 |
 | 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 2007Next G covers all CDMA areas: Telstra
From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2097871.htm Telstra says it's confident all its Territory customers currently using its CDMA network will have similar coverage on its new Next G network. The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. Telstra spokesman Geoff Booth says people still using the old network should buy their new handsets and other equipment as soon as they can. He says no matter where people live in the Territory, if they had CDMA coverage, they'll also have coverage under Next G. "We drove 12,000 kilometres testing the CDMA network versus the Next G network. We've declared to government that we have network equivalence and we are very, very confident that that is the case." > From > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2097871.htm > > Telstra says it's confident all its Territory customers currently using > its CDMA network will have similar coverage on its new Next G network. It's 'confident'? Hardly a rock-solid guarantee. > The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. Nope, it will stop working when the government tells them they can do that. > Telstra spokesman Geoff Booth says people still using the old network > should Pity the network aint 'old'. > buy their new handsets and other equipment as soon as they can. > > He says no matter where people live in the Territory, if they had CDMA > coverage, they'll also have coverage under Next G. Pity that is yet to be verified by the ACMA > "We drove 12,000 kilometres testing the CDMA network versus the Next G > network. We've declared to government that we have network equivalence and > we are very, very confident that that is the case." Pity that is up to the Communications Minister to determine.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >> > Nope, it will stop working when the government tells them they can do > that. It gets turned off on 28/1/8 UNLESS the Govt directly orders them not to. No evidence yet that they will. They have set themself up legally to do it, but no guarantee they will I reckon they will be silent >>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >>> >> Nope, it will stop working when the government tells them they can do >> that. > > It gets turned off on 28/1/8 UNLESS the Govt directly orders them not to. Wrong. It stays on UNTIL the govt says it's okay to switch it off. SignatureKwyj. > Wrong. It stays on UNTIL the govt says it's okay to switch it off. No, it goes off unless the govt says so. And more likely to be off now Kev is in.. >> Wrong. It stays on UNTIL the govt says it's okay to switch it off. > > No, it goes off unless the govt says so. And more likely to be off now Kev > is in.. Nope, Rudd just used Trujillo and the amigos during the campaign, and will now dump them like a shitty rag (as he should, too) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote >> Wrong. It stays on UNTIL the govt says it's okay to switch it off. > No, it goes off unless the govt says so. Read the license conditions, fuckwit child. No surprise that you got the bums rush, right out the door. > And more likely to be off now Kev is in.. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. No surprise that you got the bums rush, right out the door. Even the biggest sheltered workshop in the entire f.cking country noticed how completely useless you have always been. >> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Read the license conditions, fuckwit child. Says that the Govt MAY step in. MAY. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote >>>> Wrong. It stays on UNTIL the govt says it's okay to switch it off. >>> No, it goes off unless the govt says so. >> Read the license conditions, fuckwit child. > Says that the Govt MAY step in. No it doesnt. > MAY. >> Wrong. It stays on UNTIL the govt says it's okay to switch it off. > > No, it goes off unless the govt says so. And more likely to be off now Kev > is in.. .. >>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wrong. It stays on UNTIL the govt says it's okay to switch it off. Nope - show me any order from the Govt to the contrary. The correct statement is - it gets turned off 28/1/8 UNLESS the Govt directly orders them not to. If the Govt had ordered them already, you would see it splashed all over NWAT >>>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nope - show me any order from the Govt to the contrary. http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodg mentattachments/6E0EF101D1A07488CA25735900159FE3 > The correct statement is - it gets turned off 28/1/8 UNLESS the Govt > directly orders them not to. No, your statement is totally WRONG. The correct statement is as follows (and which indicates that the government sets the closure timing, not Telstra): http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodg mentattachments/6E0EF101D1A07488CA25735900159FE3 > If the Govt had ordered them already, you would see it splashed all over > NWAT It's here: http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodg mentattachments/6E0EF101D1A07488CA25735900159FE3 SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nope Liar. >- show me any order from the Govt to the contrary. I'll do that when you show me a post from me compaining about my ADSL2 speed prior to Telstra f.cking it up. > The correct statement is - it gets turned off 28/1/8 UNLESS the Govt > directly orders them not to. ROFL. You're not real good at posting anything factual, are you Mikey? > If the Govt had ordered them already, you would see it splashed all over > NWAT A bit like that egg that's splashed all over your face, idiot. SignatureKwyj. >>> Wrong. It stays on UNTIL the govt says it's okay to switch it off. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'll do that when you show me a post from me compaining about my ADSL2 > speed prior to Telstra f.cking it up. i dont use Whirlpool anymore. you do - so find it yourself. >> The correct statement is - it gets turned off 28/1/8 UNLESS the Govt >> directly orders them not to. > > ROFL. You're not real good at posting anything factual, are you Mikey? I sure am. Only goons was able to find the actual facts to refute me - not like yourself, all you can find is insults. try harder next time >>>> Wrong. It stays on UNTIL the govt says it's okay to switch it off. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > i dont use Whirlpool anymore. you do - so find it yourself. Sorry fuckwit. You made the claim. Back it up or admit you were wrong. >>> The correct statement is - it gets turned off 28/1/8 UNLESS the Govt >>> directly orders them not to. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Only goons was able to find the actual facts to refute me - not like > yourself, You never asked for a URL. You made an incorrect claim. I told you that you were wrong. I was correct. >all you can find is insults. Nope. All I found was you talking absolute sh.t again. SignatureKwyj. No government should be telling a private business that it has to maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. Telstra is a private business and has the right to decide to stop offering services just like any other private business. Any private business should be free to stop offering any product or service without government interference. For example, an airline should be free to discontinue any routes that it decides to discontinue, a retail store should be free to stop carrying any item that it currently carries. And, like those other businesses, a mobile phone provider should be free to stop supporting any networks, protocols, technologies, phones or services that they choose to stop supporting. The government should butt out and let the marketplace sort itself out. If a private business does not provide services that consumers want, someone else will step in and provide it as long as the demand is there. e.g. if a shop stops selling eggs, someone else will step in and start selling eggs if the market wants eggs. If an airline stops flying to a given airport, another airline will come in and fly to that airport if the market wants to fly to that airport. And if Telstra stops providing cellphone service to a given location, another carrier will step in and provide that service if the market wants cell service in that location. The only time the government should step in is if a company is abusing its power to ensure that services are not provided to people that want said services. As long as there is adequate competition, the government should stay out of it and let the market sort it out. And where there are government rules that are restricting competition (such as rules about which airlines can fly to which airports) the government should work to remove such obstacles to competition (unless such rules are required to maintain Australia's quarantine and/or the health and safety of its citizens) > No government should be telling a private business that it has to maintain > a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. Telstra is a > private business and has the right to decide to stop offering services > just like any other private business. Wrong answer. As a telco, Telstra needs to hold a carrier licence, and the Commonwealth can add conditions or requirements that the licence holders needs to meet. > Any private business should be free to stop offering any product or > service without government interference. For example, an airline should be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to stop supporting any networks, protocols, technologies, phones or > services that they choose to stop supporting. That would be fine, however Telstra is an ex-government monopoly that would stomp on all competition otherwise. > The government should butt out and let the marketplace sort itself out. If > a private business does not provide services that consumers want, someone [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The only time the government should step in is if a company is abusing its > power to ensure that services are not provided to people that want said Telstra has along history of abusing power; th TIO figures are plain enought to demonstrate this. > services. As long as there is adequate competition, the government should > stay out of it and let the market sort it out. And where there are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > maintain Australia's quarantine and/or the health and safety of its > citizens) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> No government should be telling a private business that it has to >> maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Commonwealth can add conditions or requirements that the licence holders > needs to meet. No one is claiming the Govt is acting illegally, just claiming they should f.ck off and keep their sticky fingers out >> Any private business should be free to stop offering any product or >> service without government interference. For example, an airline should [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That would be fine, however Telstra is an ex-government monopoly that > would stomp on all competition otherwise. crap >> The only time the government should step in is if a company is abusing >> its power to ensure that services are not provided to people that want >> said > > Telstra has along history of abusing power; th TIO figures are plain > enought to demonstrate this. crap. on a per SIO basis, Telstra's figures are great. >>> No government should be telling a private business that it has to >>> maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No one is claiming the Govt is acting illegally, just claiming they should > f.ck off and keep their sticky fingers out Pity about: http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodg mentattachments/6E0EF101D1A07488CA25735900159FE3 >>> Any private business should be free to stop offering any product or >>> service without government interference. For example, an airline should [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > crap pity about: http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodg mentattachments/6E0EF101D1A07488CA25735900159FE3 >>> The only time the government should step in is if a company is abusing >>> its power to ensure that services are not provided to people that want [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > crap. on a per SIO basis, Telstra's figures are great. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > No government should be telling a private business that it has to > maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. Wrong when its a monopoly that the govt has partially funded. If telstra didnt like that, it shouldnt have accepted any govt funding. > Telstra is a private business and has the right to decide to stop offering services just like any other private > business. Any other private business cant necessarily do that unless they are prepared to offer a full refund to those who they didnt inform that they were only going to be providing that particular service until it suited them to shaft their customers by turning it off. > Any private business should be free to stop offering any product or service without government interference. Then there's the real world where every govt in the entire first world has extensive consumer protection law that anyone offering any product or service has to comply with. > For example, an airline should be free to discontinue any routes that it decides to discontinue, Depends on whether the govt has funded that route. > a retail store should be free to stop carrying any item that it currently carries. And, like those other businesses, a > mobile phone provider should be free to stop supporting any networks, protocols, technologies, phones or services that > they choose to stop supporting. Not if they didnt make it clear to the suckers they flogged that network to that it could be turned off at any time on a whim and the customers decide if they are interested in using a network like that or use one like GSM where they can always use a competitor if the one they use initially decides to pull the plug on their GSM network. > The government should butt out and let the marketplace sort itself out. Every govt in the entire first world has extensive consumer protection law that anyone offering any product or service has to comply with. Fools like you get to like that or lump it. > If a private business does not provide services that consumers want, someone else will step in and provide it as long > as the demand is there. e.g. if a shop stops selling eggs, someone else will step in and start selling eggs if the > market wants eggs. Then there's the real world where the govt chose to hand great piles of money to telstra to put in cdma bases where telstra would not otherwise bother to put in a base. And telstra was very happy to accept that money and spend it. > If an airline stops flying to a given airport, another airline will come in and fly to that airport if the market > wants to fly to that airport. And then there's the real world where even the stupidest polly has noticed that if the govt doesnt provide the basic infrastructure like roads and water and power etc, it wont ever be provided in some areas. > And if Telstra stops providing cellphone service to a given location, another carrier will step in and provide that > service if the market wants cell service in that location. And even the stupidest polly has noticed that in some areas the usage will never be enough to justify that with phones and mobiles phones and the govt will decide to spend some money on bases in places like that and use systems like the USO to provide phone services too. > The only time the government should step in is if a company is abusing its power And that is precisely what Telstra is doing. They were forced to resell the cdma system, because it was once the monopoly telco, and have chosen to turn the cdma system off so that everyone who is using it has to change to something else and hopefully many will change to NextG where they are locked into a monopoly again. > to ensure that services are not provided to people that want said services. As long as there is adequate competition, There isnt in many low density areas, cretin. > the government should stay out of it and let the market sort it out. Then there's the real world. > And where there are government rules that are restricting competition (such as rules about which airlines can fly to > which airports) the government should work to remove such obstacles to competition (unless such rules are required to > maintain Australia's quarantine and/or the health and safety of its citizens) And then there's the real world where unless the govt pays for infrastructure, it wont happen. >> No government should be telling a private business that it has to >> maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. > > Wrong when its a monopoly that the govt has partially funded. 30 or so bases out of 1500(?) is nothing. And they werent "govt funded" per se, they were Govt projects that the Govt tendered, on a basis that the Govt pays the capital cost and Telstra the ongoings. Which gave unviable country towns real mobile coverage for the first time. A win-win scenario > If telstra didnt like that, it shouldnt have accepted any govt funding. It wasnt up to them They tendered and the Govt gets to decide. >> Telstra is a private business and has the right to decide to stop >> offering services just like any other private business. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that they were only going to be providing that particular service > until it suited them to shaft their customers by turning it off. Crap sh.t. I walk into Coles and they no longer sell the bread I like. I dont have any right to complain. If I was under a contract to buy my bread there, they would release me from it. just like telstra is doing, voluntarily, in the sense that they will waive your ETC now, even though the network isnt ending today >> For example, an airline should be free to discontinue any routes that it >> decides to discontinue, > > Depends on whether the govt has funded that route. Which the Govt hasnt done for telstra in any way >> a retail store should be free to stop carrying any item that it currently >> carries. And, like those other businesses, a mobile phone provider should [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not if they didnt make it clear to the suckers they flogged that network > to that it could be turned off at any time on a whim and the customers I dont think ~2 years lead time is a whim. When you buy a phone on contract you buy it on the basis that the network must exist ONLY FOR THE LENGTH of the contract. And if it doesnt, you get to break the contract and walk. Thats what will happen with CDMA closure. There is no implied "network lifespan" >> If a private business does not provide services that consumers want, >> someone else will step in and provide it as long as the demand is there. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then there's the real world where the govt chose to hand > great piles of money to telstra to put in cdma bases where It was a fart in the bath > telstra would not otherwise bother to put in a base. And > telstra was very happy to accept that money and spend it. Because without that money the area was unviable > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> No government should be telling a private business that it has to >>> maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. >> Wrong when its a monopoly that the govt has partially funded. > 30 or so bases out of 1500(?) is nothing. You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever. You're just some stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child that has never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. > And they werent "govt funded" per se, Bare faced pig ignorant lie. > they were Govt projects that the Govt tendered, Bare faced pig ignorant lie. > on a basis that the Govt pays the capital cost and Telstra the ongoings. > Which gave unviable country towns real mobile coverage for the first time. > A win-win scenario Irrelevant to that stupid claim at the top. >> If telstra didnt like that, it shouldnt have accepted any govt funding. > It wasnt up to them Corse it was. > They tendered and the Govt gets to decide. Bare faced pig ignorant lie. >>> Telstra is a private business and has the right to decide to stop offering services just like any other private >>> business. >> Any other private business cant necessarily do that unless they >> are prepared to offer a full refund to those who they didnt inform >> that they were only going to be providing that particular service >> until it suited them to shaft their customers by turning it off. > Crap sh.t. Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom with a --- above it, you stupid dunny cleaning fluckwit child. > I walk into Coles and they no longer sell the bread I like. I dont have any right to complain. Corse you do, stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > If I was under a contract to buy my bread there, they would release > me from it. just like telstra is doing, voluntarily, in the sense that they will waive your ETC now, even though the > network isnt ending today Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had even the remotest concept of the most basic consumer law, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>> For example, an airline should be free to discontinue any routes that it decides to discontinue, >> Depends on whether the govt has funded that route. > Which the Govt hasnt done for telstra in any way Bare faced pig ignorant lie. >>> a retail store should be free to stop carrying any item that it >>> currently carries. And, like those other businesses, a mobile phone >>> provider should be free to stop supporting any networks, protocols, >>> technologies, phones or services that they choose to stop supporting. >> Not if they didnt make it clear to the suckers they flogged that network to that it could be turned off at any time >> on a whim and the customers > I dont think ~2 years lead time is a whim. You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. > When you buy a phone on contract you buy it on the basis that the network must exist ONLY FOR THE LENGTH of the > contract. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had even the remotest concept of the most basic consumer law, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > And if it doesnt, you get to break the contract and walk. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had even the remotest concept of the most basic consumer law, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Thats what will happen with CDMA closure. There is no implied "network lifespan" Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had even the remotest concept of the most basic consumer law, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>> If a private business does not provide services that consumers want, someone else will step in and provide it as >>> long as the demand is there. e.g. if a shop stops selling eggs, someone else will step in and start selling eggs if >>> the market wants eggs. >> Then there's the real world where the govt chose to hand >> great piles of money to telstra to put in cdma bases where > It was a fart in the bath Bare faced pig ignorant lie. >> telstra would not otherwise bother to put in a base. And >> telstra was very happy to accept that money and spend it. > Because without that money the area was unviable Irrelevant to whether whoever paid for that gets to say whether it can be turned off, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>>> No government should be telling a private business that it has to >>>> maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Irrelevant to that stupid claim at the top. Nope. Govt funded suggests that the Govt bankrolled the whole thing, which they didnt Without Telstra paying the ongoings and getting the ongoing revenue, these sites would not be viable. Indeed the tenders were for areas that had no or little coverage AND NO PLANS FOR ANY CARRIER TO IMPROVE >>> If telstra didnt like that, it shouldnt have accepted any govt funding. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> They tendered and the Govt gets to decide. They were all tendered Roddles, indeed Telstra lost one to Voda >>>> Telstra is a private business and has the right to decide to stop >>>> offering services just like any other private business. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> that they were only going to be providing that particular service >>> until it suited them to shaft their customers by turning it off. Crap sh.t, again. >> I walk into Coles and they no longer sell the bread I like. I dont have >> any right to complain. > > Corse you do, stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. I get to complain but I have no rights or remedies >> If I was under a contract to buy my bread there, they would release >> me from it. just like telstra is doing, voluntarily, in the sense that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have never ever had even the remotest concept of the most > basic consumer law, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. Disprove me then Roddles >>>> a retail store should be free to stop carrying any item that it >>>> currently carries. And, like those other businesses, a mobile phone [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> I dont think ~2 years lead time is a whim. >> When you buy a phone on contract you buy it on the basis that the network >> must exist ONLY FOR THE LENGTH of the contract. > > Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you > have never ever had even the remotest concept of the most > basic consumer law, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. Disprove me then Roddles. Cite some passages. And not your back passage, like you do most of the time >> Thats what will happen with CDMA closure. There is no implied "network >> lifespan" >>>> If a private business does not provide services that consumers want, >>>> someone else will step in and provide it as long as the demand is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> It was a fart in the bath >>>>> No government should be telling a private business that it has to >>>>> maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. >>>> Wrong when its a monopoly that the govt has partially funded. >>> 30 or so bases out of 1500(?) is nothing. >> You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever. >> You're just some stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child that >> has never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. >>> And they werent "govt funded" per se, >> Bare faced pig ignorant lie. >>> they were Govt projects that the Govt tendered, >> Bare faced pig ignorant lie. >>> on a basis that the Govt pays the capital cost and Telstra the ongoings. >>> Which gave unviable country towns real mobile coverage for the first time. >>> A win-win scenario >> Irrelevant to that stupid claim at the top. > Nope. Yep. > Govt funded suggests that the Govt bankrolled the whole thing, Nope. I said very explicitly that it was partially govt funded, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > which they didnt Pity no one ever said they did, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Without Telstra paying the ongoings and getting the ongoing revenue, these sites would not be viable. Irrelevant to who paid for it. > Indeed the tenders There were no tenders. > were for areas that had no or little coverage AND > NO PLANS FOR ANY CARRIER TO IMPROVE Irrelevant to who paid for it and so who gets to say when it can be turned off. >>>> If telstra didnt like that, it shouldnt have accepted any govt funding. >>> It wasnt up to them >> Corse it was. >>> They tendered and the Govt gets to decide. > They were all tendered No they werent. > indeed Telstra lost one to Voda Different system entirely. >>>>> Telstra is a private business and has the right to decide to stop offering services just like any other private >>>>> business. >>>> Any other private business cant necessarily do that unless they >>>> are prepared to offer a full refund to those who they didnt inform >>>> that they were only going to be providing that particular service >>>> until it suited them to shaft their customers by turning it off. > Crap sh.t, again. Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom, with a --- in front of it. >>> I walk into Coles and they no longer sell the bread I like. I dont have any right to complain. >> Corse you do, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > I get to complain but I have no rights or remedies Different matter entirely to what is being discussed, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>> If I was under a contract to buy my bread there, they would release >>> me from it. just like telstra is doing, voluntarily, in the sense that they will waive your ETC now, even though the >>> network isnt ending today >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you >> have never ever had even the remotest concept of the most >> basic consumer law, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Disprove me then Roddles Have a look at the TPA some time, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>>>> a retail store should be free to stop carrying any item that it >>>>> currently carries. And, like those other businesses, a mobile >>>>> phone provider should be free to stop supporting any networks, >>>>> protocols, technologies, phones or services that they choose to >>>>> stop supporting. >>>> Not if they didnt make it clear to the suckers they flogged that >>>> network to that it could be turned off at any time on a whim and >>>> the customers >>> I dont think ~2 years lead time is a whim. >>> When you buy a phone on contract you buy it on the basis that the >>> network must exist ONLY FOR THE LENGTH of the contract. >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you >> have never ever had even the remotest concept of the most >> basic consumer law, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Disprove me then Roddles. Have a look at the TPA some time, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Cite some passages. Go and f.ck yourself, again. >>> Thats what will happen with CDMA closure. There is no implied "network lifespan" >>>>> If a private business does not provide services that consumers >>>>> want, someone else will step in and provide it as long as the >>>>> demand is there. e.g. if a shop stops selling eggs, someone else >>>>> will step in and start selling eggs if the market wants eggs. >>>> Then there's the real world where the govt chose to hand >>>> great piles of money to telstra to put in cdma bases where >>> It was a fart in the bath You are a fart in the bath. > No government should be telling a private business that it has to maintain > a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. Telstra is a > private business and has the right to decide to stop offering services > just like any other private business. Agreed > The government should butt out and let the marketplace sort itself out. If Agreed > if the market wants eggs. If an airline stops flying to a given airport, > another airline will come in and fly to that airport if the market wants > to fly to that airport. And if Telstra stops providing cellphone service > to a given location, another carrier will step in and provide that service > if the market wants cell service in that location. Agreed >> No government should be telling a private business that it has to >> maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Agreed Pity that the Government is still the major shareholder and that Telstra must follow ACMA directives/licence conditions SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> No government should be telling a private business that it has to >>> maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Pity that the Government is still the major shareholder and that Telstra > must follow ACMA directives/licence conditions Sorry love. Its 100% privatised. And a chunk being in the future fund DOESNT make it "Govt owned" Try getting a FOI request out of Telstra - they refuse because they are no longer under that legislation as they are not Govt owned. > thegoons <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote >>> Jonathan Wilson <jfwfreo@tpgi.com.au> wrote >>>> No government should be telling a private business that it has to >>>> maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. >>>> Telstra is a private business and has the right to decide to stop >>>> offering services just like any other private business. >>> Agreed >>>> The government should butt out and let the marketplace sort itself out. >>> Agreed >>>> if the market wants eggs. If an airline stops flying to a given >>>> airport, another airline will come in and fly to that airport if >>>> the market wants to fly to that airport. And if Telstra stops >>>> providing cellphone service to a given location, another carrier >>>> will step in and provide that service if the market wants cell >>>> service in that location. >>> Agreed >> Pity that the Government is still the major shareholder and that Telstra must follow ACMA directives/licence >> conditions > Sorry love. Its 100% privatised. Irrelevant to the fact that the govt is the major shareholder and whether telstra, just like every other telco, gets to comply with the law and the license conditions. > And a chunk being in the future fund DOESNT make it "Govt owned" It does however mean that the govt is by far the largest shareholder, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Try getting a FOI request out of Telstra - they refuse because they are no longer under that legislation as they are > not Govt owned. Irrelevant to the fact that the govt is the major shareholder and whether telstra, just like every other telco, gets to comply with the law and the license conditions. >>>> No government should be telling a private business that it has to >>>> maintain a service (i.e CDMA) that it no longer wishes to maintain. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> >>> Agreed >> Pity that the Government is still the major shareholder and that Telstra >> must follow ACMA directives/licence conditions > > Sorry love. Its 100% privatised. And a chunk being in the future fund > DOESNT make it "Govt owned" I didn't say it was government owned, fuckwit. I said "Pity that the Government is still the major shareholder". Or are you illiterate? > Try getting a FOI request out of Telstra - they refuse because they are no > longer under that legislation as they are not Govt owned. Wrong again as always. Pity that they must comply where the records were maintained/kept when the organisation was a Federal entity. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Try getting a FOI request out of Telstra - they refuse because they are >> no longer under that legislation as they are not Govt owned. >>> > Wrong again as always. Pity that they must comply where the records were > maintained/kept when the organisation was a Federal entity. Sorry, you are wrong. Its very clear in Telstras documentation - FOI requests no longer exist. Feel free to ask for your customer records under FOI - even records before privitisation. Your $30 cheque will be posted back with a - "sorry FOI no longer applies to telstra" > From > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2097871.htm > Telstra says it's confident all its Territory customers currently using its CDMA network will have similar coverage on > its new Next G network. Easy to claim. Hell of lot harder to actually substantiate that claim. And that is nothing like the original claim anyway. > The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. Bare faced lie. > Telstra spokesman Geoff Booth says people still using the old network > should buy their new handsets and other equipment as soon as they can. What the f.ck is the point of not waiting till Jan ? > He says no matter where people live in the Territory, if they had CDMA coverage, they'll also have coverage under Next > G. Easy to claim. Hell of lot harder to actually substantiate that claim. > "We drove 12,000 kilometres testing the CDMA network versus the Next G network. We've declared to government that we > have network > equivalence and we are very, very confident that that is the case." And it remains to be seen if the govt will believe you. >> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What the f.ck is the point of not waiting till Jan ? Because the last offer may not be the best offer. Beat the rush. >> He says no matter where people live in the Territory, if they had CDMA >> coverage, they'll also have coverage under Next G. > > Easy to claim. Hell of lot harder to actually substantiate that claim. Easy. Check the coverage maps >>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >> Bare faced lie. >>> Telstra spokesman Geoff Booth says people still using the old network should buy their new handsets and other >>> equipment as soon as they can. >> What the f.ck is the point of not waiting till Jan ? > Because the last offer may not be the best offer. And it may be the best offer too, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Beat the rush. Changing early in Jan will do that fine, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>> He says no matter where people live in the Territory, if they had CDMA coverage, they'll also have coverage under >>> Next G. >> Easy to claim. Hell of lot harder to actually substantiate that claim. > Easy. Nope. > Check the coverage maps Anyone can put any lie they like on a coverage map, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. > >>> Bare faced lie. We'll see. Still full steam ahead for Jan 28. >>>> Telstra spokesman Geoff Booth says people still using the old network >>>> should buy their new handsets and other equipment as soon as they can. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And it may be the best offer too, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. Thats what "may not be" means, Roddles. The $100 credit offer that was on ALL handsets, notice its only on TWO handsets now? What does that tell you? >> Beat the rush. > > Changing early in Jan will do that fine, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit > child. Ahhhh ;-) Now its not "last minute" but you are advocating for early Jan ;-) changing your position ;-) >> Check the coverage maps > > Anyone can put any lie they like on a coverage map, you stupid dunny > cleaning fuckwit child. conspiracy theory> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >>>> Bare faced lie. > We'll see. We've seen. See the license conditions. > Still full steam ahead for Jan 28. There is no steam, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>>>> Telstra spokesman Geoff Booth says people still using the old network should buy their new handsets and other >>>>> equipment as soon as they can. >>>> What the f.ck is the point of not waiting till Jan ? >>> Because the last offer may not be the best offer. >> And it may be the best offer too, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Thats what "may not be" means, Roddles. And thats what "it may be the best offer" means too, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > The $100 credit offer that was on ALL handsets, notice its only on TWO handsets now? Says nothing all about what they may offer in the future, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > What does that tell you? That you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. >>> Beat the rush. >> Changing early in Jan will do that fine, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Ahhhh ;-) > Now its not "last minute" but you are advocating for early Jan ;-) No I aint. Just rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that you dont have to change now to beat the rush, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > changing your position ;-) Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>> Check the coverage maps >> Anyone can put any lie they like on a coverage map, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > conspiracy theory Fact. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > We've seen. See the license conditions. the licence conditions give some power. that power has not been excercised and may or may not be excercised >> Still full steam ahead for Jan 28. > > There is no steam, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. there is a hell of a lot of activity happening, roddles >>>> Beat the rush. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No I aint. Just rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that you dont have to > change now to beat the rush, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. hehe, changing your position >>> Anyone can put any lie they like on a coverage map, you stupid dunny >>> cleaning fuckwit child. > >> conspiracy theory > > Fact. LOL > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >>>>>> Bare faced lie. >>> We'll see. >> We've seen. See the license conditions. > the licence conditions give some power. To the govt on that, not telstra, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > that power has not been excercised Bare faced lie. > and may or may not be excercised The govt, and not telstra, decides when the cdma system can be turned off, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>> Still full steam ahead for Jan 28. >> There is no steam, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > there is a hell of a lot of activity happening, roddles There is no steam, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>>>> Beat the rush. >>>> Changing early in Jan will do that fine, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>> Ahhhh ;-) >>> Now its not "last minute" but you are advocating for early Jan ;-) >> No I aint. Just rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that you dont have to change now to beat the rush, you stupid >> dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > hehe, changing your position Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>>> Anyone can put any lie they like on a coverage map, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>> conspiracy theory >> Fact. > LOL Village eejut imitations cut no must around here, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. Not according to: http://www.fedlaw.gov.au:80/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framel odgmentattachments/6E0EF101D1A07488CA25735900159FE3 >>>> Bare faced lie. > > We'll see. Still full steam ahead for Jan 28. Nope: http://www.fedlaw.gov.au:80/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framel odgmentattachments/6E0EF101D1A07488CA25735900159FE3 >>>>> Telstra spokesman Geoff Booth says people still using the old network >>>>> should buy their new handsets and other equipment as soon as they can. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What does that tell you? http://www.fedlaw.gov.au:80/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framel odgmentattachments/6E0EF101D1A07488CA25735900159FE3 >>> Beat the rush. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > conspiracy theory> SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. > > Not according to: > http://www.fedlaw.gov.au:80/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framel odgmentattachments/6E0EF101D1A07488CA25735900159FE3 Looks like you are right, goons. And you were the only one who could pull out facts. Thank you >>>>>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you Thank you Michael. Let's just hope that Telstra pulls it's fnger out, gets the coverage right and then most will be happy to see the end of CDMA. Even a Telstra basher like me will embrace the turn-off if Telstra lives up to their promise. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>>>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Thank you Michael. You are welcome. > Let's just hope that Telstra pulls it's fnger out, gets the coverage right > and then most will be happy to see the end of CDMA. Even a Telstra basher > like me will embrace the turn-off if Telstra lives up to their promise. There are some facts on NWAT about the number of bases, and number of sq km of coverage, seems like Telstra has put a lot of effort in. I've very confident it will be shut on 28-Jan, but anything could happen >>>>>>>>> The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I've very confident it will be shut on 28-Jan, More fool you. > but anything could happen What is absolutely guaranteed to happen is that the ACMA wont buy Telstra's lie. Michael wrote... > There are some facts on NWAT about the number of bases, and number of sq km > of coverage, seems like Telstra has put a lot of effort in. I don't think that anyone is really, seriously disputing this. What is being questioned though, is the overall performance against that of CDMA. A lot of people have reported shortcomings in the NextG service. It is then up to Telstra to address these problems, if indeed, they do need addressing. If they don't, then it's down to two things. One, that Telstra isn't interested in providing the same coverage in all areas as what CDMA offered, or two, that the customers' phones aren't up to the task. But then, that could come back to Telstra given that it sells the phones for the service and that there is no customer support when it comes to choosing a phone other than what features it has and what the customer can afford to buy. ie. for say, the Mallee, the T-Shop people won't suggest that they buy the Acme Z100 rather than the Motorola V9 because of how one performs in that particular region. Looks like they are addressing it in part, with the release of this new NG phone that has an external antenna and which is "ruggedised' for farmers or outdoor workers, and which will work with an external antenna equiped car kit to boost range and which should work anywhere that a NG signal can be propagated. SignatureFirst things first, but neccesarily in that order > Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't think that anyone is really, seriously disputing this. What is > being Good. However those are the only metrics that count > questioned though, is the overall performance against that of CDMA. A lot > of > people have reported shortcomings in the NextG service. It is then up to > Telstra And just as many reported shortcomings with CDMA, AMPS, Telstra GSM, Optus GSM, etc. You cant please everyone > to address these problems, if indeed, they do need addressing. If they > don't, > then it's down to two things. One, that Telstra isn't interested in > providing > the same coverage in all areas as what CDMA offered, or two, that the > customers' Yep. If your new network covers 2.0m sq km and your CDMA covers 1.6m sq km, you might well not go after the extra odd 1 sq km here and there, because you are already 400 000 sq km in front > phones aren't up to the task. But then, that could come back to Telstra > given [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the > customer can afford to buy. ??? You can feel free to call the manufacturers of each phone yourself > Looks like they are addressing it in part, with the release of this new NG > phone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > boost > range and which should work anywhere that a NG signal can be propagated. No, an external antenna does not guarantee "it should work anywhere that a NG signal can be propogated" > > I don't think that anyone is really, seriously disputing this. What > > is being > > Good. However those are the only metrics that count The government, who are the ones who get to decide if CDMA can be switched off, may disagree with your opinion on what metrics do or don't count. "the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or better than the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that was in place as at 1 June 2007" (http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/framelodg mentattachments/6E0EF101D1A07488CA25735900159FE3) Does the government agree with you that "equivalent" means "raw number of sqaura km coverred" or does it think that "equivalent" means "everywhere I can get a CDMA signal I can get a NextG signal with similar hardware and conditions". Looking at the fact that the test wether Telstra meet the condition is "drive along a long predetermined route, make sure the NextG coverage meets the CDMA coverage" (paraphrased, obviously), I'd say the government thinks "equivalent" means the latter. "A conclusion can then be reached on whether the measured coverage of the CDMA system coincides with Telstra's mapped coverage of that system." (http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_100965) However, given Telstra _know_ the route being tested, you'd presume they've made pretty darn sure the footprint provided by CDMA has been met by NextG. > Yep. If your new network covers 2.0m sq km and your CDMA covers 1.6m > sq km, you might well not go after the extra odd 1 sq km here and > there, because you are already 400 000 sq km in front The government, who get to decide if CDMA can be switched off, might disagree there. Time will tell. > You can feel free to call the manufacturers of each phone yourself You might also argue that Telstra, as the retailer of the equipment, is selling goods unfit for their intended purpose. They appear to be rectifying this situation with the Blue Tick scheme. PD SignaturePaul Day >> > I don't think that anyone is really, seriously disputing this. What >> > is being [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > switched off, may disagree with your opinion on what metrics do or don't > count. yep > "the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or better than > the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that was in place [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Does the government agree with you that "equivalent" means "raw number > of sqaura km coverred" or does it think that "equivalent" means you'd have to ask them >> You can feel free to call the manufacturers of each phone yourself > > You might also argue that Telstra, as the retailer of the equipment, is > selling goods unfit for their intended purpose. They appear to be Nope > rectifying this situation with the Blue Tick scheme. > > PD > > Does the government agree with you that "equivalent" means "raw > > number of sqaura km coverred" or does it think that "equivalent" > > means > > you'd have to ask them It was a rhetorical question which has already been answerred. You conveniently decided _not_ to reproduce the part of my post that quotes the ACMA will be testing like-for-like coverage, not raw sq. km. Not the first time you've done that now, is it? ;) PD SignaturePaul Day Aren't you emabarassed by the fact that you're continuing to sing the praises of a company that doesn't give one flying f.ck about you? > From > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2097871.htm [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > network. We've declared to government that we have network equivalence and > we are very, very confident that that is the case." > Aren't you emabarassed by the fact that you're continuing to sing the > praises of a company that doesn't give one flying f.ck about you? > >> From >> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2097871.htm Quoting a report from the ABC is "praising telstra"?.. let me guess, you're a liberal voter.. > Alice <e@shitanddie.com> wrote >>> From >>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2097871.htm >> Aren't you emabarassed by the fact that you're continuing to sing the >> praises of a company that doesn't give one flying f.ck about you? Nope, no one gives a flying red f.ck about him, so he hasnt got any choice on that. > Quoting a report from the ABC is "praising telstra"?.. Yep, when you only ever quote the ones that have anything good to say about telstra, and never ever quote the ones that dont have anything good to say about telstra, fuckwit. > > Yep, when you only ever quote the ones that have anything > good to say about telstra, and never ever quote the ones > that dont have anything good to say about telstra, fuckwit. Only to "balance up" the anti-telstra diatribe which infects this NG.. Someone needs to inject a voice of reason in this debate. >> > Yep, when you only ever quote the ones that have anything >> good to say about telstra, and never ever quote the ones >> that dont have anything good to say about telstra, fuckwit. > > Only to "balance up" the anti-telstra diatribe which infects this NG.. > Someone needs to inject a voice of reason in this debate. Reason?? ROFL. The only thing you achieve is to get us to question the 'reason' for your pathetic existence. SignatureKwyj. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Quoting a report from the ABC is "praising telstra"?.. >> Yep, when you only ever quote the ones that have anything >> good to say about telstra, and never ever quote the ones >> that dont have anything good to say about telstra, fuckwit. > Only to "balance up" the anti-telstra diatribe which infects this NG.. Obvious bare faced lie. > Someone needs to inject a voice of reason in this debate. You wouldnt know what the voice of reason what if it bit you on your lard arse, fuckwit. No surprise that you got the bums rush, right out the door on your lard arse. >> > Yep, when you only ever quote the ones that have anything >> good to say about telstra, and never ever quote the ones that dont have >> anything good to say about telstra, fuckwit. > > Only to "balance up" the anti-telstra diatribe which infects this NG.. > Someone needs to inject a voice of reason in this debate. You've got that completely arse about face, naturally! There was never anything like as much anti-telstra opinion on this ng or aus.comms before you started posting your crap! In fact, some of the people who balance up your nonsense were posting much more pro-telstra stuff before. The anti- telstra stuff is there to balance your propaganda, not the other way round! >>> > Yep, when you only ever quote the ones that have anything >>> good to say about telstra, and never ever quote the ones that dont have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > telstra stuff is there to balance your propaganda, not the other way > round! No, I have been posting here for several years, just under a pseudonym. I know what this group is like.. >>>>> Yep, when you only ever quote the ones that have anything >>>> good to say about telstra, and never ever quote the ones that dont [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> pro-telstra stuff before. The anti- telstra stuff is there to >> balance your propaganda, not the other way round! > No, Yep. > I have been posting here for several years, just under a pseudonym. I know what this group is like.. You're lying about what this group is like, as always. >>>>>> Yep, when you only ever quote the ones that have anything >>>>> good to say about telstra, and never ever quote the ones that dont [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You're lying about what this group is like, as always. You should know. You stuffed it up. >>>>>>> Yep, when you only ever quote the ones that have anything >>>>>> good to say about telstra, and never ever quote the ones that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You should know. You stuffed it up. Irrelevant to his bare faced lies. Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed Mikey sticking up for telstra in here. > No, I have been posting here for several years, just under a pseudonym. I > know what this group is like.. use your real name or piss orf >>> > Yep, when you only ever quote the ones that have anything >>> good to say about telstra, and never ever quote the ones that dont have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > anything like as much anti-telstra opinion on this ng or aus.comms before > you started posting your crap! In fact, some of the people who balance up You are right. He's a waste of space Will Kemp wrote... > you started posting your crap! In fact, some of the people who balance up > your nonsense were posting much more pro-telstra stuff before. The anti- > telstra stuff is there to balance your propaganda, not the other way > round! Exactly. AP is litle more than a copy/paste for Telstra. Doesn't offer anything extra to the discussion. Thing is there used to be this twit in aus.motorcycles who got a hardon whenever Ducati or any of the Italian motorcycle racers were mentioned, won races or whatever. I got sick of it and decided to hate Ducati, even though they make nice bikes. Then you get the guys on here who gush about Telstra. If Sol and his amigos had any sense they'd get their tex to set up technology to block their posts to these NGs. It's sort of like having Hitler as a spokesman for Amnesty International... Allan Parkington wrote... > Only to "balance up" the anti-telstra diatribe which infects this NG.. > Someone needs to inject a voice of reason in this debate. All you ever do is to spout Telstra PR. I've yet to see an original thought in your posts. That lots of people shitcan Telstra must tell you something. Maybe you're blind to the market power of Telstra and how it abuses it. SignatureThe only difference between the wingnuts on each end of the political spectrum is *which* civil rights they think we can do without >> Aren't you emabarassed by the fact that you're continuing to sing the >> praises of a company that doesn't give one flying f.ck about you? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Quoting a report from the ABC is "praising telstra"?.. let me guess, you're >a liberal voter.. Then how come you didn't post this one for all to see? (from the same ABC): Friday November 23, 06:13 PM Telstra to blame for sewage leak: Queanbeyan Mayor The Queanbeyan Council says Telstra is to blame for its inability to stop the sewage leak that led to the closure of Lake Burley Griffin a fortnight ago. The lake was closed for a week after bacteria from the sewage reached dangerous levels. Queanbeyan Mayor Frank Pangallo says engineers have emergency plans ready to go when power fails at the treatment works. But he says Telstra had discontinued an automatic SMS notification service without telling anyone. "Telstra changed its protocols four days before the event and what used to happen before those changes is that our on-call person would've got an SMS message if the system failed," he said. "They had changed that, they'd discontinued that." Mr Pangallo says the communication problems are disappointing. "I certainly feel annoyed it's created a lot of problem and a lot of embarrassment for Queanbeyan because sewage spills unfortunately are going to happen no matter where they are when equipment fails," he said. "Had we been notified of that, we would've automatically switched on a generator." > Telstra to blame for sewage leak: Queanbeyan Mayor > > The Queanbeyan Council says Telstra is to blame for its inability to stop > the > sewage leak that led to the closure of Lake Burley Griffin a fortnight > ago. LOL how ridiculous > But he says Telstra had discontinued an automatic SMS notification service > without telling anyone. Lie > "Telstra changed its protocols four days before the event and what used to > happen before those changes is that our on-call person would've got an SMS > message if the system failed," he said. > > "They had changed that, they'd discontinued that." SMS Access Manager hasnt closed at all, thanks for asking. > Mr Pangallo says the communication problems are disappointing. Sounds like non-payment of account to me > "I certainly feel annoyed it's created a lot of problem and a lot of > embarrassment for Queanbeyan because sewage spills unfortunately are going [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Had we been notified of that, we would've automatically switched on a > generator." You should know better >From >http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2097871.htm > >Telstra says it's confident all its Territory customers currently using its >CDMA network will have similar coverage on its new Next G network. and the rest of Australia? One piece of equivalence doesn't automatically translate to the rest of oz. >The CDMA network will stop working on January 28. maybe. </ |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message