 |
 | 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 / June 2007G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
Legal battleground The G9 proposal relies on the Government confiscating Telstra's copper network, and then forcing Telstra to pay G9 to connect to it. This ACCC sponsored confiscation of assets on such a scale will inevitably get bogged down in constitutional litigation for several years including multi-billion dollar claims for compensation by Telstra on behalf of its 1.6 million shareholders. Shareholders who had bought shares in T3 will also bring multi-billion dollar class actions against the Government in relation to the assurances and representations in the T3 prospectus to the effect that the telecommunications regulatory regime is considered settled and appropriate by the Government. Customers who had chosen Telstra as their network provider are likely to bring significant compensation claims against G9 and the Government in relation to the inevitable service disruptions. G9's proposal also relies on the Government agreeing to provide it with a legislated monopoly for 20 years - this is a gross distortion of the National Competition Policy which successive Commonwealth Governments have supported and pursued for over 15 years. This Government sponsored confiscation of private assets would also significantly alter the international investment community's perception of "sovereign risk" with investments in Australia. Such confiscation would put Australia into the same risk category as quasi-dictatorships around the world and would result in the diversion of significant offshore investment away from Australia. This will detrimentally affect the national economy, Australian business and all Australians. The Chairman of the ACCC effectively becomes a shadow director - who resolves disputes between the network owners and the manager, decides how to adjust prices, etc if an "Unanticipated Event" occurs. The ACCC also decides concepts like what is "Commercially Prudent". Clearly this is a conflict of interest, and unprecedented interference by regulators. The main players in G9 including SingTel Optus, Primus and financier Investec are all foreign owned and controlled entities who collectively will end up with majority ownership and control of Telstra's network. This would breach current effective foreign ownership limits on such Australian assets and, given the controlling interest of the Singapore Government in SingTel Optus, would also pose serious national security concerns for Australia. G9 would also involve complex legal joint venture structures between an unmanageable number of parties. Historically, legal structures with this number of parties either collapse under the weight of infighting or stagnate in perpetual indecision. Financially fails to add up G9's costings are flawed and their prices are simply unbelievable. Maintenance of the copper network is clearly costed far too low at $50m per year. How do the G9 plan to refresh and upgrade the network? No "National asset" G9 propose a "20 year life of investment" - in 20 years time we would still be stuck with ADSL2+ speeds of only 12Mbps to 20Mbps. We project speeds required in 20 years time will be at least five times that: 100Mbps to 1Gbps per household. G9's proposal demands a 20 year statutory monopoly to prevent other carriers from building competing broadband networks, so there's no encouragement for innovation, competition, or new investment. Other countries are already deploying fibre networks with speeds of up to 100Mbps. G9's proposal would relegate Australia to a 20Mbps cul-de sac, and Australia will be left behind as overseas competitors work even smarter and faster. G9's proposal spells disaster for rural Australians. Telstra's metropolitan lines currently cross-subsidise the rural network by hundreds of millions of dollars each year. This allows regional and rural people to have access to telecommunications services on the same terms as city people, despite actual costs being massively greater. Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply be left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab? The Facts: Telstra’s Myths Exposed Telstra Myth1 The Government is stifling broadband investment. If government and regulators don't allow the next wave of Internet investment, Australia will be left behind ... as our global competitors work even smarter and faster. The Facts Government policy is not preventing Telstra from investing. No government policies prevent Telstra from investing, it has chosen not to invest because it wants the rules to change. The ACCC believes this is so it can earn inflated profits2. Telstra continues to keep secret the price it wants to charge others to use its proposed FTTN network. This is where it can’t reach agreement with the ACCC. Instead, it talks about the speeds the network would deliver and the size of the investment, but nothing about the impact on users. What good is a network that no one can afford to use? Nations that are leading the world in broadband have promoted competition - not subsidised their old telecommunications companies3. Nowhere else in the world has one telecommunications company been allowed to retain and exert so much power in so many markets4. Around the world in the last three years, incumbent telecommunications companies have separated their network businesses from their retail businesses – voluntarily or by regulatory order – to prevent these problems occurring. The trade off for them has been the promise of reduced regulation if the restructuring works. The UK and Sweden are examples of this. The idea that giving Telstra yet further advantages and expecting it to invest in broadband flies in the face of the lessons from the most successful broadband countries5. Competition fosters investment, innovation and better prices in Australia. Many of the innovations in the sector in the last four years were sparked by competitors6. E.g. competitors introduced dial-up Internet, 3G mobile services, capped mobile price plans, high-speed ADSL2+ broadband, and capped broadband plans. Telstra followed, it did not lead innovation. Telstra Myth7 Instead of subsidising foreign telcos at Telstra's expense, government and regulators should give Telstra a fair go so it can invest in the broadband infrastructure needed to provide high-level services. The Facts Foreign companies are not getting a free ride. Competitors pay for access to Telstra’s networks typically at a cost that is high by global standards. The cost of access is calculated using a formula that includes all Telstra legitimate costs – including a contribution toward overheads such as executive salaries. It is the same formula Telstra demands applies in New Zealand, where it needs access to the incumbent’s monopoly network. For example, Telstra recently complained about the ACCC decision that the fair price for the service called the Line Sharing Service (LSS) is $2.50 per month, not the $9 Telstra has been charging. The ACCC found Telstra was charging consumers twice for the same costs, once in their line rental and again as part of the LSS rental8. Line rental has increased by 134 per cent from $11.65 to $27.23 since 20009. Currently Telstra charges its competitors more to rent its lines at wholesale than it sells it to retail consumers. Before competitors even enter the market, their costs are higher than what Telstra is charging consumers i.e. an anti-competitive price squeeze. Other companies invest in Australia’s infrastructure, not just Telstra. Other carriers have invested in the necessary broadband infrastructure to deliver up to 20 megabits per second to customers, and have turned on that equipment. The Group of Nine (G9) carriers have a proposal for a nation wide network upgrade that would allow even more people to access these speeds. Telstra has turned down repeated invitations to join these discussions and exerted its significant power to prevent the investment going ahead. The poor state of broadband is not everyone else’s fault. Customers of other carriers have been able to access speeds of up to 20 megabits per second since 2004. Telstra has begun offering faster speeds in only the past four months. But it still only offers those speeds to Australians living in neighbourhoods where other carriers have already invested in the equipment to deliver true broadband. It continues to neglect other Australians. For example, Internode has delivered wireless broadband in large areas of South Australia when Telstra will only supply a phone line at best and no service at worst. Internode and iiNet pioneered the introduction of ADSL2+ and Telstra has only entered markets where there were competitors present.10 Telstra Myth11 The government and regulators should create a level playing field for all and get rid of the regulations that only apply to Telstra and stifle investment in broadband infrastructure. The Facts Regulation does not pick on Telstra unfairly the same regulations (rules) apply to every company. The Parts of the Trade Practices Act Telstra wants removed apply to all telecommunications carriers. Any organisation that has a bottleneck or monopoly is subject to these laws. Mobile carriers such as Hutchison, Optus and Vodafone, for example, have some mobile access service prices regulated under the same laws. Telstra is the company most affected because it has market power in more markets. This is because it was gifted the national telecommunications network that was built over many decades with the benefit of express protections from competition. Hypocritically, Telstra (via TelstraClear) advocates the need for stronger regulation in New Zealand where it seeks to use Telecom NZ monopoly network elements12. It argues that NZ should use the same method as Australia does to calculate regulated prices and that the regulator should choose the lowest prices possible. Telstra Myth13 The savings of 1.6 million mum and dad Australian shareholders are subject to unreasonable regulatory risk and shareholder returns are being siphoned off to foreign-owned companies by the policies and practices of the Australian regulator. The Facts Telstra shareholders are not unfairly disadvantaged. Telstra remains one of the most profitable telecommunications companies in the developed world.14 It dominates almost every communications market in which it operates in Australia and receives annual subsidies from its competitors, even if those competitors are running at a loss. It has also received significant subsidies since 1997 and continues to demand more profit, more subsidies and less regulatory supervision. The ACCC is not a rogue regulator. The ACCC applies the rules as defined in the Trade Practices Act. Telstra’s own long-time economics consultant, Prof. Henry Ergas, has argued in Canada that this is a model of light handed regulation.15 Telstra has repeatedly been the subject of anti-competitive conduct action by the ACCC because it has been accused of overcharging competitors for access to the monopoly elements of its network. Telstra now wants these powers taken away from the ACCC but refuses to restructure itself to prevent the unfair conduct. Telstra Myth16 Only Telstra has the proven size, vision, leadership, commitment and capability to deliver the next generation of broadband across Australia. It will cost billions of dollars to build Australia’s national broadband infrastructure. Only Telstra can make this investment, just as it has always built the networks Australians rely upon. The Facts Telstra is not the only company that can fix broadband in Australia. Numerous carriers have proven that they can deliver broadband in areas where Telstra could or would not. With regard to national broadband Fixed Fibre to the Node (FTTN) Infrastructure, the G9 has put forward alternative solutions and are not seeking the same dilution of regulation in return. This group has invited Telstra to participate in a joint investment with the rest of the industry -TELSTRA HAS REFUSED. Footnotes [1]Telstra, Now We Are Talking website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/ [2]Graeme Samuel, ACCC Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Economics, 15 February 2007 [3]Jacob Marsden Assoc, Broadband Adoption and Strategies December 2006 [4]ACCC Emerging Markets in the Communication Sector Report, June 2003 [5]Jacob Marsden Assoc, Broadband Adoption and Strategies December 2006 [6]Backgrounder: Competition Fosters Innovation & better prices [7]Telstra, Now We Are Talking website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au [8]ACCC Discussion Papers - TSLRIC [9]Graeme Samuel, ACCC Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Economics, 15 February 2007 [10]Backgrounder: Competition Fosters Innovation & Better Prices [11]Telstra, Now We Are Talking website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/ [12]TelstraClear Submission to the New Zealand Competition Commission May 26, 2005. [13]Telstra, Now We Are Talking website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/ [14]Company data, Goldman Sachs Research Estimates, GSJBW Research Estimates, Bloomberg [15]Henry Ergas & Leonard Waverman, Would Canada Benefit from Australia-Style Regulations? [16]Telstra, Now We Are Talking website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/ >Legal battleground (snip crapola about telstra-instigated trouble and strife if they don't get their way and aren't allowed to take the ball and go home) Then the solution is simple - Telstra get off their high horse, stop whining, and agree with the ACCC on wholesale access to Telstra's proposed network. > Legal battleground > The G9 proposal relies on the Government confiscating Telstra's copper > network, and then forcing Telstra to pay G9 to connect to it. Sweet. About time too. And a reduction in our share price, like what alaways happens when telstra is in court. You can tell Telstra is run by seppos. "We don't like what our competition/ACCC is doing. Let's sue 'em". Get f.cked James > Legal battleground > The G9 proposal relies on the Government confiscating Telstra's copper [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply be > left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab? > G9's proposal also relies on the Government agreeing to provide it with a > legislated monopoly for 20 years - this is a gross distortion of the > National Competition Policy which successive Commonwealth Governments have > supported and pursued for over 15 years. Crap! Telstra/Telecom/PMG had the monopoly since year dot. Now that they don't, they put up a screaming match. > This Government sponsored confiscation of private assets would also > significantly alter the international investment community's perception of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > investment away from Australia. This will detrimentally affect the > national economy, Australian business and all Australians. These 'assets' have already been confiscated from the population by the govmt so they could sell them off. What else is new? > G9 propose a "20 year life of investment" - in 20 years time we would > still be stuck with ADSL2+ speeds of only 12Mbps to 20Mbps. We project > speeds required in 20 years time will be at least five times that: 100Mbps > to 1Gbps per household. Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even though everyone was screaming for better speeds. > G9's proposal demands a 20 year statutory monopoly to prevent other > carriers from building competing broadband networks, so there's no [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply be > left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab? > Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I > remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies. >> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply >> be left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab? Hopefully. >> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I >> remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt > > No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies. I made the claim, which is fact, I was involved in the field at the time. Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations. >>> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply >>> be left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab? > > Hopefully. > Michael J <michael@yahoo.com> wrote >>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they said >>> that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt >> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies. > I made the claim, which is fact, That 75bpm max was never anything like fact. > I was involved in the field at the time. And even then never had a f.cking clue. > Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations. He is right, no such claim was ever made. >>>> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services >>>> simply be left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab? >> Hopefully. >>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I >>>> remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > He is right, no such claim was ever made. I must be wrong, Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time and he wasn't. >>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed >>>>> goes. I remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, >>>>> and they wouldnt >>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies. >>> I made the claim, which is fact, >> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact. >>> I was involved in the field at the time. >> And even then never had a f.cking clue. >>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations. >> He is right, no such claim was ever made. > I must be wrong, As always. > Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time Pity about your ear to ear dog sh.t. > and he wasn't. Wrong, as always. >>> And even then never had a f.cking clue. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Wrong, as always. Oh, where were you sitting that day, I must have missed you. >>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they >>>>>>> said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even >>>>>>> though everyone was screaming for better speeds. >>>>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies. >>>>> I made the claim, which is fact, >>>> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact. >>>>> I was involved in the field at the time. >>>> And even then never had a f.cking clue. >>>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations. >>>> He is right, no such claim was ever made. >>> I must be wrong, >> As always. >>> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time >> Pity about your ear to ear dog sh.t. >>> and he wasn't. >> Wrong, as always. > Oh, where were you sitting that day, I must have missed you. You wouldnt even know what I look like, fuckwit. And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed hallucinations. >>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed >>>>>>>> goes. I remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > You wouldnt even know what I look like, fuckwit. So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name? > And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did > 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. False! > It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed > hallucinations. As always, you have that knack of personally endearing yourself to everyone you come into contact with. >>>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they >>>>>>>>> said that 75bpm was quite >>>>>>>>> sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even >>>>>>>>> though everyone was screaming for better speeds. >>>>>>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies. >>>>>>> I made the claim, which is fact, >>>>>> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact. >>>>>>> I was involved in the field at the time. >>>>>> And even then never had a f.cking clue. >>>>>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations. >>>>>> He is right, no such claim was ever made. >>>>> I must be wrong, >>>> As always. >>>>> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time >>>> Pity about your ear to ear dog sh.t. >>>>> and he wasn't. >>>> Wrong, as always. >>> Oh, where were you sitting that day, I must have missed you. >> You wouldnt even know what I look like, fuckwit. > So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name? Nope. >> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did >> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. > False! Name the product. You cant, no such animal. >> It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed hallucinations. > As always, you have that knack of personally endearing yourself to everyone you come into contact > with. Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag. >> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Name the product. You cant, no such animal. Name the brand and model number of the TV you had 30 odd years ago. >>> It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed >>> hallucinations. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag. >>> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name? >> Nope. >>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did >>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. >>> False! >> Name the product. You cant, no such animal. > Name the brand and model number of the TV you had 30 odd years ago. Trivial to name the PRODUCT, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist. Black and White Pal TV. >>>> It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed hallucinations. >>> As always, you have that knack of personally endearing yourself to everyone you come into >>> contact with. >> Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag. >>> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Name the brand and model number of the TV you had 30 odd years ago. YOU are making the claim, YOU get to prove it. THATS how it works. >>>> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > YOU are making the claim, YOU get to prove it. THATS how it works. If you used to work where a few ppl say, you will be able to back me up, instead of critisising. Unlike our mate Rod, I havent worked in every single field of telecommunications, but this is one I HAVE worked in. >>>>> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> YOU are making the claim, YOU get to prove it. THATS how it works. > If you used to work where a few ppl say, you will be able to back me up, instead of critisising. > Unlike our mate Rod, I havent worked in every single field of telecommunications, but this is one > I HAVE worked in. Didnt help you to grasp that it wasnt at 75bpm. Just another pig ignorant clown that never did manage to get even the most basic stuff right. I had one of you clowns show up to replace a modem leased from Telecom who proclaimed that the replacement wasnt compatible when he held the RS232 connector upside down and couldnt plug it into the modem. > Didnt help you to grasp that it wasnt at 75bpm. Just another pig ignorant > clown that never did manage to get even the most basic stuff right. Actually, the one I'm thinking of was 50, but they had a 75 for companies who were willing to part with the big bucks. > I had one of you clowns show up to replace a modem leased from Telecom > who proclaimed that the replacement wasnt compatible when he held the > RS232 connector upside down and couldnt plug it into the modem. At the time, there was no such thing as an RS232, so it couldnt possibly be one of our clowns. But you were there with ALL the know how why did you have to get anyones clown to do the work. Oh, I know, you didnt want the clowns to know that you are not really Rod Speed. > At the time, there was no such thing as an RS232, so it couldnt possibly > be one of our clowns. Incorrect, RS232-C has been around since 1969. cheers, Lance  Signature// http://www.commodore128.org Commodore 128 forums & more! // >>>>>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did >>>>>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. >>>>>>> False! >>>>>> Name the product. You cant, no such animal. >>>>> Name the brand and model number of the TV you had 30 odd years ago. >>>> YOU are making the claim, YOU get to prove it. THATS how it works. >>> If you used to work where a few ppl say, you will be able to back me up, instead of critisising. >>> Unlike our mate Rod, I havent worked in every single field of telecommunications, but this is >>> one I HAVE worked in. >> Didnt help you to grasp that it wasnt at 75bpm. Just another pig ignorant clown that never did >> manage to get even the most basic stuff right. > Actually, the one I'm thinking of was 50, but they had a 75 for companies who were willing to part > with the big bucks. Nope, you've STILL f.cked that up totally. NOTHING ever worked at 75bpm. >> I had one of you clowns show up to replace a modem leased from Telecom who proclaimed that the >> replacement wasnt compatible when he held the RS232 connector upside down and couldnt plug it >> into the modem. > At the time, there was no such thing as an RS232, Wrong, as always. > so it couldnt possibly be one of our clowns. But you were there with ALL the know how why did you > have to get anyones clown to do the work. It was their modem, leased from them, fuckwit. That was all that was legal at that time. > And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did > 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. Pity about VIATEL / Discovery. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Two Blob wrote >>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they said >>> that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even though >>> everyone was screaming for better speeds. >> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did >> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. > Pity about VIATEL / Discovery. That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do. And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway. That silly old fart has never ever had a f.cking clue, and thats obviously why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door. >>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I >>>> remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery. Actually that was 1200/75 > That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do. Yes with a faster modem it could go a heap faster, but telecom didnt have the foresight to support the higher speeds. > And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway. > > That silly old fart has never ever had a f.cking clue, and thats obviously > why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door. Other way around, I couldnt get out of there quick enough. I was dying of bordom and lack of a decent wage. I went to a company who paid 3 times as much and give you something to do when a contract was filled. In telecom if we had a 4 month contract and we filled it in 4 weeks we had to sit on our arse until the 4 months were over. >>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed >>>>> goes. I remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, >>>>> and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even though everyone >>>>> was screaming for better speeds. >>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did >>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. >>> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery. > Actually that was 1200/75 Nothing like your original pathetic excuse for bullshit and at that time they also offered faster than that, for a higher prices, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist. >> That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do. > Yes with a faster modem it could go a heap faster, but telecom didnt have the foresight to support > the higher speeds. Pig ignorant lie. You were welcome to pay for a faster service if you wanted one, and we did. >> And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway. >> That silly old fart has never ever had a f.cking clue, and thats >> obviously why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door. > Other way around, I couldnt get out of there quick enough. I was > dying of bordom and lack of a decent wage. I went to a company who > paid 3 times as much and give you something to do when a contract was filled. In telecom if we had > a 4 month contract and we filled it in 4 weeks we had to sit on our arse until the 4 months were > over. You were clearly so stupid that you didnt even notice that you could have faster than 1200/75 if you wanted it, and that that aint 75bpm anyway. >>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did >>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > offered faster than that, for a higher prices, you pathetic excuse for a > bullshit artist. As I have said in the past, comprehension is lacking with a few ppl around here. My above speed comment (1200/75) was in relation to Viatel. My original claim was nearly 20 years before that, when modems were the size of suitcases and had half a dozen cards in them. Do you remember those days?? I do, cause I attended one of the first schools in modems. Oh, thats right, you were sitting at the back of the class using a false name. After all, someone said you were with the PMG for 40 years ;)) >>> That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > have faster than 1200/75 if you wanted it, and that that aint 75bpm > anyway. >>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they >>>>>>> said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even >>>>>>> though everyone was screaming for better speeds. >>>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did >>>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. >>>>> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery. >>> Actually that was 1200/75 >> Nothing like your original pathetic excuse for bullshit and at that time they also >> offered faster than that, for a higher prices, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist. > As I have said in the past, comprehension is lacking with a few ppl around here. You in spades. > My above speed comment (1200/75) was in relation to Viatel. Pity that your original stupid claim is just plain wrong with 1200/75 which was ALREADY faster than 75bpm even on the uplink. AND if you wanted faster than 1200/75 it was available to anyone prepared to pay for that anyway. > My original claim was nearly 20 years before that, when modems were the size of suitcases and had > half a dozen cards in them. Do you remember those days?? Yep, and they were ALREADY faster than 75bpm, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist. > I do, cause I attended one of the first schools in modems. Pity you couldnt even manage to work out what speed they were running at, or anything else at all, either. > Oh, thats right, you were sitting at the back of the class using a false name. After all, someone > said you were with the PMG for 40 years ;)) Only a fool like you buys the bullshit the stupid kids in here spew. >>>> That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do. >>> Yes with a faster modem it could go a heap faster, but telecom >>> didnt have the foresight to support the higher speeds. >> Pig ignorant lie. You were welcome to pay for >> a faster service if you wanted one, and we did. >>>> And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway. >>>> That silly old fart has never ever had a f.cking clue, and thats >>>> obviously why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door. >>> Other way around, I couldnt get out of there quick enough. I was >>> dying of bordom and lack of a decent wage. I went to a company who >>> paid 3 times as much and give you something to do when a contract >>> was filled. In telecom if we had a 4 month contract and we filled >>> it in 4 weeks we had to sit on our arse until the 4 months were over. >> You were clearly so stupid that you didnt even notice that you could >> have faster than 1200/75 if you wanted it, and that that aint 75bpm >> anyway. Rod, why dont you tell us which tech you went to so we can all attend. Maybe we will all have the knowledge about everything technical and all be as smart as you. >>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed >>>>>>>> goes. I remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Pity that your original stupid claim is just plain wrong with 1200/75 > which was ALREADY faster than 75bpm even on the uplink. It really is easy to comprehend. Start at the top and work your way down. It is all in plain English and quite easy to follow. Anyone can twist anything around to distort the subject, but that isnt the objective here. Unless, of course, you want to win your imaginary contest with your imaginary intelect. > AND if you wanted faster than 1200/75 it was available > to anyone prepared to pay for that anyway. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >>> have faster than 1200/75 if you wanted it, and that that aint 75bpm >>> anyway. > Rod, why dont you tell us which tech you went to so we can all attend. Plenty of us didnt have to be fed like monkeys in some tech on this stuff, cretin. And plenty of us did the feeding of morons like you too. >>>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they >>>>>>>>> said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even >>>>>>>>> though everyone was screaming for better speeds. >>>>>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did >>>>>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. >>>>>>> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery. >>>>> Actually that was 1200/75 >>>> Nothing like your original pathetic excuse for bullshit and at that time they also >>>> offered faster than that, for a higher prices, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist. >>> As I have said in the past, comprehension is lacking with a few ppl around here. >> You in spades. >>> My above speed comment (1200/75) was in relation to Viatel. >> Pity that your original stupid claim is just plain wrong with 1200/75 >> which was ALREADY faster than 75bpm even on the uplink. > It really is easy to comprehend. Start at the top and work your way down. It is all in plain > English and quite easy to follow. Anyone can twist anything around to distort the subject, but > that isnt the objective here. Unless, of course, you want to win your imaginary contest with your > imaginary intelect. Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >> AND if you wanted faster than 1200/75 it was available >> to anyone prepared to pay for that anyway. >>> My original claim was nearly 20 years before that, when modems were the size of suitcases and >>> had half a dozen cards in them. Do you remember those days?? >> Yep, and they were ALREADY faster than 75bpm, >> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist. >>> I do, cause I attended one of the first schools in modems. >> Pity you couldnt even manage to work out what speed >> they were running at, or anything else at all, either. >>> Oh, thats right, you were sitting at the back of the class using a false name. After all, >>> someone said you were with the PMG for 40 years ;)) >> Only a fool like you buys the bullshit the stupid kids in here spew. >>>>>> That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do. >>>>> Yes with a faster modem it could go a heap faster, but telecom >>>>> didnt have the foresight to support the higher speeds. >>>> Pig ignorant lie. You were welcome to pay for >>>> a faster service if you wanted one, and we did. >>>>>> And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway. >>>>>> That silly old fart has never ever had a f.cking clue, and thats >>>>>> obviously why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door. >>>>> Other way around, I couldnt get out of there quick enough. I was >>>>> dying of bordom and lack of a decent wage. I went to a company who >>>>> paid 3 times as much and give you something to do when a contract >>>>> was filled. In telecom if we had a 4 month contract and we filled >>>>> it in 4 weeks we had to sit on our arse until the 4 months were over. >>>> You were clearly so stupid that you didnt even notice that you could have faster than 1200/75 >>>> if you wanted it, and that that aint 75bpm anyway. >> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did >> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. > > Pity about VIATEL / Discovery. That was 1200/75 UP, you dick >>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did >>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway. >> >> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery. > > That was 1200/75 UP, you dick And aint 75bpm either. Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> Thou impertinent putified core. Thou pimply most poor credulous monster. Ye honked: > Pity about your ear to ear dog sh.t. G'day, Wodleypoo. You gonna come out and play word fights with me yet, you f.cking chicken-sh.t coward? Signaturealt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top a.sholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org Jij klootzakkende tering sneeuwman-met-je-droge-lever. |
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.