As Australia edges closer towards getting a decision on a 21st century high
speed national broadband network, it's amusing to see how speculation about
Telstra getting the go-ahead to build it has flushed some of the
anti-Telstra raving loonies out of the woodwork.

Of course in any other country it would probably seem logical that the green
light for such a project would be given to the national carrier. After all
it has the assets, the knowledge, the workforce and the financial clout to
make it work - not to mention, in Telstra's case, the country's biggest 'mum
and dad' shareholder base.

But not so in Australia.

When Phil Burgess made a remark about his confidence in Telstra being
successful, it was seized upon by the usual rent-a-quote critics as being a
sign that some sort of 'sneaky deal' had been done.

Really, all Phil was doing was stating the bleeding obvious.

The Australian Financial Review (22nd April) threw its hat firmly into the
ABT (Anyone But Telstra) camp, backing the SingTel G9 argument that a new
fibre network was unnecessary. In its editorial, the paper argued that most
Australians already have access to decent broadband -thanks, it said, to the
efforts of Telstra's competitors who've been putting DSLAMS into city phone
exchanges and piggybacking off Telstra's copper lines.

This just goes to prove that the AFR's editorial team must be among the
lucky few who live within a stone's throw of a city telephone exchange and
can get half decent speeds. They obviously couldn't care less for those
living in the outer suburbs and beyond who are missing out because they're
too far from an exchange. 'Let them eat cake'. Nor do they seem to
understand that even the current speeds available over copper will seem slow
in the not too distant future

This debate really shows up the difference between Telstra and the ABT
brigade. As the only truly national carrier, only Telstra has the national
interest at heart and realises that planning has to occur now to ensure
Australians have access to world-class broadband speeds required for the
future.

Telstra's competitors on the other hand will say or do anything to preserve
the status quo and keep creaming profits in the major cities thanks to the
ACCC's basket-case brand of price-setting, effectively forcing Telstra
shareholders to subsidise everything and everyone else.

Telstra's Tony Warren recently compared the hysterical G9 campaign to that
of a blacksmith doing his best to ignore the arrival of the motor car.

For students of history, there is in fact a much closer parallel to the
current debate - that which occurred 'canal mania' period in Britain when
powerful canal owners did everything they could to protect their profits and
thwart competition from railways (Liverpool and Manchester history -
www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk)

The waterways that criss-crossed Britain were, they argued, the best and
most cost effective way of moving industrial goods. So they lobbied the
government to stop the trains competing.

History of course shows the railways finally prevailed. If the canal owners
had their way Britain's industrial revolution probably would have stalled.

So it is with Singapore Government-controlled Optus, its G9 collective and
their media cheer squad. Acting in their own self interest, they would
rather see Australia's economic development halted rather than allow Telstra
to invest in crucial national infrastructure.

It really is a sad spectacle to witness.