 'assets' have already been confiscated from the population by the
govmt so they could sell them off. What else is new?

> G9 propose a "20 year life of investment" - in 20 years time we would
> still be stuck with ADSL2+ speeds of only 12Mbps to 20Mbps. We project
> speeds required in 20 years time will be at least five times that: 100Mbps
> to 1Gbps per household.

Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I
remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt
budge from that high speed even though everyone was screaming for better
speeds.

>
> G9's proposal demands a 20 year statutory monopoly to prevent other
> carriers from building competing broadband networks, so there's no
> encouragement for innovation, competition, or new investment.
>
> Other countries are already deploying fibre networks with speeds of up to
> 100Mbps. G9's proposal would relegate Australia to a 20Mbps cul-de sac,
> and Australia will be left behind as overseas competitors work even
> smarter and faster.
>
> G9's proposal spells disaster for rural Australians.
>
> Telstra's metropolitan lines currently cross-subsidise the rural network
> by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
> This allows regional and rural people to have access to telecommunications
> services on the same terms as city people, despite actual costs being
> massively greater.
> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply be
> left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?
>
>
>
>