The media commentators seem to have missed the implications of...

The media commentators seem to have missed the implications of the reports section 1.4.2 titled Set prices to drive affordability and take-up, achieving commercial viability over time

Paragraph 5 states:

Given the advantages that fibre has over copper in operating costs, set-up costs and expected churn, this will enable retailers to offer consumers much faster broadband speeds without increasing the prices they charge end users. Over time, end users will attribute greater value to fibre capabilities, particularly as rich services continue to become more prevalent. As this happens, NBN Co should be permitted to increase real prices gradually under ACCC supervision to earn a reasonable return on its assets over its lifetimebut must not be permitted to extract monopoly rents.

This makes clear that the initial pricing recommended is not commercial but designed to attract and hook users who can later be milked, with the permission of the Government, through real prices being gradually increased to earn a reasonable return on NBNs assets.

The implication being that a reasonable return on asset value would not be achieved at the initial competitive prices being suggested could it be that these lower prices are simply designed to push Telstra and other network competitors out of the market!

Am I wrong in thinking that the report is recommending that NBN act in an anti-competitive manner with the connivance of the Government and the ACCC and to then takes advantage of its monopoly status to extract higher revenue sufficient to make the project commercially viable ?