Rudd and his high-speed broadband

Such content could be “sponsored through pinpoint advertising - adapted to consumer profiles, or where such information is unavailable, adapted to suit the content.”

Another possible use for the new technology would be video-telephony/video-conferencing.

As John Quiggin has written at his blog: “It can be done, just, with existing technology, but the possibilities would be radically transformed by the advent of near-universal fast broadband.”

This could have important ramifications for education and health care - with real time medical consultation or lectures over the internet (across the country or even internationally).

According to Kerry Barwise, the "greatest benefit ... will be to promote a move to more knowledge-driven and creative industries, helping to transform Australia's economy.

Why not keep it public?

Many years past such investments would be considered a matter of “nation-building”, delivered as natural public monopoly. Today, however, Rudd Labor felt obliged to qualify its announcement by suggesting the new company would be privatised at some later date.

There are many reasons why the government needs to reconsider doing this.

First, given the centrality of new information and communications technology to everyday life, there is the spectre of “information rich” and “information poor” households. A company or authority that remained in public ownership could cross-subsidise provision of service for struggling households. including those on low incomes and welfare.

However, even a part-private company would be divided in its loyalty to the public, and to shareholders. Assuming eventual full private ownership, there would be no-scope for cross subsidies. Furthermore - profit margins would see more expensive service than if a public authority had run the network on a not-for-profit basis.

A “communications levy” on business, the wealthy and high income earners (say 1 per cent-2 per cent) meanwhile, could cover the gains made by business as a consequence of emerging new markets, and technology-driven productivity. This could provide for the cost of debt servicing into the future.

Furthermore, there is the question of whether the new body should, if under private ownership, hold as much as a 90 per cent stake in the national broadband market. Surely it would be easier - and wiser - to avoid the potential abuse this could involve. By this I again clearly infer a case for full public ownership.