This means that Telstra is supposed to provide farmers with the same access to its telephony network, regardless of cost, as it supplies to urban residents. What this amounts to is a hidden communications tax levied on Australian cities and towns by the farming lobby, to be collected and distributed by Telstra. If the likes of Katter were honest they would not only admit this they would call for it to be replaced with a direct subsidy. Let city folks find out how much they are being made to transfer to farmers. Yet this would be the most honest and efficient method of subsidising farmers' access to the net.
People choose to live in the country and by doing so they incur certain costs.
If, for instance, the benefits of farming do not exceed the costs then that is the farmer's problem. He has no moral right to expect others to subsidise his way of life any more than city people have a right to expect the farmer to subsidise their urban life-style. As we can see, a direct subsidy would put Katter's fears to rest. What the likes of Katter really fear, I suspect, is that the size of the subsidy would cause a tax revolt. In any case, why would a free market deny his constituents access to telecommunications.