On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:56:46 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> 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.

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Telstra should
wear the cost of a "Universal Service Obligation" because it's not wholly
government-owned? Vodafone and Optus aren't wholly government-owned either.

And who cares what Telstra "wanted"? (I assume the "they" in "which is
what they wanted" refers to Telstra's employees/executives.) It's
irrelevant what a bunch of employees "wanted".

(And the Booth's rhetorical question used the word "should"; not the word "does".)


>>> 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.

It's not just like that. All those remote services are paid for by the
Government/s out of Consolidated Revenue...

We don't force Fedex/GPS/Healthscope/Chubb to open unprofitable
branches/schools/hospitals/offices in remote locations.


>>> 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 ?

See above.


>> 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.

Why shouldn't Parliament also tell Fedex/GPS/Healthscope/Chubb to provide
universal service? They're not entirely government-owned (and presumably
they "want" to remain that way).

This sort of legislative "like it or lump it" interference in private
property rights is what you get from the Kremlin/Duma.

If the Commonwealth wanted to retain control of Telstra actions, it
shouldn't have sold it.