I've only ever once briefly owned Telstra shares. I always figured that once the government didn't own any part of Telstra it would start leaning on it to cut it costs, but that while it still had a shareholding to sell it would allow Telstra to reap some monopoly benefits.

So in some ways it's no surprise that with the government now effectively out of Telstra it's decided to screw it. Even so, I'm surprised at the style of the monstering which goes beyond anything I could have imagined.

Instead of just pushing Telstra's prices down by regulating what it could charge they've effectively told it how it must structure itself under the threat of locking it out completely from new wireless spectrum that it would need to maintain profitability into the future. And it's done this so as to get access to Telstra's infrastructure so it can build it's NBN network at a reasonable (to the government) price.

I think that is outrageous, and I would think that many of the mums and dads (and brothers and sisters and superannuation funds) who invested in it would feel the same way.

This is tantamount to the government reacquiring parts of Telstra, but hardly on "just terms". Which makes me wonder whether there are some constitutional or legal avenues available to Telstra.

Not that the current board of Telstra would fight the government. While Trujillo and his amigos were far too truculent and combative, and damaged shareholder interests because of it, the current board (who the Minister referred to "charmingly" on radio this morning by their first names) look to be completely supine.

One wonders what would have happened if Telstra, rather than dragging its heels on faster broadband speeds, had rolled high speed broadband out. They might have avoided this fight altogether by neutering the idea of the NBN in the first place.

Dear Graham,

Being one of those who thought the selling off of Telstra in the first place (especially the infrastructure) was the outrageous act I am probably a little biased.

I do have sympathy for those mums and dads investors but that does dissipate a little when I hear talk of reaping “some monopoly benefits”.

I’m not sure you will get much sympathy either from non-share owning Australians who it appears will get cheaper prices, after all they went from being beneficiaries of the profits of the organisation when it was owned by us all to being treated as sheep by its American controllers.

I think the pivotal moment was when Nick Minchin(?) was told by the big institutional investors in the States that for them to be part of the float there had to be an American in charge.

I am old enough to remember when there was pride in an organisation that was helping to build Australia but to see it in recent years actively hindering instead in order to maximise profits into shareholders pockets was disheartening.

Dear Graham,
I have to agree with csteele on this one. I am a little harder in my views on investments. In that under a capitalistic environment one invests money in the full knowledge that one is being paid for the RISK.
This is simply the down side to investing.
I think it's disingenuous for conservatives to now pretend otherwise.
Monopolies are or should, be the anathema of both sides of politics. Labor because it's anti peoples interests.
Conservatives because it distorts their Religious Trilogy, Free Enterprise, Level Playing Field and the spectral presence of Market Forces aka "the silent hand".

Minchin's bleatings are simply political best face, diversionary spin.
The 'monstering' as you put is more of the same on both sides.

The real question should be for the opposition (any opposition) is what is our alternative? and/or more pragmatically how can we improve the GOVERNMENT'S ideas not simply opposition for party sake. (crass bid for power regardless of the people and their clear will.
TO PUT IN A BETTER INTERNET SERVICE.

One could ask what did the opposition think that the government was going to do create the impossible? a profitable (to encourage commercial participation) second duplicated network? that is fairies at the bottom of the garden stuff. Commonsense and consultants should have know the truth Aust can't afford two parallel networks. Therefore, something had to give. In truth the conservatives' strategists were blinded by their own ideology to reality. One is entitled to ask "What has happened to the ALTERNATIVE government?" still trying to dress the the same ole same ole in a new suit?

You little ripper, GrahamY, for opening up this one! You say:

"While Trujillo and his amigos were far too truculent and combative, and damaged shareholder interests because of it, the current board ..... look to be completely supine."

You're probably right in both statements. One of the truculent and combative acts of Telstra management, the customer reaction to which probably explains Trujillo's 'racism' spray on his departure, has been the insistence upon the outsourcing of billing and the enquiries that inevitably go with it. I, for one, am absolutely sick of having to battle with Indian accents in order to understand, and be understood, in matters relating to billing or service delivery by an Australian communications enterprise. Recently, sick of being taken for granted by Bigpond ADSL at notional delivery of 256/64 Kbps speed and 12GB of download for $60/month, I churned to another Australian provider, Internode, who were able to provide, over the same copper wire connection, a notional 512/128 Kbps speed and 10GB of download for $50/month. And I got the extra performance on the changeover, by golly!

My reward from Telstra for this (reluctant) unbundling was the invention, a few weeks after the churn, of an 'overdue' account issued in a name that was not, although similar, that of the account holder for my premises, and delivered by post. The services connected with these premises were definitely threatened with suspension if the account was not paid promptly.

The account was for email addresses which came FREE with the old dial-up service for which I had continued to pay (I think $7/month) as a backup to my ADSL connection, right up to the time of the changeover to Internode! All Telstra bills sent (by post) to the account holder had been paid promptly right up to that time. No account had ever been rendered at any time for these email addresses.

Deceitful if not downright fraudulent business practices. Forced online payment. Managerial arrogance.

Sol was losing customers, and he knew why. It was our fault. We were all racists.

I've got little sympathy for Telstra. It effectively monsters every consumer and small business owner by the fact of its size and tardiness of service to customers. On Lateline Business last night the CEO of a rival to Telstra said that Telstra's customers were waiting up to 8 weeks for service.

If the whole exercise ends up with more competition and better service for customers then I think that's a wonderful thing. The way I read it one monster is being monstered by another. Sounds to me like Telstra is getting its just desserts.

Graham, I say this as a Telstra shareholder who is losing a fair wad of cash due to the current arrangement...

About damn time.

Monopolies are detrimental to competition, they are detrimental to the consumer and in this case, it is detrimental to the development of our communications networks.

When Telstra was privatised, it should never have become an entity that controlled the infrastructure as well as a group responsible for servicing remote communities as well as competing against other telcos.

That recipe just doesn't work. Not under anything except the most bone-headed concepts of capitalism. You can't simultaneously ask them to be competitive, reasonable, provide service to unprofitable areas, provide access to their infrastructure to competitors at reasonable prices and do so with a nice PR image. It's just plain retarded and it's up there with the stupidest moves by the Howard government.

You say the Trujillo board behaved in an unreasonable manner. Frankly, they behaved in the most competitive manner. That's what companies do. It's what they're supposed to do. This idea of a wishy-washy company that doesn't play hardball seems like a crock to me.

The problem is not that Telstra has been an objectionable company. It's that it's a company, and it controls access to infrastructure that other companies need in order for this to be a proper market arrangement.

This situation needs to change and it needs some bold moves from the government. Frankly, I'm surprised the Rudd government had the ticker to do this, but I'm glad.