Rather difficult to get anything "right" when Telstra are charging exorbitant line rental to not just it's base customers, but also to other telcos who then find it equally difficult to compete on a level playing field. Ziggy Switkowski plundered Telstra by sacking thousands of workers and jacking up line rentals as well as the price of other products, then along came the "Mexican Bandit" who did more of the same. Because that's where the "money" is, big cities get all the bells and whistles while regional areas suffer lack of service and products, or if they are available, they're often out of the price range for the average customer. Personally, I can't really complain about the service, but should line rentals go up again in the near future, I'm afraid you won't see my posts on here until I can get cable or satelite Internet. I steadfastly refuse to pay than $29.90 a month to an ever increasingly greedy telstra

One of the major problems with Australian telecommunications is that it is expected that private companies provide the infrastructure and then have to share it with their competitors. I can see why Telstra doesnt like this. All the more reason why it was a publicly owned (by that I mean govt owned) institution in the first place. Sure, that meant that it was slow, inefficient and beaurocratic, but its been a private company for some years now, and the mentality and efficiency hasnt changed anyway.

Government and taxpayers should fund Australian infrastructure. I dont have a problem with charging for its use - the money spent should be sought to be recovered over the expected life of the infrastructure, as well as maintenance and access costs. But the problem with leaving such things in the hands of private companies, is that not only is there a disincentive to invest in such projects if competitors are allowed to use them, but that private companies with only a profit motive will seek to supply only markets where it is guaranteed to have customers. Seems nonsensical, I know. But if governments were to provide quality infrastructure of varying sorts in regional areas, then there is more incentive for business and consumers to spread out into the country, which would help tp solve some of the centralisation problems and overburdening on the cities that we now face.

My understanding is quite lacking in the area of telecommunication infrastructure. But how economical is it, using current technology, to have full coverage of internet to the rural area where it might be populated by only very few. Or is it already a consensus that everyone needs to have access to broadband internet a a matter of fairness?

I do not disagree with Telstra's position and willingness to put up a fight with the government. This shows that it has its shareholders in mind. Given the unique infrastructure in the telecommunication sector, is anyone aware of how other OECD countries have dealt with this issue? Perhaps it's one of those issues that can be argued both ways (privatisation or not, benefits and pitfalls thereof)depending on your idealogical preferences? Please enlighten.

Any expansion into rural areas must be at the subsidy of the city users.
Country towns can be economic, but not true country areas.
However there is light at the end of the tunnel.
As the analogue TV stations are shut down their frequencies could be
used in rural area for WIMAX systems like Unwired.
However the lower frequencies would give much better propergation and from the normal
high sites like TV stations normally inhabit would cover similar areas.

There is world wide interest in doing this as analogue TV is phased out.

I dont propose that every single house in australia have access to broadband. When I talk country areas, I would suggest that reasonable speed broadband be provided in areas where there is a certain population density. As I alluded to, if we are to attract business and therefore population away from cities, then we must seek to provide infrastructure (telecommunications is only one aspect of this), in order to make these areas attractive and competitive.

Goku, I appreciate your point that Telstra is looking out for the interests of its shareholders (and I am one, albeit rather disappointed given that I got in on T2!). My point is though, that this need to provide returns to shareholders is precisely why infrastructure should not be developed or owned by the private sector. The government really should have only sold off the retail operations of Telstra, and retained ownership and management of the networks, but then they wouldnt be able to pass the buck, would they! I have not had first hand experience of it myself (I avoid Sydney like the plague), but from what I hear on the news, the cross-city tunnel is another prime example of why infrastructure projects should be the domain of governments, not the private sector. And toll roads?? If city-people are happy to fund my broadband, I wont begrudge a few dollars towards their ant-track of roads (so long as country roads dont get forgotten in the process).

With this last example, does my point about infrastructure support and ownership, as well as providing reasonable services to everyone, strike a chord? I'll help fund your needs if you help fund mine.

The reason that the ACCC stepped in is because most of the competitive investment to date would have been disconnected by Telstra's FTTN. Its plan might have provided a marginally improved service to the fortunate urban dwellers, but at the cost of removing competition from the broadband industry.