Pay television cables may not seem such a big issue, but it is certainly a symbolic one. They symbolise the ugly and stupid side of economic rationalism, the pursuit of competition for competition’s sake and the reduction of everything to dollar values.
Last week the Coalition backbench showed better sense than the leadership in dealing with the issue by defying Prime Minister John Howard and Communications Minister Richard Alston and continuing with a plan to levy phone calls to fund the placing of the cables underground.
That plan looks doomed following a compromise put by Senator Alston that will force Telstra and Optus to obey local planning laws, which will usually mean that they must go underground.
Over the past year or so the roll-out became vigorously competitive in the central areas of Sydney and Melbourne as both corporations saw the importance of grabbing market share early. It turned into a manic rush when Optus realised that it could deliver local phone services over these cables and erode Telstra’s monopoly in that area.
In their pursuit of the almighty dollar aesthetic and environmental concerns were ignored. Ugly cables were strung between power lines, often lower than the power cables. They were a blight on the urban landscape and presented an obstacle to any future plan to put power lines underground. The cable-layers hacked down trees and put an obstacle against tree growth in the future.
This so-called competitive cable roll-out is one of the most foolish and wasteful infrastructure projects in Australia’s history. It must be put to a stop as quickly as possible. Why are we allowing two cable networks when one will carry far more television channels, telephone and other services than any residence or business could possibly want? Competition is very often a good force, but sometimes it is nonsense. We do not have two Hume Highways competing for traffic. We do not have two defence forces.
A cable network is a natural monopoly. That this was not recognised by the irrational economic rationalists shows the paucity of communications policy in Australia. The network could have been publicly or privately owned, or mixed, provided it was a monopoly. It could then have been governed by some rules that would have ensured some vigorous and healthy competition among those who wanted to use the network for the provision of content.
As it is, Australia is getting the worst of both worlds: competition where it is wasteful and an unhealthy duopoly in content for pay television where two providers channel a similar range of material down their own cables.
Moreover, this thoughtless model has meant a heavy concentration on the prize areas of Sydney and Melbourne, leaving regional Australia without the benefit of cable.
The Coalition has some excuse because it inherited the blueprint. But it is not too late to do something about the unnecessary duplication. That the Coalition was at least willing to deal with the overhead cable issue is a welcome sign. Though that was done only in the face of a backbench revolt. The earlier response by Mr Howard that the environment and aesthetics should be subordinate to the concern about a tiny additional cost to phone calls was a misordering of priorities and Senator Alston’s response that the cables should be painted grey was aesthetically ignorant and insulting. A cable seen against the bright sky will appear black no matter what colour it is painted.
The backbench revolt, largely from wealthy areas of Sydney and Melbourne, is an interesting grey-green phenomenon that may yet temper other dollar-driven policies.