bloody telstra!
how long did they have a monopoly (virtual or otherwise) in australia? under whatever name?
so if all there is to the report is what appears on the face of it, why should they whinge and moan about being left out of the tender process for our national broadband network?
this is classic. what is the thinking? "wow, we live on this huge island and we're so far away from each other! why don't we just try and make
more people talk to each other on those really long pieces of string with tin cans attached instead of making new strings with better tin cans?"
it is yet another example of what happens when responsibility to the stakeholder is superseded by obligation to the shareholder. the consumer is consulted only in order to find some new product or service to sell back to them!
with better communication lines, broadband, satellite services, whatever, the need to clump people together like a tonne of marbles on one corner of a giant trampoline is reduced further. large-scale administration can be decentralised and opportunities for growth can be passed to rural and provincial cities, such as grafton, dubbo, cobar, broken hill, griffith, shepparton, warnambool, mildura, ballarat, bairnsdale, mount gambier, mount isa, cairns, longreach, cunnamulla, port hedland, geraldton, albany, kalgoorlie. why not encourage the growth of as many of these rural cities as possible, instead of contributing to the ridiculous urban sprawl that is such a blight on our country?
wow... perhaps with better communication and people moving out of the capital and satellite cities, there might be a greater demand for better rail and air connections? (oh don't be an idiot! people will simply bitch about having to sdrive their cars so far! what
were thinking?!)
i don't know. telstra sucks. we could have had a far better network if we'd invested more in it decades ago. of course, that would have required a bit of foresight and that was
so abundant in the 1980s...
