Readers other than Australians may not be aware that Sol Trujillo one-time CEO of US West and formerly an executive with Orange Europe. has recently been appointed as CEO of Telstra, Australia's largest telecommunications provider and former monopoly provider.
One of the major issues concerning the full privatisation of Telstra (currently 51% government owned) is whether and how retail and wholesale functions of Telstra should be separated to prevent unfair competition from Telstra.
In an interview published in the /Sunday Telegraph/ (an Australian Murdoch tabloid) on June 19, 2005, by Jim Dickens, Trujillo is quoted as saying, referring to "similar" moves overseas:
"It didn't work well, didn't work well for the customer, didn't work well for the shareowners and ultimately it didn't work well for the marketplace."
Of course, I expect him to say that. I'm prepared to accept that he may be largely correct in regard to share owners of incumbent carriers, but I see little truth that (assuming he is referring to the US) customers and the marketplace aren't better off overall.
I'd be interested to know whether you disagree and whether a true retail/wholesale style separation is a better proposition than what has occurred in the US.
With both my consumer hat and share holder hat's on, I'm in favour of maximum separation with the wholesale arm being able to offer any product currently offered by the retail arm and the retail arm being free to choose obtain product from any wholesaler.
However, it's unlikely to come to that: with the government seeking to maximise the price of the offering for the remainder of shares and with a majority in both houses of parliment, it's likely the outcome will be an internal separation only aimed at providing transparent pricing.