 |
 | 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 / December 2007Telstra criticises G9
From: http://www2.skynews.com.au/business/article.aspx?id=201374 Telstra has accused the G9 consortium of setting Australia's broadband plans back several years. G9, which includes players such as Optus and Macquarie Telecom, has a plan to build a high speed broadband network, which would rival a similar plan from Telstra. But the Telco giant says the G9 plan is unrealistic, because it doesn't own the current network on which its upgrade plan is based. Speaking on Sky News Sunday Business, Telstra's Director of Regulatory, Dr Tony Warren said, 'I liken that to putting out a detailed set of specifications for the upgrade of my harbourside mansion. Only problem is, I don't have a harbourside mansion.' Citigroup's Chief Telecommunications analyst, Tim Smeallie, says the G9 plan is achievable, although it will be expensive. 'The key issue is can a new network be built? At a simple level, yes. But the costs would be astronomical to effectively replicate Telstra's network,' he said. > From: > http://www2.skynews.com.au/business/article.aspx?id=201374 > Telstra has accused the G9 consortium of setting Australia's broadband plans back several years. Wota f.cking surprise. Pity no one cept stupid fuckwit mexican arse lickers would ever buy that lie. > G9, which includes players such as Optus and Macquarie Telecom, has a plan to build a high speed broadband network, > which would rival a similar plan from Telstra. And if the coalition gets reelected, given that Telstra has blown all its feet right off, time after time after time on relations with the govt, three guesses who will get the nod on the govt's spending. > But the Telco giant says the G9 plan is unrealistic, Corse they would claim that... > because it doesn't own the current network on which its upgrade plan is based. Easily fixed by leglislation, fuckwit yanks. > Speaking on Sky News Sunday Business, Telstra's Director of > Regulatory, Dr Tony Warren said, 'I liken that to putting out a > detailed set of specifications for the upgrade of my harbourside > mansion. Only problem is, I don't have a harbourside mansion.' Your problem, fuckwit. > Citigroup's Chief Telecommunications analyst, Tim Smeallie, Smelly by name, smelly by nature. > says the G9 plan is achievable, although it will be expensive. The govt wont care, they will be spending a tiny part of what they got when they flogged off telstra to all those stupid suckers. > 'The key issue is can a new network be built? Corse it can. > At a simple level, yes. But the costs would be astronomical to effectively replicate Telstra's network,' he said. No need to do that, fuckwit. Alan Parkington wrote... > From: > http://www2.skynews.com.au/business/article.aspx?id=201374 > > Telstra has accused the G9 consortium of setting Australia's broadband plans > back several years. Here we go again.... Now folks, who thinks that Telstra accusing G9 of setting broadband in Oz back years is somewhat pot-kettle-blackish? It wasn't too long ago when Bill Gates (whatever you think of the guy) got stuck into Ziggy and his cronies over Telstra's policies on internet and telecomms in general. Let's start with restricting ADSL1 to a max of 1500/256 when it clearly is able to run at 8mbps with no problems. Then look at its current policy of putting in technology blockers in new housing estates which restrict a lot of people to dialup, and horribly slow dialup at that. Ten years ago, Telstra could have invested a couple of billion dollars in upgrading its entire network, retiring old and failing copper cabling. Instead, it continued to slog along with high maintenance infrastructure that has effectively restricted whatever data services that is available to Australians to what we have at present. Then there is Telstra's "premium" pricing policy which limits the level of ADSL takeup to entry level services for most Australians. For those that can get broadband via their phone services, that is.  SignatureA Meltdown? One of those annoying buzzwords. We prefer to think of it as an unrequested fission surplus! > Alan Parkington wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > telecomms in > general. Telstra brought $29 ADSL to the masses > Let's start with restricting ADSL1 to a max of 1500/256 when it clearly is > able > to run at 8mbps with no problems. The "problem" is actually the customers. Who whinge that Joe Blow got 5192/384 when they "only" could achieve 3084/384. Solution: set a minimum speed and offer than to all. Telstra uncapped it when they believed that customers were sufficiently educated to cope, but you still get utter fuckwits like Kwyj, who, paying $10-$15 more than 1500, complained that he was restriced to 3000 because of infrastructure. Even though that 3000 for $10-$15 more was better than 1500, in value > Then look at its current policy of putting in technology blockers in new > housing > estates which restrict a lot of people to dialup, and horribly slow dialup > at > that. Sure, its a conspiracy. w.nker. My housing estate is fully copper to the exchange, thanks for asking > Ten years ago, Telstra could have invested a couple of billion dollars in > upgrading its entire network, retiring old and failing copper cabling. > Instead, They did spend a couple of billion changing all the exchanges to AXE and S12. There is no "old and failing copper" to be "retired". it's either faulty or not. If its faulty, it gets replaced > Then there is Telstra's "premium" pricing policy which limits the level of > ADSL > takeup to entry level services for most Australians. For those that can > get Entry level is 256. And Telstra say more than 60% of all BP customers are on Liberty, which would not be entry level > broadband via their phone services, that is. Which is most people Michael wrote... > Telstra uncapped it when they believed that customers were sufficiently > educated to cope, but you still get utter fuckwits like Kwyj, who, paying How big of Telstra, condescending pricks. > > Ten years ago, Telstra could have invested a couple of billion dollars in > > upgrading its entire network, retiring old and failing copper cabling. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There is no "old and failing copper" to be "retired". it's either faulty or > not. If its faulty, it gets replaced Good. I'll give Telstra a call and tell 'em that "Michael" sent me. Get them to replace my line which goes spastic whenever it rains, and I get widly varying line sync speeds, anything from 14mbits down to 8mbits, and sometimes lower, if it's that bad that the ISP has to swap me over to a standard 1.5mbit profile... SignatureOur last fight was my fault: My wife asked me "What's on the TV?" I said,"Dust!" > Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > it's that bad that the ISP has to swap me over to a standard 1.5mbit > profile... As I said, its either faulty or not. if you report it and they confirm its faulty, they will fix or replace it. Michael wrote... > As I said, its either faulty or not. > > if you report it and they confirm its faulty, they will fix or replace it. I have. They have and they won't. The fault lies in the crap cabling that comprises my line. It's made up of sections of alum conductor as well as copper. Telstra won't give me an entirely new line. So, I'm stuck with what I have. Luckily we're in a drought, so for the most part it's fairly stable. But line attenuation is still higher than what it should be given the cable run length, so I'm limited to around 14mbits, max. And yeah, that's heaps better than someone else's 512kbits or even someone on 2 or 3 mbits ADSL2+ who lives further out. The fact though remains that my line cannot achieve its full potential and goes spastic when it rains. And when it rains try getting a tech out there and then to trace the fault as it's occuring. Nope, you'll be lucky to see one within 2 or 3 days, after the rain has stopped and the cabling has been given a chance to dry out, with the fault disappearing. > Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > copper. > Telstra won't give me an entirely new line. Forget what your line is comprised of - its irrelevant. You pay for a SERVICE, not physical infrastructure. You pay for a logical circuit back to the exchange. you do not pay for an individual wire - no matter what it is comprised of. if your service doesnt work - you report it and get it fixed. whether fixing is to move you to a new pair or not. if you have to repeat this cycle more than once every 2 months, id raise it with the TIO > So, I'm stuck with what I have. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > length, > so I'm limited to around 14mbits, max. and they dont guarantee you any particular figure on attentuation, so its irrelevant > And yeah, that's heaps better than someone else's 512kbits or even someone > on 2 > or 3 mbits ADSL2+ who lives further out. The fact though remains that my > line > cannot achieve its full potential and goes spastic when it rains. report a fault as above > And when it rains try getting a tech out there and then to trace the fault > as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the > fault disappearing. thats not your problem - the number of times you report the SAME fault adds weight to your arguments for replacement. it is irrelevant whether they catch it in the act or not > and they dont guarantee you any particular figure on attentuation, so its > irrelevant They may not make the guarantee publicly, but there is an internal engineering standard for attenuation which must be met. I don't recall the exact figure, but it definitely exists. SignatureKwyj. Kwyjibo wrote... > "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > and they dont guarantee you any particular figure on attentuation, so its > > irrelevant > > They may not make the guarantee publicly, but there is an internal So, really, you could apply for ADSL2+, get connected, only to find that your line sync speed is no faster than a DSL1 service, and that there is f.ck all that you can do about it? > Kwyjibo wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > all > that you can do about it? In theory, yep. SignatureKwyj. Michael wrote... > > I have. They have and they won't. The fault lies in the crap cabling that > > comprises my line. It's made up of sections of alum conductor as well as > > copper. Telstra won't give me an entirely new line. > > Forget what your line is comprised of - its irrelevant. No, it's not. It is what is causing my varying line conditions. When it rains, it's just gets worse. The very composition of an aluminium conductor causes interference problems compared to a copper run. Now, if the all the cabling from my neighborhood is constructed of the same material then it won't matter if I'm put onto another pair. The basic problem will still be there. I can only hope that the weather related issues are fixed if the alternative pair is in better condition. > Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > rains, > it's just gets worse. Once again you miss the point. Telstra provide you with a SERVICE - not a physical product or infrastructure. If your SERVICE doesnt work - you report it as a fault and keep at it until it is fixed. It is IRRELEVANT what they use to provide you with a PSTN service or equivalent, it could be via CDMA WLL, a copper line, a copper/aluminimum line, a copper line via a RIM or a CMUX, a NextG WLL service, a DRCS, a satellite service. You pay for a SERVICE not INFRASTRUCTURE > The very composition of an aluminium conductor causes interference > problems > compared to a copper run. Now, if the all the cabling from my neighborhood > is No, its doesnt cause any problems on its own > Marts <marts_57@yahoo.com.au> wrote >>>> I have. They have and they won't. The fault lies in the crap cabling that comprises my line. It's made up of >>>> sections of alum conductor as well as copper. Telstra won't give me an entirely new line. >>> Forget what your line is comprised of - its irrelevant. >> No, it's not. It is what is causing my varying line conditions. When it rains, it's just gets worse. > Once again you miss the point. Nope. > Telstra provide you with a SERVICE - not a physical product or infrastructure. Irrelevant. > If your SERVICE doesnt work - you report it as a fault and keep at it until it is fixed. > It is IRRELEVANT what they use to provide you with a PSTN service or equivalent, it could be via CDMA WLL, a copper > line, a copper/aluminimum line, a copper line via a RIM or a CMUX, a NextG WLL service, a DRCS, a satellite service. No it isnt. > You pay for a SERVICE not INFRASTRUCTURE Wrong, as always. >> The very composition of an aluminium conductor causes interference problems >> compared to a copper run. Now, if the all the cabling from my neighborhood is > No, its doesnt cause any problems on its own Wrong, as always. Michael wrote... > > No, it's not. It is what is causing my varying line conditions. When it > > rains, it's just gets worse. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Telstra provide you with a SERVICE - not a physical product or > infrastructure. Yes, I understand that. However, the mechanism that provides the service cannot cope with ADSL2+ to provide the maximum line speed that should be available. And, as the tex have told me, it's due in part to sections of the cabling between here and the exchange being composed of alum. conductors. If it was copper all the way, then I'd be seeing closer to 18mbps instead of around 10 mbps. And Telstra ain't gonna change this, not when it's not the provider of the DSL2 service. All it will do is to act on faults that occur on the line that impede the delivery of the service, or that reduce the quality of the basic voice service that it's meant to provide. In other words, I have to wear it, unless they decide to upgrade the infrastructure in my area to allow a full speed DSL2 service to operate. And YES, I have complained on numerous occasions. Twice the deteriorating service has been fixed, due mainly to crook joints that were weather affected. But other than that, they tell me that there is nothing more that it will (not 'can') do. > > The very composition of an aluminium conductor causes interference > > problems compared to a copper run. Now, if the all the cabling from my neighborhood > No, its doesnt cause any problems on its own Not according to either the evidence of a poor performing DSL2 service, or what the tex have told me. > Telstra uncapped it when they believed that customers were sufficiently > educated to cope, but you still get utter fuckwits like Kwyj, who, paying > $10-$15 more than 1500, complained that he was restriced to 3000 because > of infrastructure. Care to back up that claim you lying c.nt? I was quite happy with the 3.5Mbps I was getting. I got pissed off when Telstra's incompetence dropped that to 32kbps-750kbps (varying) and refused to do anything about it. SignatureKwyj. >> Telstra uncapped it when they believed that customers were sufficiently >> educated to cope, but you still get utter fuckwits like Kwyj, who, paying >> $10-$15 more than 1500, complained that he was restriced to 3000 because >> of infrastructure. > > Care to back up that claim you lying c.nt? Whirlpool search is your friend, if you cant remember the crap you were spouting > I was quite happy with the 3.5Mbps I was getting. Liar > I got pissed off when Telstra's incompetence dropped that to > 32kbps-750kbps (varying) and refused to do anything about it. Crap >>> Telstra uncapped it when they believed that customers were sufficiently >>> educated to cope, but you still get utter fuckwits like Kwyj, who, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Whirlpool search is your friend, if you cant remember the crap you were > spouting If it's that simple, provide a link fuckwit. Other than the posts I made following Telstra's fuckup that caused dismal sync speeds, the only posts I made in relation to my iiNet speed were complimentary. Prove me wrong you lying c.nt. >> I was quite happy with the 3.5Mbps I was getting. > > Liar Nope. >> I got pissed off when Telstra's incompetence dropped that to >> 32kbps-750kbps (varying) and refused to do anything about it. > > Crap Wrong again. SignatureKwyj. Kwyjibo wrote... > Other than the posts I made following Telstra's fuckup that caused dismal > sync speeds, the only posts I made in relation to my iiNet speed were > complimentary. Was this issue ever resolved? If so, how? What was the outcome? > Kwyjibo wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Was this issue ever resolved? Not really. Telstra wholesale refused to do anything about it. > If so, how? What was the outcome? Had to cancel the iiNet ADSL2 service and connect to a resold Telstra ADSL1 service and pay an additional $50 per month..... 4 other iiNet customers in the same street have the same problem. SignatureKwyj. Kwyjibo wrote... > >> Other than the posts I made following Telstra's fuckup that caused dismal > >> sync speeds, the only posts I made in relation to my iiNet speed were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not really. Telstra wholesale refused to do anything about it. Bummer > Had to cancel the iiNet ADSL2 service and connect to a resold Telstra ADSL1 > service and pay an additional $50 per month..... > 4 other iiNet customers in the same street have the same problem. Double bummer. >> Kwyjibo wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not really. Telstra wholesale refused to do anything about it. It's iinet who do "something about it", not TW. Your relationship is with iinet, not TW. If iinet werent able to convince TW to do something, thats iinet's problem. >> If so, how? What was the outcome? > > Had to cancel the iiNet ADSL2 service and connect to a resold Telstra > ADSL1 service and pay an additional $50 per month..... > 4 other iiNet customers in the same street have the same problem. Blame iinet. >>> Kwyjibo wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's iinet who do "something about it", not TW. iiNet did all they could. Not much they can do if TW refuse to get off their arses. That's precisely the reason the copper monopoly should be taken from Telstra. > Your relationship is with iinet, not TW. Yep, and I was very happy with their service too. > If iinet werent able to convince TW to do something, thats iinet's > problem. Which then becomes my problem, fuckwit. >>> If so, how? What was the outcome? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Blame iinet. Nope. I'll blame the company responsible - Telstra. PS: Where are these quotes of me complaining about getting 3.5Mbps on an ADSL2 connection, you lying c.nt? SignatureKwyj. >> Your relationship is with iinet, not TW. > > Yep, and I was very happy with their service too. So "happy" you disconnected and connected an ASDL1 service? >> If iinet werent able to convince TW to do something, thats iinet's >> problem. > > Which then becomes my problem, fuckwit. Yep. The problem is you and iinet >> Blame iinet. > > Nope. I'll blame the company responsible - Telstra. You dont have any relationship with Telstra > PS: Where are these quotes of me complaining about getting 3.5Mbps on an > ADSL2 connection, you lying c.nt? Same place you dropped em - Whirlfool. Kwyjibo wrote... > That's precisely the reason the copper monopoly should be taken from > Telstra. If Telstra loses the monopoly, who would you give it to? Remember, unless they string out duplicate, triplicate or quadruplicate services where there is an existing Telstra service, then you will always have a monopoly of the landline services in any given region. It's like when they broke up the public transport network in Melbourne to different operators and talking about "competition". If you wanted to catch a tram from the City to say, Hawthorn you could not choose with PT service to ride on. It was owned by the one company. However, after that journey ended you could jump on a train or a bus that was owned by someone else to travel the rest of your journey if you couldn't catch the tram all the way there. The same goes for the power companies. While you may have your power through say, Energy Australia, you're still connected to the network that is owned by say, Origin Energy or TruEnergy, which may own the network in your part of the state. They still sting you the supply charges, but it's passed onto the retailer who bills you accordingly. In the power industry the only true competition is between the generators. After the power leaves their generator transformers it's up to the nightmare that is the privatised retail and distribution sector as to how it gets to your place and the money out of your wallet. I'm not sure how you'd work it so that Telstra would lose its monopoly and hence, control of the network. Not without other telcos running their own cables. And wouldn't that be a waste of resources? SignatureThe only difference between the wingnuts on each end of the political spectrum is *which* civil rights they think we can do without > Kwyjibo wrote >> That's precisely the reason the copper monopoly should be taken from Telstra. > If Telstra loses the monopoly, who would you give it to? Fools like that usually want it given back to the govt. No thanks. > Remember, unless they string out duplicate, triplicate or quadruplicate > services where there is an existing Telstra service, then you will always > have a monopoly of the landline services in any given region. But clearly telstra wouldnt get to try to shaft its competitors on access to the copper network if it no longer had the copper network. > It's like when they broke up the public transport network in > Melbourne to different operators and talking about "competition". Nope, nothing like. > If you wanted to catch a tram from the City to say, Hawthorn you > could not choose with PT service to ride on. It was owned by the > one company. However, after that journey ended you could jump > on a train or a bus that was owned by someone else to travel the > rest of your journey if you couldn't catch the tram all the way there. Phone services are nothing like that. > The same goes for the power companies. Nope, quite different again. > While you may have your power through say, Energy Australia, > you're still connected to the network that is owned by say, > Origin Energy or TruEnergy, which may own the network > in your part of the state. They still sting you the supply charges, > but it's passed onto the retailer who bills you accordingly. Just a tad unlikely that he doesnt realise that. > In the power industry the only true competition is between the generators. Wrong again. There is real competiton on what the end user gets charged too. > After the power leaves their generator transformers it's up to > the nightmare that is the privatised retail and distribution sector > as to how it gets to your place and the money out of your wallet. > I'm not sure how you'd work it so that Telstra would > lose its monopoly and hence, control of the network. > Not without other telcos running their own cables. You just have a govt operation owning and maintaining the copper network. No thanks. > And wouldn't that be a waste of resources? Any competition is a waste of resources, including having more than one supermarket chain, and more than one bank, etc etc etc. We have competition for other reasons. > Kwyjibo wrote... > >> That's precisely the reason the copper monopoly should be taken from >> Telstra. > > If Telstra loses the monopoly, who would you give it to? There isnt any monopoly at all currently, not as long as you have Optus HFC and any kind of wirelesss service > Marts <marts_57@yahoo.com.au> wrote >>> That's precisely the reason the copper monopoly should be taken from Telstra. >> If Telstra loses the monopoly, who would you give it to? > There isnt any monopoly at all currently, There is with copper, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > not as long as you have Optus HFC and any kind of wirelesss service Neither of those are copper, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >> Marts <marts_57@yahoo.com.au> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There is with copper, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit > child. You moron. As if anyone cares what element the line itself is composed of >> not as long as you have Optus HFC and any kind of wirelesss service > > Neither of those are copper, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning > fuckwit child. Its a "local loop" monopoly allegation, retard > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Marts <marts_57@yahoo.com.au> wrote >>>>> That's precisely the reason the copper monopoly should be taken from Telstra. >>>> If Telstra loses the monopoly, who would you give it to? >>> There isnt any monopoly at all currently, >> There is with copper, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > You moron. You flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > As if anyone cares what element the line itself is composed of Someone commenting on the copper monopoly clearly does, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>> not as long as you have Optus HFC and any kind of wirelesss service >> Neither of those are copper, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Its a "local loop" monopoly allegation It clearly isnt in the sentence at the top, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning fuckwit child. Michael wrote... > > If Telstra loses the monopoly, who would you give it to? > > There isnt any monopoly at all currently, not as long as you have Optus HFC > and any kind of wirelesss service I'm talking about the land based copper network, not wireless or other services that ostensibly could "compete" with Telstra's landline network. Most people are connected to it and use it for day to day phone services, such as calling people, people calling them, the internet, whether it be dialup or ADSL (or even ISDN). True competition would be where I could use say, NextG or some other provider's wireless services for the same cost as I do for my home phone line. Right now, though, that's not an option, not when ANY call is timed and up to a dollar a minute, carrier dependant and where data charges more than quadruple that even the most expensive ADSL based ISP has to offer. SignatureThe brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning and doesn't stop until you get to work. > Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > services > that ostensibly could "compete" with Telstra's landline network. Optus HFC is a land based local loop. Who cares that the line is composed of copper (or aluminium)? > True competition would be where I could use say, NextG or some other > provider's > wireless services for the same cost as I do for my home phone line. Right > now, True competition does not necessarily involve price competition Michael wrote... > > I'm talking about the land based copper network, not wireless or other > > services that ostensibly could "compete" with Telstra's landline network. > > Optus HFC is a land based local loop. Who cares that the line is composed of > copper (or aluminium)? And it's rollout is restricted to a small number of suburbs around some of the capitals' suburbs. If it was widely available, then yeah, it could be considered as a true competitor to the national copper residential/business network. > True competition does not necessarily involve price competition Yes it does. Otherwise it's not competition. NextG ostensibly competes with other wireless networks because of its very nature of mobility. In terms of providing a total residential solution, or even a total business solution It cannot hope to compete with a landline system because of the large disparities in cost > Michael wrote >>> I'm talking about the land based copper network, not wireless or other >>> services that ostensibly could "compete" with Telstra's landline network. >> Optus HFC is a land based local loop. Who cares >> that the line is composed of copper (or aluminium)? > And it's rollout is restricted to a small number of > suburbs around some of the capitals' suburbs. It isnt that small. > If it was widely available, then yeah, it could be considered as a > true competitor to the national copper residential/business network. >> True competition does not necessarily involve price competition > Yes it does. Otherwise it's not competition. Wrong, you can also have competition on reliability of service and other things too. > NextG ostensibly competes with other wireless networks because > of its very nature of mobility. In terms of providing a total residential > solution, or even a total business solution It cannot hope to compete > with a landline system because of the large disparities in cost That varys with how the broadband is used. The cost difference isnt that great when the monthly volume isnt over 1G for example. > Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the > capitals' suburbs. Your problem > If it was widely available, then yeah, it could be considered as a true > competitor to the national copper residential/business network. Covering millions of customers makes it "widely available" >> True competition does not necessarily involve price competition > > Yes it does. Otherwise it's not competition. Nope > NextG ostensibly competes with other wireless networks because of its very > nature of mobility. In terms of providing a total residential solution, or > even > a total business solution It cannot hope to compete with a landline system > because of the large disparities in cost Clearly you dont know what competition is. Michael wrote... > > And it's rollout is restricted to a small number of suburbs around some of > > the capitals' suburbs. > > Your problem How is it "my problem"? Or is this your way of retaliating when someone offends poor old Telstra's sensibilities? > > If it was widely available, then yeah, it could be considered as a true > > competitor to the national copper residential/business network. > > Covering millions of customers makes it "widely available" No it doesn't. Not when there are many more "millions" who don't get it. > Clearly you dont know what competition is. To you, maybe. But then, in the words of Rod, you are completely and utterly irrelevant when it comes to, well, anything, I s'pose. But then, with you being a Telstra droid and sock puppet, the term "competition" is as probably as unpalatable as say, the rest of us having red hot spikes driven up our clackers... |
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.