 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / January 2006Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network
Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network operator. Vodafone would buy Optus airtime wholesale and resell it to its customer base, similar to the way Virgin runs its mobile business now. Optus's thoughts turn to Vodafone - Australian IT 13/1/06 http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,17805291%5E15302%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html Would be a coup for Optus, on top of the plans for Crazy Johns to resell airtime as another Optus VMNO when its agreement with Telstra runs out. > Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's > network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > resell airtime as another Optus VMNO when its agreement with Telstra > runs out. Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow it. > > Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's > > network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network > > operator. > Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow it. Yeah, that's an interesting one - it would be the biggest consolidation of the mobile market in Australia, ever. Optus and Vodafone would still have distinct customer bases though - it's not a merger or total business acquisition, it's just the network infrastructure. same more or less as the foxtel optus pay tv agreement. >> > Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's >> > network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it's not a merger or total business acquisition, it's just the network > infrastructure. there would be far too much network duplication, therfore singtel buying assets which are redundant would only make sense if it was to remove a competitor from the marketplace, in order to be able to increase prices. : same more or less as the foxtel optus pay tv agreement. : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : > it's not a merger or total business acquisition, it's just the network : > infrastructure. Dean Collins" <collins_dean"spam.me.here. <collins_dean"spam.me.here."@hotmail.com> wrote: > same more or less as the foxtel optus pay tv agreement. Nope, nothing like it. That's just content sharing. >>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's >>>> network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network >>>> operator. >>> Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow it. >> Yeah, that's an interesting one - it would be the biggest >> consolidation of the mobile market in Australia, ever. >> Optus and Vodafone would still have distinct customer bases though - >> it's not a merger or total business acquisition, it's just the >> network infrastructure. >>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yeah, that's an interesting one - it would be the biggest > consolidation of the mobile market in Australia, ever. Yeah, and I have the vague recollection that the ACCC has said that they wouldnt allow Telstra or Optarse to buy it. That was before 3 tho, so it may not be quite that simple now. And that was Fels too, not the current top ACCC monkey. > Optus and Vodafone would still have distinct customer > bases though - it's not a merger or total business > acquisition, it's just the network infrastructure. Sure. >>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Sure. What if a separate business was created to combine and manage the infrastructure? Optus and Voda would be billed for using it, and they would also be the shareholders. I've been trying to float that idea for *weeks*, albeit my idea involved combining the infrastructure of all the networks. >>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> bases though - it's not a merger or total business >>> acquisition, it's just the network infrastructure. >> Sure. > What if a separate business was created to combine and manage the > infrastructure? The ACCC wont buy such an obvious end run if they wont allow Optarse to buy Vodafone. > Optus and Voda would be billed for using it, and they would also be the > shareholders. Irrelevant to what the ACCC cares about, a reduction in competition when one of the majors lunches on one of the small number of competitors. > I've been trying to float that idea for *weeks*, albeit my idea involved > combining the infrastructure of all the networks. No thanks. What works is real competition. >>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > No thanks. What works is real competition. You're right, but it pains me to think of the vast (and mainly unnessary, technically) duplication of infrastructure. We're paying for all that crap. It's a vicious circle comparing competition vs cost base etc etc. >You're right, but it pains me to think of the vast (and mainly unnessary, >technically) duplication of infrastructure. We're paying for all that crap. Yeah! A hobby-horse of mine.....imagine the coverage if , even, half of the existing towers were spread across the country with access by all customers. Like the copper wire system. We were lucky there wasn't the same "competition" mystique when the PMG was doing its thing back when. If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. > >You're right, but it pains me to think of the vast (and mainly unnessary, > >technically) duplication of infrastructure. We're paying for all that crap. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > customers. > Like the copper wire system. And we have the sh.t now of having to work out who gets to use it, who is "entitled" to it, even though they never paid a cent to it . . . No thanks > We were lucky there wasn't the same "competition" mystique when the > PMG was doing its thing back when. > If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't > be in it. >> Yeah! >> A hobby-horse of mine.....imagine the coverage if , even, half of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >No thanks Why would there be a problem with user enttlement? Sharing would have to be paid for....a little like roaming agreements or reselling. If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. >>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > unnessary, technically) duplication of infrastructure. We're paying > for all that crap. We are with banks, insurance companys, airlines, supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The short story is that no monopoly ever delivers anything like as well as real competition, even tho competition isnt theoretically as efficient. In practice no monopoly is ever efficient either, essentially because there is no incentive to be efficient. > It's a vicious circle comparing competition vs cost base etc etc. No its not. Anyone with a clue realises that no monopoly with the supply of services ever works properly. >>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > theoretically as efficient. In practice no monopoly is ever efficient > either, essentially because there is no incentive to be efficient. But the existing model could be more efficient without unnecessary triplication of network infrastructure in barely or unprofitable areas. i.e. a subset of the operators provides coverage in such areas, and charges the remaining operators through roaming agreements. These charges are balanced through a different subset of operators providing coverage in another low density area. Ultimately you might end up getting better overall coverage that way. >>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >> theoretically as efficient. In practice no monopoly is ever efficient >> either, essentially because there is no incentive to be efficient. > But the existing model could be more efficient without unnecessary > triplication of network infrastructure in barely or unprofitable areas. You can say the same thing about banks, insurance companys, airlines, supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The short story is that no monopoly ever delivers anything like as well as real competition, even tho competition isnt theoretically as efficient. In practice no monopoly is ever efficient either, essentially because there is no incentive to be efficient. > i.e. a subset of the operators provides coverage in such areas, and charges > the remaining operators through roaming agreements. No thanks. > These charges are balanced through a different subset of > operators providing coverage in another low density area. > Ultimately you might end up getting better overall coverage that way. And a monopoly. No thanks. >>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > And a monopoly. No thanks. Seems to work quite well elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >> >> And a monopoly. No thanks. > Seems to work quite well elsewhere. No it doesnt, not anywhere at all. >>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > No it doesnt, not anywhere at all. USA is one obvious place that comes to mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >> >> No it doesnt, not anywhere at all. > USA is one obvious place that comes to mind. There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in the US. Or anything like what was being proposed either. AND their mobile phone system is MUCH worse than ours anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > AND their mobile phone system is MUCH worse than ours anyway. 'Fraid not. Never said there was a monopoly in the US either - far from it. And Brazil is another example. > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make Vodafone a virtual mobile network operator. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that's an interesting one - it would be the biggest >>>>>>>>>>>>> consolidation of the mobile market in Australia, ever. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, and I have the vague recollection that the ACCC has >>>>>>>>>>>> said that they wouldnt allow Telstra or Optarse to buy it. >>>>>>>>>>>> That was before 3 tho, so it may not be quite that simple now. And >>>>>>>>>>>> that was Fels too, not the current top ACCC monkey. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Optus and Vodafone would still have distinct customer >>>>>>>>>>>>> bases though - it's not a merger or total business >>>>>>>>>>>>> acquisition, it's just the network infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. >>>>>>>>>>> What if a separate business was created to combine and manage the >>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure? >>>>>>>>>> The ACCC wont buy such an obvious end run >>>>>>>>>> if they wont allow Optarse to buy Vodafone. >>>>>>>>>>> Optus and Voda would be billed for using it, and they would also be >>>>>>>>>>> the shareholders. >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what the ACCC cares about, a reduction in competition >>>>>>>>>> when one of the majors lunches on one of the small number of >>>>>>>>>> competitors. >>>>>>>>>>> I've been trying to float that idea for *weeks*, albeit my >>>>>>>>>>> idea involved combining the infrastructure of all the networks. >>>>>>>>>> No thanks. What works is real competition. >>>>>>>>> You're right, but it pains me to think of the vast (and mainly >>>>>>>>> unnessary, technically) duplication of infrastructure. We're paying >>>>>>>>> for all that crap. >>>>>>>> We are with banks, insurance companys, airlines, supermarkets, >>>>>>>> etc etc etc too. The short story is that no monopoly ever >>>>>>>> delivers anything like as well as real competition, even tho >>>>>>>> competition isnt theoretically as efficient. In practice no >>>>>>>> monopoly is ever efficient either, essentially because there is >>>>>>>> no incentive to be efficient. >>>>>>> But the existing model could be more efficient without unnecessary >>>>>>> triplication of network infrastructure in barely or unprofitable areas. >>>>>> You can say the same thing about banks, insurance companys, >>>>>> airlines, supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The short story is that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>> i.e. a subset of the operators provides coverage in such areas, >>>>>>> and charges the remaining operators through roaming agreements. >>>>>> No thanks. >>>>>>> These charges are balanced through a different subset of >>>>>>> operators providing coverage in another low density area. >>>>>>> Ultimately you might end up getting better overall coverage that way. >>>>>> And a monopoly. No thanks. >>>>> Seems to work quite well elsewhere. >>>> No it doesnt, not anywhere at all. >>> USA is one obvious place that comes to mind. >> There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in the US. >> Or anything like what was being proposed either. >> AND their mobile phone system is MUCH worse than ours anyway. > 'Fraid not. Fraid so. > Never said there was a monopoly in the US either - far from it. Pity it aint anything like 'a separate business created to combine and manage the infrastructure' either. > And Brazil is another example. A f.cked one compared with ours. >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > Pity it aint anything like 'a separate business created > to combine and manage the infrastructure' either. When did I ever say that? >> And Brazil is another example. > > A f.cked one compared with ours. How so? *Way* better coverage (all the more impressive considering GSM1800 is used in most states by most operators), nationwide EDGE & much cheaper pricing. > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make Vodafone a virtual mobile network operator. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that's an interesting one - it would be the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biggest consolidation of the mobile market in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia, ever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, and I have the vague recollection that the ACCC has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that they wouldnt allow Telstra or Optarse to buy it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was before 3 tho, so it may not be quite that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple now. And that was Fels too, not the current top >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCC monkey. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optus and Vodafone would still have distinct customer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bases though - it's not a merger or total business >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acquisition, it's just the network infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> What if a separate business was created to combine and manage the >>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure? >>>>>>>>>>>> The ACCC wont buy such an obvious end run >>>>>>>>>>>> if they wont allow Optarse to buy Vodafone. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Optus and Voda would be billed for using it, and they >>>>>>>>>>>>> would also be the shareholders. >>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what the ACCC cares about, a reduction in >>>>>>>>>>>> competition when one of the majors lunches on one of the >>>>>>>>>>>> small number of competitors. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been trying to float that idea for *weeks*, albeit my >>>>>>>>>>>>> idea involved combining the infrastructure of all the networks. >>>>>>>>>>>> No thanks. What works is real competition. >>>>>>>>>>> You're right, but it pains me to think of the vast (and >>>>>>>>>>> mainly unnessary, technically) duplication of >>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. We're paying for all that crap. >>>>>>>>>> We are with banks, insurance companys, airlines, >>>>>>>>>> supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The short story is that no >>>>>>>>>> monopoly ever delivers anything like as well as real >>>>>>>>>> competition, even tho competition isnt theoretically as >>>>>>>>>> efficient. In practice no monopoly is ever efficient either, >>>>>>>>>> essentially because there is no incentive to be efficient. >>>>>>>>> But the existing model could be more efficient without >>>>>>>>> unnecessary triplication of network infrastructure in barely >>>>>>>>> or unprofitable areas. >>>>>>>> You can say the same thing about banks, insurance companys, >>>>>>>> airlines, supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The short story is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>>>>>>> areas, and charges the remaining operators through roaming >>>>>>>>> agreements. >>>>>>>> No thanks. >>>>>>>>> These charges are balanced through a different subset of >>>>>>>>> operators providing coverage in another low density area. >>>>>>>>> Ultimately you might end up getting better overall coverage >>>>>>>>> that way. >>>>>>>> And a monopoly. No thanks. >>>>>>> Seems to work quite well elsewhere. >>>>>> No it doesnt, not anywhere at all. >>>>> USA is one obvious place that comes to mind. >>>> There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in the US. >>>> Or anything like what was being proposed either. >>>> AND their mobile phone system is MUCH worse than ours anyway. >>> 'Fraid not. >> Fraid so. >>> Never said there was a monopoly in the US either - far from it. >> Pity it aint anything like 'a separate business created >> to combine and manage the infrastructure' either. > When did I ever say that? So what were you referring to with your 'USA is one obvious place that comes to mind' and 'seems to work quite well elsewhere' if it wasnt that which was actually being discussed, or a monopoly ? >>> And Brazil is another example. >> A f.cked one compared with ours. > How so? *Way* better coverage Pig ignorant lie. > (all the more impressive considering GSM1800 is used in most states by most > operators), nationwide EDGE & much cheaper pricing. Pig ignorant lie on that last too. >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > that comes to mind' and 'seems to work quite well elsewhere' > if it wasnt that which was actually being discussed, or a monopoly ? I was saying the USA is one obvious place where the original theory (i.e. re: national roaming agreements) I discussed works in practice. Not too difficult. And they also have better pricing, too. >>>> And Brazil is another example. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pig ignorant lie. Like you would know. Unless you've been to Brazil, I would say *you* are the pig-ignorant one. >> (all the more impressive considering GSM1800 is used in most states by >> most operators), nationwide EDGE & much cheaper pricing. > > Pig ignorant lie on that last too. Like you would know. >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] >> >>> When did I ever say that? >> So what were you referring to with your 'USA is one obvious place >> that comes to mind' and 'seems to work quite well elsewhere' >> if it wasnt that which was actually being discussed, or a monopoly ? > I was saying the USA is one obvious place where the original theory > (i.e. re: national roaming agreements) I discussed works in practice. They dont have national roaming agreements across all mobile networks. > Not too difficult. Pity they dont have that. > And they also have better pricing, too. Wrong again. >>>>> And Brazil is another example. >>>> A f.cked one compared with ours. >>> How so? *Way* better coverage >> Pig ignorant lie. > Like you would know. Unless you've been to Brazil, I would say *you* are the > pig-ignorant one. That aint the only way to work stuff like that out. >>> (all the more impressive considering GSM1800 is used in most states >>> by most operators), nationwide EDGE & much cheaper pricing. >> Pig ignorant lie on that last too. > Like you would know. Like you would. You clearly dont with the US and Brazil. >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > > Like you would. You clearly dont with the US and Brazil. Care to enlighten me then? Or will you spill the usual "you made the claim" defence? >>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] >> >> Like you would. You clearly dont with the US and Brazil. > Care to enlighten me then? YOU made those stupid pig ignorant claims. YOU get to do the substantiation of those stupid pig ignorant claims. THATS how it works. There is NO universal national roaming on US mobile networks. While say Tracfone does roam, its much more expensive per year for short calls than our sims that have no flagfall and a per second charge like say the Optarse Usage Only plan etc. >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 162 lines] > year for short calls than our sims that have no flagfall and a > per second charge like say the Optarse Usage Only plan etc. *Yawn* >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] >> year for short calls than our sims that have no flagfall and a >> per second charge like say the Optarse Usage Only plan etc. > *Yawn* Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 169 lines] > > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. *Yawn* >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 171 lines] >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > *Yawn* Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>looking to buy Vodafone's network [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] > > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. When you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, dig up, stupid! :) Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate Albinarse <albinarse@spam-this.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking to buy Vodafone's network [quoted text clipped - 171 lines] >> >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > When you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, dig up, stupid! :) Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > Some gutless fuckwit desperately > cowering behind the entirely appropriate [quoted text clipped - 180 lines] > > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. Rod, Rod, Rod... you really need to come up with some more original content again mate! :) Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate Albinarse <albinarse@spam-this.com> wrote: >> Albinarse <albinarse@spam-this.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 179 lines] >> >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > Rod, Rod, Rod... you really need to come up with some more original content > again mate! :) You never ever qualify for anything like that. > Some gutless fuckwit desperately > cowering behind the entirely appropriate [quoted text clipped - 188 lines] > > You never ever qualify for anything like that. But even people as pathetic as me require a change every now and again! :) Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate Albinarse <albinarse@spam-this.com> wrote: >> Albinarse <albinarse@spam-this.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 188 lines] >> >> You never ever qualify for anything like that. > But even people as pathetic as me require a change every now and again! :) You still dont qualify. > > A f.cked one compared with ours. > How so? *Way* better coverage (all the more impressive considering GSM1800 > is used in most states by most operators), nationwide EDGE & much cheaper > pricing. The coverage is sh.t and the pricing is sh.t >> > A f.cked one compared with ours. >> How so? *Way* better coverage (all the more impressive considering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The coverage is sh.t and the pricing is sh.t If you're using GSM World maps I hope you know that aside from a handful of first world countries, they are mostly way out of date, especially true for Latin America. If you like I can send you a coverage map of TIM GSM from a brochure I picked up in São Paulo. As for the pricing, where are you getting this information from? Off the top of my head I was paying R$0,05 for an SMS message, which is cheap even by standards in that economy. > > There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in the US. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 'Fraid not. Never said there was a monopoly in the US either - far from it. > And Brazil is another example. Rods right on this one, and your wrong. Simple >> > There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in the US. >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rods right on this one, and your wrong. Simple I love your clarification posts. I don't know what I'd do without you. > I love your clarification posts. > > I don't know what I'd do without you. lol I guess a lot of people are in the same boat here. But killfile (or filter) out a few posters and the noise goes down dramatically ... > >>> You can say the same thing about banks, insurance companys, airlines, > >>> supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The short story is that no monopoly [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > No it doesnt, not anywhere at all. > USA is one obvious place that comes to mind. Crapshit. The USA is a mishmash of crap sh.t region networks, all held together with confusing, crappy, incompatible roaming agreements on different frequencies and networks. Thats an example of TOO much competition. > >>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking > >>>>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > And a monopoly. No thanks. > Seems to work quite well elsewhere. Since when, and where? >>>>>Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > infrastructure? Optus and Voda would be billed for using it, and they would > also be the shareholders. Isn't that what Telstra and Hutch have done with 3's network? http://www.three.com.au/documents/Networksharemediarelease_700AD.pdf -Nick >>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I've been trying to float that idea for *weeks*, albeit my idea involved > combining the infrastructure of all the networks. Annoying me with SMSs about this for *weeks* does not constitute "floating the idea". >>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Annoying me with SMSs about this for *weeks* does not constitute "floating > the idea". I thought you were a rather influential figure in aus.comms.mobile. Are you not?? > >>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking > >>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I thought you were a rather influential figure in aus.comms.mobile. Are you > not?? No, he's not >>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking >>>>>>>> to buy Vodafone's network infrastructure and [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > No, he's not Yes I am, actually. Perhaps not supremely influential, but rather influential nonetheless. > No, he's not And you're not an influential figure either. Unless giving advice on the best fellatio techniques for Telstra senior management somehow makes you "influential" > > No, he's not > > And you're not an influential figure either. Unless giving advice on the > best fellatio techniques for Telstra senior management somehow makes you > "influential" I think you protest too much Rod Speed Wrote: > Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow it. That could well be the case, Another option could be for Vodafone to shut down its network in rural area and just roam on optus in those area's.  SignatureTA 2000 > Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's > network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Optus's thoughts turn to Vodafone - Australian IT 13/1/06 http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,17805291%5E15302%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html FYI, Crikey's analysis of a few days ago is now online http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/01/13-1622-8969.html >> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's >> network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >FYI, Crikey's analysis of a few days ago is now online >http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/01/13-1622-8969.html I have two comments. Why doesn't Voda buy them out? They are a bigger company globally. I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in reliability. > Giles <call125111@email.com> wrote >>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's >>> network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network >>> operator. Vodafone would buy Optus airtime wholesale and resell it >>> to its customer base, similar to the way Virgin runs its mobile business >>> now. >>> Optus's thoughts turn to Vodafone - Australian IT 13/1/06 >>> http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,17805291%5E15302%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html >> FYI, Crikey's analysis of a few days ago is now online >> http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/01/13-1622-8969.html > I have two comments. How dare you ? > Why doesn't Voda buy them out? Its unlikely that Singtel would be interested in selling, the mobile operation is the only area thats profitable. > They are a bigger company globally. Sure. > I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in Aus, > better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in reliability. There bases are noticeably worse performance wise outside the capital citys except with the highway tender. > I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in > Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in > reliability. Just curious, how are you measuring "best engineered"? >> I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in >> Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in >> reliability. > >Just curious, how are you measuring "best engineered"? Consistently better coverage. I don't mean in the country I am talking about nooks and crannies at least some of the big cities, high spots (most GSM networks seem to fail), fewer issues technically and able to access data people who know what they are talking about. Consistently have to use Optus and Telstra as well, but Voda has lower dropout rate and coverage that I can rely on, in the coverage areas. Have to share, got a new line put in a city building, was talking to the Telstra dude in the basement as he was punching down my connection, he couldn't call out on his Telstra mobile, had to lend him my Voda. He just chuckled. This is NOT an isolated incident. This is 75 metres from a capital city GPO, at ground level. > >> I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in > >> Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Consistently better coverage. I don't mean in the country I am talking Better coverage, what drugs are you on? I've used Telstra GSM and CDMA, Optus GSM, Voda GSM, dabbled a little with "3" and orange CDMA. Out of the first four, Voda have consistently the worst coverage. Not enough data on the last two to comment > (most GSM networks seem to fail), fewer issues technically and able to fewer customers to serve > Consistently have to use Optus and Telstra as well, but Voda has lower > dropout rate and coverage that I can rely on, in the coverage areas. Does 0.7% dropout rate REALLY matter versus 0.8%? Dropout rates on all the GSM nets are tiny enough not to matter > Have to share, got a new line put in a city building, was talking to > the Telstra dude in the basement as he was punching down my > connection, he couldn't call out on his Telstra mobile, had to lend > him my Voda. He just chuckled. This is NOT an isolated incident. This > is 75 metres from a capital city GPO, at ground level. Inbuilding coverage is not guaranteed on any network. And I could name sites were Voda GSM doesnt work and Telstra GSM does. > >> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's > >> network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> > >> Optus's thoughts turn to Vodafone - Australian IT 13/1/06 http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,17805291%5E15302%5E%5Enbv%5E ,00.html > >FYI, Crikey's analysis of a few days ago is now online > >http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/01/13-1622-8969.html > > I have two comments. > > Why doesn't Voda buy them out? They are a bigger company globally. They dont have the money for it. They are barely profitable in Aus, one year of profit after 13 years of operation? > I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in > Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in > reliability. A fancy claim to make. So why do they have so few customers? >> >> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's >> >> network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >They dont have the money for it. They are barely profitable in Aus, one year >of profit after 13 years of operation? Voda global is 3-4 times bigger capitalisation than Telstra. If they wanted to, they could. >> I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in >> Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in >> reliability. > >A fancy claim to make. So why do they have so few customers? Dec 04 Additions, Dec 05 Additions, Dec 05 Market Share, Dec 05 Revenue share Telstra 318,000 168,000 44.40% 43.00% Optus 283,000 91,000 32.00% 33.00% Vodafone 156,000 165,000 18.00% 15% Hutchison 108,000 91,000 5.70% 9% Really? > >> >FYI, Crikey's analysis of a few days ago is now online > >> >http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/01/13-1622-8969.html [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Voda global is 3-4 times bigger capitalisation than Telstra. If they > wanted to, they could. They could spend the money, but they CANT, because they cant even make profit on their basic operations. > >> I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in > >> Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Really? Exactly. Hutch has only been around a few years firstly with CDMA and then 3G, so I accept their 9% market share. TELSTRA, VODA, and OPTUS HAVE BEEN IN GSM FOR 11-12 YEARS EACH. Therefore, with full GSM competition, 15% market share after 11 years is UNACCEPTABLE. Simple facts, 100%/3 = 33%. Thats the average benchmark. Optus just meets the benchmark. Telstra exceeds it well. Vodafone is a failure in Australia. The additions are irrelevant as they are, as Voda adds mainly prepaid, low ARPU, and half dont ever recharge. Why do you think they gave away 600 000 prepaid SIMs in the newspaper? Just to bump up their SIOs |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.