Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Alan Parkington wrote

>> From
>> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/con...4/s2218642.htm

>> Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide
>> a telephone service to every Australian reviewed.

>> It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the
>> CDMA mobile phone network in favour of its new NextG service.

>> The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural
>> Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone,
>> even in remote areas.

>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning
>> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone.

>> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation
>> of providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where
>> that half billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said.

>> "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders,

> No.

Yes. Telstra gets to wear that as a consequence of
not being wholly govt owned which is what they wanted.

>> should it sit with Government,

> In other words, the taxpayers.

>> should it sit with industry.

> Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers,
> rather than just the ones actually receiving remote services.

Just like they are with a whole raft of other services like the post, schools, doctors, cops etc.

>> Or should the rules be changed?"

> As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to
> remote-area person who wants the telephone service.

Why just with a phone service, and not with the post, schools, doctors, cops etc ?

> If the remote-area person can't afford it, and there are public policy
> reasons for (1) the remote-area person remaining where he is; and (2)
> the remote-area person having a telephone service; then Parliament
> can look at subsidizing the service with funds from Consolidated Revenue.

Or it can tell telstra that thats what it gets to like or lump as a consequence
of not being entirely govt owned, which is what it wanted.