rcon wrote:As for poo poo'ing the technology, my point is whilst is currently seen as the gold standard, there is no guarantee it will continue to be seen in that light and as such, closer inspection is warranted, something this government has categorically ruled out. You've also got the point Turnbull makes so well, consumer preferences may well not run to broadband - who would have thought fixed line phones would go out of style so quickly, that SMS would be so popular - this is why you let the private enterprise make this investments because sometimes they go wrong.
whilst in some respects i agree with this, with things like infrastructure, letting private enterprise do it is a surefire way to get a solution that only has the companies interests at heart and not the general public
roads are a good example of this. if they were left to private enterprise, every road would have a toll on it. sure, it might be the best road in the world, but if consumers have to foot the bill then they wont use it. contrast this to governments using taxpayers' money for the greater good and building roads.
isn't this the same thing?
telstra built their own cable network, and it is expensive as hell. this is because they deliberately set it as a premium price point compared with even their own hugely expensive adsl.
they built their own copper telephone network, and used it to deliver adsl. and it was expensive as hell until the courts ruled against them and allowed other competition to use their network.
so in this case, building an entirely new network is ideal, because it means everyone is on a level playing field to begin with, and this will immediately drive down prices to a point where it will be affordable for a general consumer, something cable broadband was never designed for.
