TAG | Telstra pulls no punches on regulatory risk |
|
| by Stuart Corner | |
| Monday, 09 October 2006 | |
|
Page 4 of 4 Not exactly. Who has made investment in infrastructure and where any profits from that investment go concerns the ACCC not one iota. It is required to consider only the long term interests of end users and the interests investors only in so far as they serve those interests through economically efficient investment. Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
It would a brave person that would suggest a duplication of this coverage would be economically efficient investment in infrastructure. Such investment would serve the long term interests of end users only if such facilities based competition created lower prices or greater choices that outweighed the considerable investment required. Oddly, in all the ra-ra about Next G, I never saw this statistic about land mass percentage mentioned - it came from a congratulatory release from the UK Based GSM Association. It's easy to see why. It begs the question: "With those stats, Why would the ACCC not seriously look at opening the Next G network to competitors rather than force them into wasteful duplication?{moscomment} |
Tags
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
