My interview with Alan Jones

Apparently upon leaving the country I am more of a media magnet. Click here to listen to my interview with Alan Jones on the NBN. He drops the whole 2020 picked thing but then I outrant him. Quite a treat.

12 thoughts on “My interview with Alan Jones”

  1. I realize the NBN is anti-competitive, but surely it’s anti-competitive in the same way as Australia Post’s monopoly on letter delivery? Urban consumers subsidizing rural consumers for the national good.
    Or is the Australia Post monopoly not acceptable under current ACCC guidelines?

    Like

  2. Australia Post is not allowed to limit competition from other carriers such as FedEx. So Australia Post actually complies with competition laws and also, unless you have missed it, is no longer a monopoly in urban areas.

    Like

  3. how do you have a competitive wholesale market?
    mulitple fibre cables. Hello Optus anyone?
    We have NEVER had one.

    On the other hand we will have a far more competitive retail market.

    Like

  4. Incorrect, Australia Post has a legislated monopoly on letters weighing less than 250g, i.e. those sent with a 60c stamp.
    As a result, sending a letter anywhere in Australia costs 60c, which means urban consumers are subsidizing rural ones via the monopoly.
    Having a legislated monopoly they’re probably not accountable to the ACCC, but do you think the AusPost monopoly is a good idea? Or would you prefer a competitive market with 40c stamps and taxpayer-subsidized rural delivery?

    Like

  5. “Incorrect, Australia Post has a legislated monopoly on letters weighing less than 250g…”

    This can’t be correct?

    I’ve had many documents weighing less than 250g couriered via private companies through work and it definitely cost more than 60c each time!?

    Could you point out the specific legislation that states this?

    Like

  7. I must have missed it too – I thought AP had a monopoly over standard letters. I thought that standard letters could only be delivered by competitors at some multiple (>1) of the AP price.

    The AP argument was that it enjoyed economies of scope and scale in sorting, collection and delivery of mail and hence was a natural monopoly.

    Allowing competition would enable cherry picking of urban mail – particularly mass commercial mail – and damage the CSO of keeping everyone in Australia linked.

    Same sort of arguments for NBN.

    Like

  9. ON Aust. Post’s website: “To assist it in carrying out its functions, Australia Post has a legislated monopoly (the reserved service) on the delivery of letters. The APC Act provides for a number of exceptions—for instance, the carriage of letters weighing 250 grams or more, the carriage of letters for more than four times the standard postal rate, the carriage of catalogues or leaflets and the carriage of letters in the course of a document exchange.”

    Like

  10. It takes 2 seconds to look this stuff up, honestly. Yes Post has a monopoly along the lines of what Matt said (section 29 Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989):

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/apca1989337/s29.html

    But there are also many exceptions (section 30)

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/apca1989337/s30.html

    I’m pretty sure the ACCC has found for the last few years that the Post’s competitive business subsidises its monopoly business though.

    Like

  11. Back to Matt. Australia Post as a monopoly is no more acceptable than the NBN as one. And yes I think that we should not cross subsidise rural customers through urban ones and should instead make up losses from universal service through the tax system.

    Like

  12. Any comments, Joshua, on David Havyatt’s response to your ACCC submission?

    Click to access item.phtml


    …being interviewed on Sydney radio by Alan Jones, Professor Gans stated that no submission to the ACCC had said “Gans and Hausman are idiots.” This submission is prepared with the express purpose of rectifying that oversight.

    Like

Comments are closed.