On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:55:25 +0900, Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com>
wrote:

>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.
>


I was under the impression that the conditions of the sale of Telstra
and ongoing obligations were well-known to intending investors prior
to the sell-off.
But, I guess, the people complaining about obligations are
disappointed that their licence to print money came with strings.

---------------------------------


Death is Nature's way of telling you you aren't
needed, any more.