Ben Rees sees Telstra as some sort of benevolent provider of subsidised communication services. He never explains why the bush should be subsidised at all. Why should a low income urban family pay extra to cover the phone costs of country people who may be wealthier than themselves.

We have some something called the Universal Service Obligation that is supposed to ensure that country people pay the same for a phone service as those in cities and towns. This sort of policy can only work in a monopoly situation. Telstra is starting to see pricing pressure in the urban markets from mobiles and eventually wireless broadband. These devices are encroaching on their public switched network (PSTN) and reduces their ability to cross-subsidise rural services. The USO will become unsustainable unless someone invents a technology that makes rural communications cheap and affordable.

Perhaps the rural phone subsidy should be administered by Centrelink and people will understand that subsidy and welfare amount to the same thing.

Ben,

"On ideological grounds the Conservatives are opposed to subsidies". Really ? Next will you tell me that they are also ideologically opposed to their own 30% rebate for private health insurance, 30% rebate for child care, Family Tax Benefit parts A and B and private school handouts. Shakes head.

The first thing that National Party members learn is the means whereby drought relief can be claimed at the same time as flood relief. The inner city socialists should realise that when it comes to real socialism the National Party leaves them for dead. As far as Telstra is concerned, their whole business plan is being shredded so fast at the moment that I worry if anything will be left when Howard gets his chance to sell it off. I am currently using another carrier to make phone calls to the UK at one cent per minute. Needless to say I am not using Telstra. Clarkes Law says that the cost of communications is halving every nine months; what this means is that even if it costs ten times more to communicate from Bourke than Sydney, that difference will be between one cent and ten cents, so does it matter?

Subsidies to private companies is what howard and his ilk are so good at. These subsidies, as I understand it, have been given to private schools. These schools are privately owned and pay dividends.
Then there are the private medical funds, so badly run that without tax payers money they would probably have to file for bankrupcy.
Of course there's telstra, instead of receiving fat dividends every year the government is selling, then giving this company a subsidy, not good economics - surely!
Not to mention howard's brother stanley.
Nor a donor to liberal funds the ownwer of a very large ethanol plant.
Then it's qantas, not receiving money as far as I know but it is getting government protection from the likes of singapore airlines.
Last but not least it is the voters who, it can be said, are paid for voting liberal. Remember howard's compliant bagman running through rural areas throwing money, ours, around.
These are the ones we know about, how many more are there?
Oh for a decent investigative reporter,oops! I forgot, it could be -and has been - said that howard seems to have bought them all? numbat

I think any Telstra sell off debate should be preceded with an attempt by all to reach a consensus on what we consider to be the basic level of services, not just telecommunications, all Australians should be entitled to.

Left to the free market, the best level of services will gravitate to those who can best afford them while those who cannot do without.

This scenario is not acceptable to me and I expect our Governments to interfere and ensure basic services are delivered to all. I assume most people would agree with this.

If so, then the question we should first be asking ourselves is what level of these basic services Governments should be providing to all Australians.
What standard of roads, medical services, education and so on should be provided?

In this case, what level of telecommunication services would you consider acceptable for rural/ regional areas? This should be answered before entering the Telstra debate as your answer certainly has a bearing on it.

I have answered these questions it in my mind. People exiting to the coast should not have to make this decision due to a low level of basic services

Sorry I forgot another recipient of tax payers money or payment in kind is the Tasmanian desert creators, gunn's. Yet the pathetic unionists thought they were being looked after. numbat