In terms of the NBN, I would have imagined that we're looking at an item of infrastructure.

If my understanding is off, then by all means correct me, but I'd envision that the 51% stake of the NBN will essentially means that the government owns and operates this network and the various companies, such as Telstra and Optus, will pay for usage.

Ultimately, this country is too big with too few people, for us to have duplicate networks. I mean, imagine if roads were a private enterprise and we paid bus companies to ferry us around. Would we prefer a) multiple companies building multiple roads to the same location because they can't share them b) a monopoly company owning them all and screwing us royally to use them or c) the government, providing access to multiple bus companies for a certain charge?

I'd think c) would be the no-brainer option. Of course, it's entirely possible that the government will do something stupid, like enter the fray with a service provider of their own, which one day will wind up being privatised, and we'll be right back at square one... Christ I hope they're not that stupid, but with Senator Stephen "I'm going to try and censor the internet, to hell with feasibility" Conroy behind the wheel, I'm more than a little worried.

The Public Service Fat Cat description is way out of date with Telstra.

Telstra has been a Corporation and been managed on a business basis since the Hawke era, when the Australian Telecommunication Commission (Telecom) and the Austrailian Overseas Telecommunication Commission (AOTC) were merged and separated from the Commonwealth Public Service. Telstra had been operating at arms length and independent of government since that time. It paid dividends to the government.

Employees were treated no differently than those of any other large private corporation, and in fact worse than some.

Business success is a factor of management - not ownership and to suggest that a company would suddenly become more efficient based on who owns it is crazy.

As for Sol, his strategy to fight for the shareholders didn't seem to pay off as far as the share market is concerned, and his attitude that Telstra were the sole authors of Telecommunication policy won him many enemies in the Howard government.

All the sale did was to convert a public monopoly into a private one and all the pleas for separation at that time were conveniently ignored simply because the government wanted to maximise the sale price.

We have the same sort of phoney competition in Telecommunications that we see in the supermarkets and petrol stations - except that Telstra owns most of the hardware and wants to lease it to their "competitors" at commercial rates.

The British experience in separating British Telecom proved successful.

TR/TL said;
". Christ I hope they're not that stupid, "

Want to bet ?
Look we all have to understand that the politicians have no technical
knowledge and they couldn't care less about the technical ins and outs.
Their technical people tell them what they want to hear.

Telstra is the only organisation with the national workforce and
spread to do the job anyway. Sure, they could import hordes from
Singapore or elsewhere to do the job but at what cost.

I predict that Telstra will do the job as a contractor until after
the 2013 election.
At that time it will be obvious that the cost per termination will
be so high that no one will want to use it and a Liberal govt if it
wins that election will pass it to the Telstra Network Company.
If Labour wins the 2013 election the govt will subsidise it.

*Business success is a factor of management - not ownership and to suggest that a company would suddenly become more efficient based on who owns it is crazy.*

Ah Wobbles, but you forget that owners can instruct the management.
That means politics comes in to every decision, for managers want
to keep their jobs.

*We have the same sort of phoney competition in Telecommunications that we see in the supermarkets*

I'm always amazed at that perception. Yet we do in fact have competition
between supermarkets, perhaps more so then by the
large global corporations supplying them.

The problem with Telstra was that it was seen as a cash cow for
the treasury, at consumer expense. It was only political outrage
at some charges, like their internet charges, that brought about
change in the end. As the net became more popular, people like
me were pointing out to politicians that what they were commiting
was basically robbery. In real terms, communications costs have
dropped dramatically over the last 10 years or so, since Telstra
was sold.

Here's a pretty down-to-earth analysis of the situation by Peter Ryan

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/18/2690516.htm

The upshot is that Telstra shareholders should not have been surprised by the inevitable structural separation of Telstra and the fluctuations in the stock price associated with the uncertainty generated by it (caveat emptor on their part) and that the actual separation may not happen until about 2018.

RobP, I read Peter Ryan's article and IMHO, he is doing little
more then what you are doing, ie making excuses for the Govt!

There are good reasons why I always kept my investment in Telstra
at little more then a nominal value, for the sake of a balanced
portfolio. I don't trust Govts to do the right thing by anyone
but themselves lol.

But Telstra involved over a million mums and dads investors,
many of them first time share buyers, who rather then splurge
it all at the pokies, had actually saved a few shillings.

Now IMHO its a great thing if everyday Australians invest in
our industries, rather then we flog it all off to overseas
investors. But these people would feel badly burned, for
it they can't trust their Govt, who can they trust?

Every prostpectus mentions all sorts of risks, that is just
standard jargon. From earthquakes to floods, nothing is
certain in this world.

That does not change the basic immorality of what is going
on here. Once again, if the Govt changed the rules and took
away the house they had sold you, what would your reaction
be?

Conroy has to play honestly and IMHO blackmail is rather
immoral.