Stuart Corner
Thursday, 08 March 2007 11:29
Opinion and Analysis
Page 2 of 3
I do not believe that in a million years Optus ever expected Telstra to retaliate. But, faced with competition for the bulk of its revenue, fixed line telephony, head to head competition made perfect sense for Telstra and the two companies each spent north of $2 billon rolling out networks with nigh on 100 percent duplicated coverage in Australia's capital cities.
The government sat back and did nothing, despite repeated warnings that such duplication was hugely wasteful and not in Australia's national interest. At one point then communications minister, Michael Lee, suggested that duplication would not happen and that it would be a case of whoever got in first in any particular suburb or street.
However, practically, there was nothing the government as regulator could do short of drafting draconian legislation that would somehow or other have prohibited duplication. It was then the 100 percent owner of Telstra so perhaps could have used that avenue.
So here we are again a decade later. And what is Coonan saying? If you take her statement literally it is simply the government would not support duplication, not that it would actively oppose it.
Again short of drafting legislation there seems to be little that the Government could do to prevent duplication. However Coonan is on safe ground: the impracticalities and economics of a dual rollout should do that anyway.
Coonan dismissed the speech by shadow minister, Stephen Conroy, the previous day a being "big on the rhetoric but very short on detail." Saying: "I've had only had a quick look at the speech in which he appeared to focus primarily on broadband and the need for investment in fibre and other next generation networks."
