G9, Helen Coonan and the ACCC keep Broadband plan to themselves

Renai LeMay asks What did the G9 leave out of its press release? “the G9 group of telcos (Optus, AAPT, iiNet and so on) … issued a press release detailing the formal lodgement of their draft proposal for a new nationwide fibre broadband network.”

The press release contains interesting points like:

“The SAU would be for 12 years from the commercial launch of the service in order to provide investors with appropriate long term certainty in relation to return on this significant long term asset.”
There’s no mention of how these assets might depreciate over 12 years and with current accounting practices out of step with perceived market value, this may be a questionable investment. A copper phone line of insufficient quality to sustain new technologies should be depreciated at a more rapid rate if it’s to be held in line with other new technologies such as computers. The value of a building wired with old copper wire is not enhanced by the wire, the market value of a building wired with broadband cable is enhanced. This technology has evolved dramatically in less than 12 years, exactly how is depreciation and this investment expected to run over the 12 year span?

“The FTTN Network will be an IP based next generation network capable of delivering high speed broadband services to over four million Australian homes.”
What percentage of Australians will actually benefit from this? The last measurement of Australian homes I saw pegged us at 7.8 million homes. If this number is still accurate, the G9 proposal only supplies broadband to less than half of Australian homes!

More information please.

Will Australians lose their legal right to boycott business?

Australian Treasurer Peter Costello has proposed a change in legislation amending the powers of the ACCC to make it easier for corporations to sue citizens who boycott companies, and recover their lost revenue from such a boycott. This is a reaction to the current legal action of the Australian wool industry against PETA, however this legislation has wider implications for citizens, if anyone who boycotts a company, or encourages another person to boycott a company, could be facing legal action in the future. This has additional implications for tax payers, who will foot the bill for companies to defend themselves against bad PR. Could protesting asbestos victims of James Hardie be sued to recover lost revenue? Could vegetarians be sued for boycotting meat? Could athiests be sued for boycotting church? Where is the line going to be drawn, and who is going to police this?

A spokesman for the consumer advocacy group Choice, Gordon Renouf, said consumers had a right not to buy products on ethical grounds. “There is a fine line between letting people get on with their business and interfering with consumer choice.”

This legislation has failed to pass on five previous occasions, but the Liberals now have the numbers in the Senate to get it through.

Australian Wool Innovation supports the move and “would like to acknowledge Federal Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Peter McGauran, who has supported the need to strengthen these laws; and Federal Treasurer Peter Costello for making this important decision that will protect the interests of Australian woolgrowers.”