What am I missing here?
I am having trouble reconciling:
> would be tasked with getting a minimum 12 Mbps to as many Australians as possible, “ideally within twelve months”. This would be followed by a rapid upgrade to 24 Mbps “within forty-eight months”.
> a model which would leave high-density, economically-viable locations served by market competition, unsupported by government
Most people in these economically-viable areas do not have 24 Mbps. Most don't have 12 Mbps. So how are these people going to be upgraded to those speed without support from the government? Presumably if it was economically-viable, it would already have been done.
And how do you propose to force the split up a private company like Telstra? Turnbull blandly asserts that "more valuable to shareholders in the long term". Surely if the shareholders actually believed that it would have been done by now.
There is also the minor issue of this approach of paying the local oligopoly to upgrade the copper why leaving the open having been tried, and failed. I guess its possible that since we have said adois to Saul and Phil, attitudes have changed.
All in all, this seems like putting up something different form what the government is doing that will survive the cursory inspection it will get at election time. Ahh well. I guess it is better than the hopeless plan they floated at the last election, although I am lending it more dignity than it deserves by calling it a plan.