03.01
The idea of having a 100 megabit-per-second (mbps) fibre-optic broadband connection into my home is one that has me drooling with anticipation. As an avid internet user, being able to move past the crummy 1.5mbps is something that can’t happen soon enough. As the internet has developed and moved itself into being an increasingly important part of our lives, it’s become more and more apparent just how much Telstra and the previous government have ruined the telecommunications infrastructure that could have made us a technological powerhouse.
Our problems began in 1997 when the Howard government decided that they wanted to sell off Telstra to the public as they didn’t see a reason as to why a government should be running a phone company. While you could argue that their logic does make some sense, sadly what they didn’t realise was that they were also signing a death-warrant on the development and improvement of the national copper POTS network. By giving control of the network over to a company that was being run for profit the government basically gave up on regional and remote Australia as far as improving their lacklustre infrastructure was concerned. They ensured there was never going to be any further development of any of the existing infrastructure and that any roll-out of new equipment was going to be done to a budget, rather than what would actually be the best for the community.
What the Howard government failed to do was recognise the difference between the phone company as a service provider and the company as the owner of the nation’s telephone network. Control and maintenance of infrastructure like that should never be left in the hands of private industry, let alone to a monopoly. Such things should be rolled out by government to ensure that basic utilities (and by 1997 I would think that a phone line and internet access are basic utilities) are available to everyone in the country, not just those that happen to live in areas where it’s profitable to build. By selling control of the phone lines, John Howard left this country in a position where large portions of the country have totally inadequate service because it was not profitable for a private company to install the same quality of service that someone in a more populated, profitable area. This initial mistake was compounded by the severe regulation that was imposed on Telstra as a result. Telstra was forced to charge low access fees for other carriers to allow them access to the network. It was a massive disincentive for them to improve their network; because they didn’t see why they should pay to improve something that’s they’re not going to have total control over and from a business standpoint it’s hard to argue against.
What the government should have done is only sold off the service provider arm of the company and kept control of the network in public hands. That way, the improvement and maintenance of the network would be managed by a body that’s not driven by the desire to make a profit and meet the oft-insane expectations of the open market. Infrastructure is about delivering basic utilities that provide adequate service to the population without real fear as to the profitability of the rollout. It shouldn’t be driven by business interests and the end-of-year earnings statements. Living in a regional or remote area shouldn’t mean that you miss about on the opportunity to gain access to what the rest of us take for granted.
Unfortunately, a change of government has not brought about a change in thinking with regards to telecommunications. It would seem that with the implementation of the national broadband network that the Rudd government is shaping up to make a similar series of mistakes. While the construction of the network is being done with public money, the current proposal looks to sell off (Telstra style) the company created to oversee and manage the network five years after the project is completed. So again, the government is looking to put control of a critical piece of natural infrastructure back in the hands of shareholders, rather than hanging onto it itself. A decision that given what we’ve seen happen with Telstra over the last 13 years I cannot fathom.
A better model would be to create an autonomous statutory body to manage and maintain the national broadband network. To create a system that works in much the same way that the Hunter Water Corporation operates within the Newcastle/Hunter Valley area. A system where the operating body doesn’t exist to maximise profits, but to maintain strengthen the entire network, regardless if the profitability of each particular exercise. Of course, Hunter Water is a monopoly in the supply of water and sewer services in my region, but the basics of what they do can be translated across to the National Broadband Network.
That way, the controlling body of is capable of rolling out improvements to the network without having to worry about getting a return on investment that’s suitable enough for a group of greedy shareholders. Utilities (and the National Broadband Network is a utility. Internet access generally should be considered a utility) should not be constructed and controlled to meet a desirable bottom line and end-of-year profit statement. They should be managed and controlled and improved in accordance with what is going to deliver the best results to everyone, not just those that happen to live in the cities.