Great to see you back ,Rod. I like the back to basics thrust of your comments and like you wonder why use of cuddly animals can assist to increase investment in Australia. That's why, they monkey around, keep lion and owl to the regulator when Sol the hunter comes out with guns blazing.

Rod, Your blog is about as mythical as an Enid Blyton children’s novel. Your comment about Telstra embracing competition was most amusing because somehow I doubt the ACCC, the ACT, any competitors and a majority of individuals with no vested interests with Telstra would agree. 1. Optus Doesn’t want to invest? To my understanding Optus has invested over $10 billion in network construction alone. Now when we compare that to a company 7 times the size of Optus I have to ask if Telstra has spent over $70 billion in constructing networks of late? Oh yes they did spend $1.1 billion rolling out their 3G.. oops NextG network didn’t they, but then wasn’t that built using backhaul funded partially by tax payers? 2. The typical Phil Burgess claim that competitors choose to “sponge off Telstra” instead of investing. Also allow me to clear this up for you a little. The PSTN which competitors such as Optus are supposedly “piggybacking on” is a declared asset which they legally are entitled to access. This condition was put in place many years ago back when Telstra was privatised and it is simply ludicrous to suggest competitors construct their own PSTN across this country to provide ADSL. Companies of various sizes have invested in their own equipment to connect to the PSTN which fortunately for Telstra still allows them to make a decent profit by simply wholesaling a piece of aging copper. 3. One of your most interesting claims however is one suggesting that Optus is only interested in receiving government handouts. Ironically the Opel “handout” was part of a tender process where Telstra also applied. And in relation to receiving government funding in the past do things such as a CDMA Network rollout, the USO and fibre backhaul rollouts across the country ring any bells? Or perhaps the fact that Telstra currently receive more money from the government annually than what Opel were to receive in a one off transaction? Anyway thanks for allowing me the opportunity to have a break and venture into the wonderful world of fiction through reading your blog, but I’d better now return back to the real world. Regards, James

Gday Rod, good to have you back! Yes, it would be interesting to see whether or not Optus do decide to invest in their own wireless 3G network after the whole OPEL mess. It would be ironic if Optus were to use a GSM network rather than Wimax. It's funny how Telstra warned everyone about what a sham the Opel proposal was, yet many people chose to have faith in a company that didn't show any real evidence or intentions in building a network that would help connect many Australians who currently don't have any access to broadband. Sadly, in the end it's the Australian public which loses out...again. To be honest, it's a shame that the Opel proposal didn't go ahead as it would have brought true competition in the Wireless market, whereby Telstra and Opel would fight for our services through competitive pricing and innovation...isn't that what fair competition is all about, the customer?

One must wonder what Fairy tail James has been reading?? I am guessing he works for Optus, Because at Telstra we are to busy serving our increasing customer base to write such fiction. Telstra went from losing thousands of customers each week and market share, to being the number 1 Telco in Australia, a world leader and a customer base that's growing everyday! Oh did i mention we are the ONLY Telco in the world that has reversed the fixed line decline???

Keith and James, thanks for the welcome back. James, fiction, like beauty, would seem to be subject to the eye of the beholder! Essentially your argument falls down when you take up the Optus argument that taxpayers paid for Telstra's network. It would be fairer to say customers have paid for it. Australian taxpayers were more than compensated for the the Government's share of Telstra during the privatisation process. True, parts of Telstra's network are 'declared', but it is still a private asset and its owners deserve a fair rate of return... something they have not been getting thanks to the ACCC, which forces Telstra to provide access below cost. That is why nobody is investing and why Optus refuses to fully utilise its cable. Among the many misconceptions you have is the idea that the Government funds the USO. Telstra in fact mostly funds Australia's USO, with minor contributions from other carriers.

Quote from James Bell "To my understanding Optus has invested over $10 billion in network construction alone." Yet they still insist on having access to the Telstra network, even in areas where they have their own "network". Why should Telstra build a network that it's going to have to let competitors use at below cost rates? As an example, if the cost of fuel is $1.50/L and I want to borrow your car but only want to pay $1.25/L for the fuel I use and don't want to have to pay for the maintenance or insurance, would you accept that deal? Of course you wouldn't because you would lose money! But that is exactly what Telstra is being forced to do. "declared asset which they legally are entitled to access" This statement is so obviously incomplete I feel compelled to finish it. It obviously should read "declared asset which they legally are entitled to access, at below cost without having to provide any remuneration towards the eventual replacement of the network." "still allows them to make a decent profit" by paying barely enough to maintain the line let alone replace the line and you complain that it's ageing? in a world where the cost of everything from the cost of copper to the cost of fuel is going up the ACCC is forcing the price that Telstra charges competitors for local loops down and down and down to the point that Telstra is starting to lose money on the copper network. "Ironically the Opel “handout” " was supposed to be used to provide high-speed broadband and mobile coverage to rural and remote areas of Australia and was instead being used to duplicate services already provided by Telstra in metro areas of Sydney and Melbourne. Your post was very interesting, not by what was in it but by what was not.

I could write a novel of my own starting as far back as 1976. Which was when i first became a customer of telstra. It has been one bumpy ride ever since. But the current topic is the nextg. Next G joke: how many phones, aeriels, car kits and patch cables etc does it take to get service 15kms out of a country town. I don't know. But we are talking at least 80 hours, 3 phones, two aeriels, and a car kit so far and i am sitting here trying to find some instructions on the net on how to connect the spagette like wiring system to the car and then pair up the ends sent out with the aeriels and car kit to make the bloody thing just send a text message. Telstra reckons that the text messages sent on their network is reaching the billions. I know why, because that is the only way you can communicate in the country. You send a test message and when the other phone is in range it will eventually get through. But just hope you don't need help in a hurry. The old analogue...now at least it was new technology and you expect problems. But every two years since we first purchased our mobile phone we have gone from the brick to a smaller brick to CDMA and now next G. I have a drawer full of chargers and carkits and wires and boxes and instruction manuals. I have just about had it. I was not going to buy another mobile once t he CDMA went because the service was so pitiful on it. The only thing it was good for was giving me exercise. I had to run arouond the paddock to get a signal. Now the Nx G is the same. maybe it will be a little better once i get the aeriel connected to the battery i have to carry around in the backpack to give the zte165 enough power to send and receive a signal. Well i suppose i can't complain i am getting really fit and the extra weight i have to carry will strengthen the old pins. Maybe i should write that book it would negate the need for me to use any telstra services, eg the net, mmm, the landline 2xmmmmmm, the mobile 100xmmmmmmmmmm. I wrote a letter to the senator coonan in 2005 trying to find out what she ment by adequate service for net, landline, mobiles. I got a reply in feb 2008 saying this email has been returned unopened. That was one of several attempts i made to get a decent cheap landline, net and or mobile service. This net connection is the first to go. getting to expensive. It would be nice if the mobile service could be for the two phones we could have were accumilative eg. 30$'s per month each and they don't work until we travel to the nearest town or to Adelaide. by that time we have paid several months worth of $30 to ssend text messages because making a voice call is simply impossible. Anyway i bet i run out of space here before i run out of things to tell you about telstra. Remember that optic fibre cable they put in, well my farming tractor and airseeder finished up in the hole they made putting t he bloody thing in. Cost us heaps of lost hours and money. They still do not admit responsibility. But hey thats telstra.

Hi Rod terrific to have your words of wisdom available on NWAT again, and they, with the new format will greatly enhance the pleasure, and education of our reading. I do not intend, at this time, to comment on the Great Debate but to simply tell you that it it extremely assuring to know that people of the calibre of your good self, along with every other member of Team Telstra from Sol down, are monitoring the situation and enthusiastically pursuing a result that will benefit all Australians.

Rod, In relation to my argument about taxpayers paying for Telstra's network, although I disagree with it I accept that the Government of the time made the decision to privatise Telstra, but it was not actually the PSTN I was referring to. My argument was referring to the CDMA Network which was built and continues to be maintained with the aid of government funding. Telstra has been able to leverage off this network and fibre backhaul to subsidise its NextG rollout. Whilst I don’t have anything against Telstra doing this, it’s hypocritical of Telstra making accusations that its competitors are only after government handouts considering it's highly unlikely CDMA or NextG would be providing the sort of coverage they do without some form of government assistance. The ACCC forcing Telstra to provide ULL access at below cost has never been substantiated by Telstra. Are you in a position to elaborate on how exactly a piece of aging copper can be costing Telstra more than $14 a month (ULL Wholesale Band 2) to maintain? Especially when we consider Telstra retail their own lines for as low as $19.95 a month, and these costs include the more complex & expensive network elements that are not Telstra’s responsibility for ULL, general account maintenance, the call centres you need to run to service your customers etc.. When we look at it from this perspective one could even begin to wonder if $14 is actually too high; either that or Telstra is providing services to its own customers at below cost? Considering over 2/3rds of Telstra revenue is derived from fixed line services I’d find that a bit hard to believe. Correct the USO is not government funded; however it is another example where Telstra is given handouts, only this time from its competitors to service its own customers. Yes you might say that the USO is to cover the cost of servicing unprofitable areas, but Telstra also reap many benefits from this arrangement including improved brand exposure across Australia and network coverage spruiking; something you and I know Telstra use as a major selling point of its products.

James, many minds greater than ours have argued over how much it costs to maintain a piece of copper wire and the debate goes on. The fact SingTel prefers to buy rather than use its own network is proof the ACCC has got it wrong. Also worth noting the same product costs more in many smaller countries. The funding Telstra received to assist with construction of CDMA was won in an open tender process. Showing its disdain for regional Australia, Optus failed to submit a bid! Likewise, when the former Government offered Optus a chance to be a USO provider, it wasn't interestedin that either. Not surprising given the USO is a huge loss making proposition and only Telstra has the presence to truly serve rural and regional Australia.