What's best for rural and regional Australians in the broadband and telecommunications debate has been the political line played enough times to sound like a worn-out record.
What's starting to give country people a headache, though, is the poor understanding the general public, and to an extent many politicians, have for what actually is the best type of service for the bush.
The Federal Government will tell you it's for the benefit of rural and regional Australians, not political mileage or a swipe at Telstra, that the recent broadband tender was awarded to OPEL.
It will provide fast-speed wireless broadband to 99pc of the population.
What most people, who have the luxury of a pretty fast internet speed anyway, don't understand is that there is a monstrous chunk of Australia – at a guess almost 80pc of the land mass – not covered by this plan.
Only 1pc of the population may live in this area – but they make a living from it, manage it and protect it for the rest of us with services that are not up to scratch anyway - and for them there's little to no improvement under the plan.
If the Government wants to talk seriously about telemedicine in remote Aboriginal communities, and imagine outback classrooms with the latest video links to teachers in the city, it's got some work to do.
The political football this week spread to the game between Federal candidates in the NSW seat of Calare, who tried to score a few points on the CDMA wireless local loop link being phased out to make way for the Next G link, which provide fixed home phone services to the most remote rural families.
Sadly, both candidates seemed to miss the point about universal service obligations and customer service guarantees before being pulled up by their constituents.
A guarantee for a basic, reliable phone service seemed to get lost in the back and forth of press releases.
The Nationals are on the right track in demanding the $400 million generated by the perpetual fund for communications is spent on the enormous 1pc region of Australia.
Let's hope they can convince their Coalition colleagues to start filling in some of the gaps in a real attempt to service the needs of the most remote outback families and communities.
What do you think?