The following year, a report by the local branch of the international accoounting firm KPMG pointed out the likely consequences of failing to keep pace with more enlightened countries: "... Australia could be in serious trouble. Lower productivity, a massive imbalance of intellectual property trade with the rest of the world, loss of digital content creators (talent emigration), loss of remote higher education to foreign institutions; the list could be endless.Such a scenario would have very real negative consequences for the economy."

Its report, "Australia's Broadband Future - Leaders or Laggards?", was yet another call to action for the Howard Government.

"Australia is coming from a position that is way back in the pack when viewed globally. Furthermore, many of the nations ahead of it, certainly the leaders, have prioritised broadband and set specific targets against multiple criteria that they measure and report on frequently. They are driving so hard that Australia is barely keeping pace even now." It informed the Government [as if it already didn't know] that "the aim must be to become as big a net exporter of [digital] entertainment and information as we can".

It speculated on a novel solution: using some of the money Australians pay for the provision of infrastructure to actually provide infrastructure, rather than building surpluses for the government to spend on getting itself re-elected: "Under almost any scenario that seeks to accelerate the national, next-generation infrastructure, the government may be required to provide some of the investment at levels significantly ahead of those made to date."

The Australian Telecommunications Users Group pointed out around the same time that the entry-level retail broadband plan in Canada was 10 per cent cheaper than that available in Australia, yet it offered six times the download speed, and 30 times the free monthly download capacity of the local product.

Two years later, on Saturday, the Financial Review [PAY WALL ] runs a front page story calling our so-called broadband offerings "fraudband", and reports that "connections costng $30 a month in Australia "are at least one quarter the speed of similar offerings in countries like Canada and the UK". It points out that this is hurting our economic well-being.

It'sa good story, but it isn't a new story. And perhaps a better story would be why it isn't a new story ... to analyse why, after years of complaints and warnings, the Howard Government's broadband policy is still little more than a collection of meaningless slogans. Why the Opposition has done such a dismal job at applying pressure through effective alternative policies. And why Australian commerce and industry hasn't been screaming for action. The silence has been positively eery.

There's a better story, too, in detailing the increasing number of cases where Australian companies are already being forced to move operations overseas, because Telstra still insists on hitting them with crippling volume-based charges, which makes it impossible for them to compete internationally.

It is now too late for Australia to avoid some of the consequences of this massive failure in telecommunications policy. Unless there is immediate action, we will cop the full disaster. Meanwhile, we've got an American at the head of the chief instrument of our broadband failure, who seems intent on miring the nation in this costly, anti-competitive mess. And the Government is still dissembling.

Ironically, it seems though, that the American Government may be far more effective at stopping the Telstra rip-off than our own Government. They've just slammed the anti-competitive implications of the plan to boost Tlestra profits and stuff the competition, by imposing a nationally-averaged ULL fee.