Rudd and his high-speed broadband

And surely the wireless network should be provided publicly too. Again:, an effective private monopoly here could result in the fleecing of rural customers who have no other choice.

Indeed: many customers will want “the best of both worlds” and could benefit from “package deals” that enable a natural public monopoly to take advantage of its economies of scale.

Finally, a fully-public authority would be more compatible with “national security concerns”.

Infrastructure as sensitive as a state-of-the -art communications network needs to be run by an authority committed to the privacy of Australian citizens. And there needs to be information security for Australian intelligence and defence interests.

Conclusion

In condemning the kind of “extreme capitalism” that saw the collapse of finance markets worldwide, Kevin Rudd suggested a fundamental shift in outlook - away from the neo-liberal paradigm.

Now, though, we are again being told to accept a privatisation agenda that few ordinary people really want - and which doesn’t really even make sense. Surely governments of the Centre-Left today can be confident enough to reconsider the value of a “democratic mixed economy”.

Natural public monopolies ought to be considered part of the picture - especially when they so directly provide for human need. Add to this the imperative of avoiding wasteful cost structure duplication on the one hand; or the dangers of private monopoly on the other.

A public National Broadband Authority - or government-owned company with a public service charter - could provide for the real needs of Australian consumers and business.

As stated: such a body could provide cross-subsidies to those otherwise disadvantaged for lack of wealth. And it could provide cheap, high quality, service run on a not-for-profit basis.

And again: debt-servicing costs could be provided for through a “communications levy” upon high income earners and corporations.

John Quiggin has suggested the following scenario: presuming a “10 per cent return to cover capital costs and depreciation” the new company would need “revenue of around $4 billion a year, on top of operating costs, say $1 billion a year.”

He continues: “That would require five million households and small businesses to pay $1,000 a year (about $80/month) each.”