Telstra - egalitarianism of the past or a have-and-have-not scenario?

As the current dispute over an export coal terminal expansion in Queensland demonstrates, such second-guessing leads to endless time and money being spent on arguing rather than actually building what is needed.

The implications are clear. The existing regime will deliver cascading network quality based on commercial considerations, such as historical circumstance and cost. Most urban areas and green field residential estates will get top shelf technology. Outside of that, it’s depends on argy-bargy between numerous stakeholders.

On the other hand, if Australia wants a truly social outcome for all, then Telstra should be given an exclusive mandate to deliver a network solution consistent with such a vision. Of course, this would have flow-on implications for structure, ownership and returns to the budget - all of which would be hard to swallow for the government. For example, any such mandate would strengthen arguments for both separation and public ownership of Telstra’s fixed network. This would be messy and likely upset shareholders.

John Howard is the key. He, like the dominant policy-makers in Canberra, refuses to see universal access as important as efficiency, struggling to reconcile such a socialist ideal with received economic wisdom and the prosperity generated by the individualism of the market.

A vision for telecommunications infrastructure gave us a tangible reference point for Australian values. The preferred approach to our current challenge is to shy from this, sell the industry off like British Rail and let someone else worry about it later.

Our only saving grace may be the PM probably thinks he will still be around in 10 years’ time.