Back in 2019, I wrote about what I called “Peak Telecom”—the moment where the traditional telecoms industry hit a ceiling in growth and relevance. The internet had commoditised bandwidth, and telecoms were left managing an expensive infrastructure business, while others—Google, Amazon, Meta—captured the digital value. Five years later, new evidence shows how deeply this shift has permeated not just the industry, but consumer expectations too.
A newly released ShipStation Delivery Benchmark Report reveals that four in five Australians now prioritise affordability over speed and sustainability when shopping online. Only 17% say delivery speed matters most. Meanwhile, 40% rate delivery cost as the key decision factor, and a significant 63% would abandon a purchase if shipping fees are too high. This is not just about e-commerce. It reflects a broader mindset—people want reliable, cost-effective services, not shiny technological upgrades they can’t afford or don’t need.
The promise of 5G—still not delivered
This cost-conscious consumer sentiment runs directly counter to how 5G is being marketed in Australia. While telcos promote speed, low latency, and futuristic features, the lived experience—especially in regional Australia—is starkly different. Despite billions in public funding, most of the country still struggles to get consistent, fit-for-purpose service. As one experienced industry colleague told me recently, even 5G deployments in regional areas often fail to deliver anything that couldn’t already be achieved with properly provisioned 4G.
The real issue isn’t technology—it’s capacity, deployment models, and a lack of coherent policy. His own data from over a thousand speed tests in regional WA reveal how mobile networks are consistently under-provisioned, despite enormous taxpayer subsidies. The result? Mobile towers that technically have “coverage” but cannot support basic functionality like phone calls, EFTPOS transactions, or simple web browsing in busy rural towns.
Affordability: the real national priority
Back in 2005 when I advised the then government on the NBN, all involved conceived that this was a nation-building initiative—digital infrastructure for all, not a commercial venture. But poor strategic decisions, like the CVC/AVC charging model, turned it into a costly, underutilised asset. Vast capacity lies idle because the wholesale price is too high, making services unaffordable for end users.
Professor Rod Tucker has long warned of this structural failure. He called the CVC model “a disincentive to use the network,” highlighting that while the NBN is technically capable of world-class performance, it was artificially throttled by a pricing regime designed more for revenue recovery than utility.
Now, we risk repeating the same mistake with 5G. Governments are again funnelling money into carrier-driven rollouts, often with little transparency or accountability, and with minimal evidence of improved outcomes. As the ShipStation report makes clear, price matters most to consumers—not ultra-fast services that come with a premium. This disconnect is just as real in telecommunications as it is in retail.
Missed opportunities and market failures
John de Ridder recently highlighted a major problem: mobile coverage is no longer a competitive differentiator, yet the market structure and funding model assume it still is. Telstra dominates regional deployments because others can’t make the economics work. However, de Ridder makes a compelling case for a neutral host model, where carriers share infrastructure—particularly in regional and remote areas—to maximise coverage and reduce costs.
Such models are working in New Zealand and elsewhere, yet Australia continues to resist mandating them. Why? Commercial self-interest and regulatory inertia. Meanwhile, Australians in the bush are left without adequate service, despite years of Mobile Black Spot grants and regional funding.
Professor Mark Gregory adds that part of the problem is our failure to collect and publish meaningful performance data. In The Guardian, he stated, “We can’t improve mobile connectivity in the bush unless we start collecting more data.” Without reliable benchmarks for quality and service availability, billions in subsidies are spent without real accountability or progress.
When faster isn’t smarter
One overlooked challenge in all this is energy use. 5G consumes up to 200% more power than 4G in some deployments. In rural areas, this raises major questions about energy resilience, battery backup, and operating costs. As my colleague explains, many towers still rely on inadequate backup systems that fail during blackouts, and telcos are reluctant to invest in generator support. These are not edge-case scenarios—they’re routine occurrences in much of the country.
Even when 5G is deployed, latency benefits are lost if content is hosted far away in capital city data centres. Without local content caching, users in regional Australia won’t experience real-world latency improvements. Distance to data still matters—whether via fibre, tower, or satellite.
Resetting policy priorities
The fundamental issue is that both NBN and mobile networks are being judged by the wrong metrics—speed, coverage, and advertising gloss—instead of service quality, reliability, and fitness for purpose. And while 5G is often touted as “next-gen”, many of its benefits are still theoretical in regional contexts. Even 6G is now being floated—yet basic voice and data service is still unreliable for millions of Australians.
Professor William Webb, in line with this critique, has argued that the industry’s obsession with speed tiers and marketing-led performance categories is fundamentally flawed. He likens the tiered system to a “false economy” that creates artificial scarcity in what is essentially a near-zero marginal cost environment—particularly over fibre networks. His position reinforces the need to return to a single, affordable access model that prioritises universal usability over arbitrary performance brackets.
Governments must refocus on what matters: making infrastructure affordable, functional, and reliable. The public has no appetite for speed at any cost. Whether it’s streaming a movie or shopping online, Australians want value and consistency. This doesn’t mean innovation should stop—it means innovation must meet real demand, not just vendor hype.
Conclusion: it’s time to serve the real Australia
As I argued in 2019, the telco industry has hit its ceiling—not because of a lack of innovation, but because it has failed to evolve its business model. 5G, like the NBN, will not succeed if it’s too expensive, too unreliable, and too focused on metro-centric narratives.
The ShipStation report makes it clear: value beats speed. Based on the above ‘reliability’ – especial in regional areas – needs to be added to that. The same holds true in broadband, poor reliability in some areas has become a key reason why people are converting to FTTP. People want FTTP for improved reliability – they get increased speed as a bonus. If governments are serious about connectivity, they must start aligning policy with real consumer needs—especially outside the big cities. Otherwise, we’ll continue funding networks that underperform, while the digital divide only grows wider.
With thanks to contributions from Professor Mark Gregory, John de Ridder, Professor Rod Tucker, Professor Webb, and expert industry colleagues who prefer to remain unnamed.
Paul Budde