Rem said:The problem one faces now is that unless a new or enhanced service makes immediate business sense to Telstra, and their capital budgets can accommodate it - you won't receive that service unless you take steps yourself to get it.
jresta said:I think all infrastructure that is open to the public should be owned by the public....
If the public is making a large investment in the infrastructure it shouldn't come in the form of a giveaway to private companies.
Many of the premises that may require broadband are probably older properties - for example, engaged in agricutlural production that can't be undertaken in a more populated area. Isn't it as much to do with equity of access to what is becoming an essential service? Its probably less of an issue in a massive consumer/producer market like North America, but in Australia have to think about the Nation's competitiveness. If our dairy producers fall behind their Italian competitors, because they can't access the internet, then we have a problem as a whole. It goes to the competitiveness of regions in attracting and maintinaing their employment base as well. I'm all for public investment in infrastructure the private sector won't provide where subsidies are transparent (though preferably it is cost neutral) and the infrastructure is future proofed (or at least has a known servicable life).Cardinal said:.... The areas that are not being served are rural. In other words, if you want broadband with existing technology, I guess you shouldn't be building a new house in the countryside.
Cardinal said:What is "open to the public?" Telecommunications (wired, at least) has always been a private endeavour. Private companies have always been the primary supplier of phone, wireless, broadcast, internet and other telecommunications services. Except for the airwaves, all of the infrastructure is private as well. Are you proposing to nationalize the "phone company?"
passdoubt said:I don't really know anything about telecomm, but its privitization has never made sense to me. Why have private enterprise operating in an environment that by design is not conducive to competition? It'd be ridiculous to have each competing company stringing separate fiberoptic lines through every neighborhood. So companies like Verizon and Comcast are given geographic tracts to reign over and serve, as is only logical. But by doing this, aren't they essentially granted monopoly status? Consumers don't have any choice over local telecomm, so why should it be private? It seems like private companies have even less incentive to offer good service at cheap prices because they have a captive audience.