Telstra and the Country (2 Viewers)

[ogmzergrush]

no shit sherlock! are we going to build a grid of towers in the countryfor the 2 people per 10 square kilometres that live there?

Which is actually pretty funny, because despite the fact that it's not a heavily populated area, and as such doesn't make much sense financially, it's an area where mobile reception would actually be quite useful, regarding farming accidents, car breakdowns which really are in the middle of nowhere, etc.

(Just an aside, I'm not trying to suggest that they really should be able to make it happen).

 

[Raiks]

they already have communications you raving lefty nut, you only ocassionally hear some old man in the middle of the desert raving on a current affair about how he doesnt get mobile reception.

no shit sherlock! are we going to build a grid of towers in the countryfor the 2 people per 10 square kilometres that live there?

Heh, I'm a lefty raving nut... Quite amusing.

It all boils down to the arguement between equity and efficiency... and when it comes to the financial economics efficiency always wins, but the problem is that social equity also needs to be addressed... it's just a matter of finding a balance, and with every balance, there will always be someone who isn't happy about it. You can't please everyone all of the time.

I guess the only other option is steering away from the economic paradigm and move towards a technological based one.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

Um in Albury, population 45000, part of the regional centre with Wodonga (combined pop about 80000), there are some parts of the city (and I am talking about Albury city here, not out in the paddocks) where you can't get proper mobile reception. It's a much bigger problem than an old fella whinging on ACA every now and then and qquite frankly what we have is not really good enough... in terms of comparing with the rest of the world, we are far behind. A friend was telling me how when she was in Iceland, even when she was in deserted isolated parts like national parks, they had full mobile coverage, and they have wireless internet connections everywhere, and this was several years ago. How come we can't even get decent phone services and fairly basic internet services for people outside the city?

 

[ogmzergrush]

Australia

Population: 20,090,437 (July 2005 est.)
Area - Comparative: slightly smaller than the US contiguous 48 states
Area - Land: 7,617,930 sq km [6th of 204]
(per capita): 0.37 sq km per person [6th of 184]
Area - Total: 7,686,850 sq km [12th of 255]
(per capita): 0.38 sq km per person [9th of 238]
Forested Land: 20.1% (2000) [122nd of 197]
Geography - Note: world's smallest continent but sixth-largest country; population concentrated along the eastern and southeastern coasts; regular, tropical, invigorating, sea breeze known as "the Doctor" occurs along the west coast in the summer
Largest city: Sydney
Largest city population: 3,590,000 (1995) [30th of 174]
(per capita): 178.69 per 1000 people [67th of 173]
Population density: 2.47 people per sqkm [224th of 255]
Terrain: mostly low plateau with deserts; fertile plain in southeast

Sources: CIA World Factbook, December 2003; CIA World Factbook, March 2005; FAO; United Nations World Statistics Pocketbook and Statistical Yearbook; Heal The World Foundation.

Iceland

Population: 296,737 (July 2005 est.)
Area - Comparative: slightly smaller than Kentucky
Area - Land: 100,250 sq km [78th of 204]
(per capita): 0.33 sq km per person [9th of 184]
Area - Total: 103,000 sq km [114th of 255]
(per capita): 0.34 sq km per person [13th of 238]
Forested Land: 0.3% (2000) [190th of 197]
Largest city: Reykjavik
Largest city population: 156,000 (1995) [141st of 174]
(per capita): 525.71 per 1000 people [7th of 173]
Population density: 2.72 people per sqkm [220th of 255]
Terrain: mostly plateau interspersed with mountain peaks, icefields; coast deeply indented by bays and fiords

Sources: CIA World Factbook, March 2005; FAO; CIA World Factbook, December 2003; United Nations World Statistics Pocketbook and Statistical Yearbook; Heal The World Foundation.

Gee, I have no idea why the provision of telecommunications services is different in Australia to Iceland.

(Don't get me wrong, I think it's a poor situation too, but comparisons like that are lacking in prior thought).

 

[braindrainedAsh]

Yes I know the obvious differences blah blah, but I basically said what my friend told me because we are lagging in terms of communications services (even in our capital cities) compared to other countries around the world. It's pretty lame that we can't even have proper mobile phone coverage in places like A/W that are regional centres and have quite decent sized populations, let alone out to places in the bush.

But if you look above, our population density is similar... a lot of parts of Iceland are very isolated (like in Australia), also you have to remember with a smaller population comes a smaller amount of money to spend on things like communications etc. You would really need to have a look at whether the communications providers are public or privately owned, and what the economic resources of Iceland are compared to Australia (so for example the average income earned... if it's public how much tax is paid etc) if you are going to be picky about using it as an example and throw around stats or whatever, the above ones don't really mean that much if you are getting fussy about it.

I'm sure there are more appropriate countries to make comparisons with but I just used it as an offhand example just because a friend was telling me about it.

 

[UGFighter]

Don't worry Ash, we don't get full receptions out here at all places...

 

[ogmzergrush]

Population density wasn't the point I was making, have a look at the area it's spread over. On the technical side of things, it's much, much, less expensive and less challenging to cater for 103,000sqkm than it is to cater for 7,686,850sqkm. The fact that our population density is similar really doesn't mean much in this context, because the area where the challenge comes into it is in the geography, not density (Though density of course plays a role in making it a wholly unattractive proposition in financial terms).

To expect blanket coverage similar to what your friend observed in Iceland in a country about 75 times bigger larger in geographic terms seems to be a little misguided. The fact that there are isolated places within a country so much smaller doesn't really come into it, it's a vastly different type of "isolated". Unless you're suggesting that because they are similarly "isolated" the country can somehow magically can be serviced by the same amount of infrastructure.

(Yes, I agree with your other points about telecommunications in Australia, but really can't see the sense in the Iceland comparison, even as a throwaway example).

 

[loquasagacious]

Roughly speaking here it would cost say eighty times as much to fully cover australia as opposed to iceland. Now compare this to population - Australia has sixty or so times icelands population. Start to see where i'm going?

Put simply australia is not a big enough market if we want to achieve somekind of parity with other countries in the developed world then we need to either pay lots of tax, cut spending in other areas and invest heavily OR get a bigger population.

Market wise say 50 million would be good (166 times icelands pop just for comparisons sake).

Finally on a slightly different note: why should we fund telecommunications in the bush? Obviuosly if they are lacking then the market has judged that there is insufficient demand to make it a good investment. Why should the 99% of australians that live in urban areas along the coast pay through the nose so that 1% can have goo telecommunications?

Hell lets extend this beyond telecommunications, lets count the other ways in which we are charitable to rural australia. Lets add up all the handouts given to combat rural disadvantage. Government funding of water supply. Government bailouts of farmers who failed to plan for drought. And perhaps even the environmental degredation that farmers are allowed to engage in.

What exactly makes the 'bush' so deserving of our charity?

 

[ogmzergrush]

So how do people in the bush differ from say, unemployed people? It seems that there are lots of situations in society, more specifically in Australia, where people who can't provide something for themselves have it provided at a decreased cost by others. Providing we're talking about basic telecommunications services, and not state-of the art fibre optic networks across the country, I don't see a problem with the provision of telecommunications services in the bush.

Of course, another factor which is of interest is that the value and utility of having a phone service connected increases in line with increases in subscribers (The more people you are able to call, the more worthwhile it is to have a phone service). While I don't mean to suggest that the calls which people make to those in remote areas (Or the calls these individuals make themselves) outweigh the costs in providing the service, but I don't think it's quite the free ride that you seem to suggest.

 

[Raiks]

there are some parts of the city (and I am talking about Albury city here, not out in the paddocks) where you can't get proper mobile reception.

Yeah it sucks, I was in the middle of Sydney CBD and I couldn't get mobile reception... now that is ludicrous disregarding the entire fact I was in the bottom level of a steel reinforced concrete underground high security carpark.

But for your point about Iceland, the basis of their telecommunications is less of a service to the population than it is an industry. I spent 3 months in Iceland and it has 5 things:

- Fish
- Cheap and plentiful Electricity
- Cheap and plentiful Aluminium
- A world leading telecommunications industry.

Australia doesn't focus on a telecommunications industry, plus when combined with the other points the wise sage ogmzergush has made, all that can be said about Iceland and Australia is that they are 2 entirely differet stories.

 

[=slade=]

Roughly speaking here it would cost say eighty times as much to fully cover australia as opposed to iceland. Now compare this to population - Australia has sixty or so times icelands population. Start to see where i'm going?

Put simply australia is not a big enough market if we want to achieve somekind of parity with other countries in the developed world then we need to either pay lots of tax, cut spending in other areas and invest heavily OR get a bigger population.

Market wise say 50 million would be good (166 times icelands pop just for comparisons sake).

Finally on a slightly different note: why should we fund telecommunications in the bush? Obviuosly if they are lacking then the market has judged that there is insufficient demand to make it a good investment. Why should the 99% of australians that live in urban areas along the coast pay through the nose so that 1% can have goo telecommunications?

Hell lets extend this beyond telecommunications, lets count the other ways in which we are charitable to rural australia. Lets add up all the handouts given to combat rural disadvantage. Government funding of water supply. Government bailouts of farmers who failed to plan for drought. And perhaps even the environmental degredation that farmers are allowed to engage in.

What exactly makes the 'bush' so deserving of our charity?

you are an absolute wanker.

"What exactly makes the 'bush' so deserving of our charity?"

have u ever lived in the bush? do u have any idea of why they get these handouts? its because they don't have access to the benefits available to urban people.

some farmers may have failed to plan for the drought, but have you spoken to all? a lot simply could not cope with what happened. how exactly were they supposed to plan for it dickhead? water the paddocks with a saved up supply of water so that the cattle still had grass to eat? u really have no idea what they have to go through, how its affecting them and why they need these handouts.

environmental degradation? like urban dwellers are any better. they contribute to pollution of all kinds, which is just as detrimental as degradation you tool. hello last time anyone checked pollution in rural areas is nowhere near as bad as urban areas....clearly again u have no idea, & haven't thought your shit point through


"why should we fund telecommunications in the bush"
im sure if you had comparativly shit service to another region, regardless of the (hugely incorrect) population ratio of 99% to 1% you would complain also and expect some assistance in improving the services. shouldn't everyone be given equal access to basic services such as reliable phone lines, internet connections with some degree of effeciency and the ability to use a mobile phone in an emergency regardless of location?

you really are a narrow-minded idiot with no idea. fuck off and take your ridiculous opinion with you

 

[withoutaface]

you are an absolute wanker.

"What exactly makes the 'bush' so deserving of our charity?"

have u ever lived in the bush? do u have any idea of why they get these handouts? its because they don't have access to the benefits available to urban people.

some farmers may have failed to plan for the drought, but have you spoken to all? a lot simply could not cope with what happened. how exactly were they supposed to plan for it dickhead? water the paddocks with a saved up supply of water so that the cattle still had grass to eat? u really have no idea what they have to go through, how its affecting them and why they need these handouts.

environmental degradation? like urban dwellers are any better. they contribute to pollution of all kinds, which is just as detrimental as degradation you tool. hello last time anyone checked pollution in rural areas is nowhere near as bad as urban areas....clearly again u have no idea, & haven't thought your shit point through


"why should we fund telecommunications in the bush"
im sure if you had comparativly shit service to another region, regardless of the (hugely incorrect) population ratio of 99% to 1% you would complain also and expect some assistance in improving the services. shouldn't everyone be given equal access to basic services such as reliable phone lines, internet connections with some degree of effeciency and the ability to use a mobile phone in an emergency regardless of location?

you really are a narrow-minded idiot with no idea. fuck off and take your ridiculous opinion with you

It starts with an s and ends with arcasm. Learn to pick it.

 

[loquasagacious]

Though in this case i believe that my hyperbole/sarcasm encapsulates a valid point - that is the bush does pretty well off the rest of australia.

As far as my sources go - i lived in a semi-rural area, many family live in rural areas, i have travelled through much of australia and through economics I have studied the topic.

Out of interest what exactly are the stats - how many people in australia live in urban/sub-urban areas? I think you will find it remarkably close to my dimly recalled number. Pay more attention in yr9/10 geography.

Have you spoken to all farmers? Have you a comprehensive survey of whether or not any actually prepared for drought?

Talk about a poorly thought through and shithouse point. Pollution is not the sum total of environmental degradation is is a small facet of it. Environmental degradation is anything that decreases its value. In that the true cost of a kilo of rice (if the loss of water sustained to grow it is taken into account) is not the $1-2 you pay in the shops it is more like $10-15. Environmental degradation is also the tonnes of topsoil lost for every tonne of wheat grown. Finally envronmental degredation is the associated externalities of land clearing and a rising water table.

Finally heres the best reason yet that they get handouts: a misplaced sense of romantic nostalgia. Australians still like to believe that we are a country of sun tanned athletic farmers, etc etc etc. The reality is that australia has never been an agraian/rural society (excluding a brief peiod of time following colonisation).

 

[=slade=]

" in 1911, 43% of Australians lived in rural areas; this proportion had fallen to 14% by the end of century and has stayed around this level since."

-abs.gov.au

being ranked 3rd in eco, i understand ur point about the negative externalities resulting from the production process and the way in which this is reflected in the cost of rice.

however what i was suggesting is that rural areas are not the only people who decrease the goverments ability to achieve their economic objective of intergenerational equity and environmental sustainabilty - urban areas also contribute to this and you really shouldnt be having a go at farmers who do it when u urself also contribute to this long term issue.

myself and my town are currently struggling though the drought, and have been for the past 3 years. yes, i have done comprehensive surveys on farmers, as the drought was the primary focus of my geo assessment, however, obviously i havent spoken to all farmers, i was merely pointing out u were making a very broad comment which was largely incorrect.

also, considering 60% of our exports come from the primary industry, don't you think this suggests we are, to a degree, an agraian society? (agraian - 'Relating to agricultural or rural matters' -dictionary.com)

 

[ogmzergrush]

" in 1911, 43% of Australians lived in rural areas; this proportion had fallen to 14% by the end of century and has stayed around this level since."

-abs.gov.au

being ranked 3rd in eco, i understand ur point about the negative externalities resulting from the production process and the way in which this is reflected in the cost of rice.

however what i was suggesting is that rural areas are not the only people who decrease the goverments ability to achieve their economic objective of intergenerational equity and environmental sustainabilty - urban areas also contribute to this and you really shouldnt be having a go at farmers who do it when u urself also contribute to this long term issue.

myself and my town are currently struggling though the drought, and have been for the past 3 years. yes, i have done comprehensive surveys on farmers, as the drought was the primary focus of my geo assessment, however, obviously i havent spoken to all farmers, i was merely pointing out u were making a very broad comment which was largely incorrect.

also, considering 60% of our exports come from the primary industry, don't you think this suggests we are, to a degree, an agraian society? (agraian - 'Relating to agricultural or rural matters' -dictionary.com)

Young lady this is no time for common sense!

 

[Sarah]

myself and my town are currently struggling though the drought, and have been for the past 3 years. yes, i have done comprehensive surveys on farmers, as the drought was the primary focus of my geo assessment, however, obviously i havent spoken to all farmers, i was merely pointing out u were making a very broad comment which was largely incorrect.

also, considering 60% of our exports come from the primary industry, don't you think this suggests we are, to a degree, an agraian society? (agraian - 'Relating to agricultural or rural matters' -dictionary.com)

Hmm.. even though we do export a lot in agriculture, we do provide assistance to farmers through low interest loans, we probably (i could be wrong) also provide subsidies and have a range of other non-tariff barriers in place to prevent the importation of overseas produce e.g NZ apples.

With these measure in place, it seems that parts of the Agriculture industry are reliant on these measures to maintain their position.

Therefore, doesn't that sugges that there are parts in the Agriculture industry which Australia doesn't have a comparative advantage in? (You mentioned you did economics so i'm hoping you understand this term). If that is the case, then should the govt be providing assistance to them?

 

[loquasagacious]

This is partly my point, I think that we need to examine whether or not we are in fact supporting inefficient industries and providing them an artificial comparitive advantage. As the 'bush' is likley the most heavily protected and supported industry it is a good place to start.

Re: agrain society: an agrain society would be one compossed mainly of farmers and whose economy the agricultural sector was the linchpin. The stats Slade quoted indicated that we are not a nation of farmers population wise. Agricultural output as a percentage of GDP would also suggest this. And in rebuttal to the exports point, whilst 60% of our exports come from primary industry we have a very large mining (BHP Billiton anyone? And thats just the tip of the iceberg) sector which i think would account for alot.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Therefore, doesn't that sugges that there are parts in the Agriculture industry which Australia doesn't have a comparative advantage in? (You mentioned you did economics so i'm hoping you understand this term). If that is the case, then should the govt be providing assistance to them?

Is it really a good idea to run the economy based purely on areas of comparitive advantage though?

You'll have to forgive me for not being as well versed in this sort of thing as I'd like (I've deviated from economics a few years ago towards IT and haven't had much time since aside from light recreational reading), but I was under the impression that the areas in which we typically compete quite well on a global scale involve the export of primary goods, in particular minerals and the like? Certainly, though to a lesser extent today thanks to knowledge-based exports, I was under the impression that this was where the bulk of our exports were drawn from ("meat, wheat and holes in the ground").

Also, I was under the impression (And some quick research seems to agree), that artificial barriers in these sorts of industries have been decreased, and continue to decrease, over the past decade or so. Correct me if I'm wrong though, as I've said it's only something which I've looked into at a fairly amateur level. If I am correct though, it'd suggest that farming is in fact an area where we have a degree of comparitive advantage (or a smaller comparitive disadvantage, whichever), though again perhaps this is not fully appreciable due to the ongoing drought?

Anyway, my point (I'm getting there!), is that I don't really think it's appropriate that we focus on only those areas in which we do have such an advantage, because in our case it would seem to me that this would involve hobbling the economy and remaining forever an exporter of primary goods. What's good for the economy isn't always good the nation, etc, etc (Unless we really should all out to the middle of nowhere and start digging [Which is amusing, because if that's the case, the telecommunications services we are discussing would be pretty useful]).

(Once more: Forgive my economic noobness, I hope I've said what I'm trying to.)

 

[ogmzergrush]

Re: agrain society: an agrain society would be one compossed mainly of farmers and whose economy the agricultural sector was the linchpin. The stats Slade quoted indicated that we are not a nation of farmers population wise. Agricultural output as a percentage of GDP would also suggest this. And in rebuttal to the exports point, whilst 60% of our exports come from primary industry we have a very large mining (BHP Billiton anyone? And thats just the tip of the iceberg) sector which i think would account for alot.

Unless we're mining in central Sydney, the remote telecommunications services are going to be useful afterall then?

 

[mr_shittles]

Hey guys,

I reckon Telstra's being pretty hard done by the USO agreement and government regulation. In Singapore, when the govt imposed a new regulatory framework, it was forced to pay more than a billion dollars in compensation for removing the SingTel monopoly.

I think that the government should have completely deregulated the telco sector prior to privatisation because that way investors know exactly where they stand.

Barnaby Joyce wants to take money out of the Telstra sale and have it exclusively for rural telecommunications. What about a fund for improving city communications? Where are the Barnaby Joyces of Sydney? Why don't they set up a city telecommunications fund so that Sydneysiders get cheaper access to WAP, Blackberries and high speed internet. It really is a constraint on Sydney's ability to compete with places like Hong Kong and Singapore for business.