[LINK] Broadband for a Broad Land

[Jan Whitaker]

At 10:11 AM 4/01/2011, David Boxall wrote:
>So why didn't the government of the day choose a better way? It seems to
>me that a single coordinated mobile 'phone network, making optimum use
>of available spectrum, would serve us best. Was it lack of imagination
>or lack of talent? Or did they just want the money from selling
>spectrum, so they could buy our votes?

I doubt the spectrum use would have reduced because the volume of use 
would have eventually required expansion. What it did waste was tower 
duplication. I'm not a network engineer by any stretch of the 
imagination, but I'd bet that like the cable tv roll-out, there could 
have been a reduction in infrastructure build. Then again, redundancy 
isn't always a bad thing either. And if there were only one 
commercial mobile network, the competition thing comes into play.

There are those that think a government held monopoly is just as bad 
as a commercial one. I'm not sure. And I'm not sure why the 
government needs a return of 6-7% for this network investment. I 
guess it's a way to get the funds from the commercial bond market, 
but I thought the government was a not-for-profit. We are the 
shareholders, after all. Why does government run as a business? I can 
understand why efficiencies are important, but why ROI? That doesn't 
pass the common sense test. If it is part of the 'commons', why does 
it need to make a profit?

Jan



Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _