Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

In a policy halfway house

By Mark Christensen - posted Wednesday, 2 August 2006


The smaller players nipping at Telstra are not going to produce a solution for the nation. They may come up with good ideas, but they don't have the scale and scope to deliver them.

The risk with overplaying the value of competition is that we emasculate the dominant infrastructure player. The policy process favours its competitors, although they are unable to produce what is needed. We end up with a frustrating policy halfway house. No one is satisfied, yet neither will give ground.

The benefits of competition for network businesses in Australia have been largely exhausted. They have been pulled apart, prices driven down and inefficient cross-subsidies reformed.

Advertisement

It's time to put it all back together again - but competition fails because it's divisive, and mistrusting regulators can't make it happen either.

A cutting-edge telecommunications network will arrive only when a single network operator is allowed to manage efficiently prices and investment between high-cost and low-cost regions.

The present model encourages cherry-picking; small competitors are chipping away at profitable customers via access arrangements that ignore the fact that dominant infrastructure owners must service the entire network. This truth is not acknowledged because if real system costs were factored in to access prices, third parties would be unable to compete and open access would be revealed as a pointless long-term exercise. Put another way: open access is designed for competition, not efficiency.

And is it any wonder Telstra is concerned about making new investments on a pro-competitive basis?

It is these dynamics that are not in our national interest. It's time to elevate the debate to this higher level, rather than dwell on tired old claims that competition is being victimised for reasons of shareholder value or that Telstra should be more co-operative.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in the Australian Financial Review on July 27, 2006



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark is a social and political commentator, with a background in economics. He also has an abiding interest in philosophy and theology, and is trying to write a book on the nature of reality. He blogs here.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark Christensen

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy