 |
 | 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 / April 2008Telstra wants fixed phone line obligation reviewed
From http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200804/s2218642.htm Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide a telephone service to every Australian reviewed. It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the CDMA mobile phone network in favour of its new NextG service. The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone, even in remote areas. Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone. "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation of providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where that half billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said. "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders, should it sit with Government, should it sit with industry. Or should the rules be changed?" > From > http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200804/s2218642.htm [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders, No. > should it sit with Government, In other words, the taxpayers. > should it sit with industry. Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers, rather than just the ones actually receiving remote services. > Or should the rules be changed?" As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to remote-area person who wants the telephone service. If the remote-area person can't afford it, and there are public policy reasons for (1) the remote-area person remaining where he is; and (2) the remote-area person having a telephone service; then Parliament can look at subsidizing the service with funds from Consolidated Revenue. >> From >> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200804/s2218642.htm [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to remote-area person > who wants the telephone service. Taking that to its next logical step, should a metro customer have their line rent calculated according to their distance from the exchange? Why should those living next door to the exchange subsidise those on 3km of copper?  SignatureKwyj. >>> From >>> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200804/s2218642.htm [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Taking that to its next logical step, should a metro customer have their > line rent calculated according to their distance from the exchange? Yes, if the phone company wants to do it that way. But what's the amortized cost of 3km of copper? I'd imagine most companies wouldn't bother to do it, as the cost of charging that way (complicated billing systems, etc., measurement of millions of bits of copper) would be more than the cost of the additional copper. > Why > should those living next door to the exchange subsidise those on 3km of > copper? They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services. > They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private > companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services. Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network for free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't. GB -- .sig >> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private >> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services. > > Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network for > free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that > telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't. No-one received a telephone network for free. The Government originally owned the network through PMG/Telecom/Telstra. The Government then sold Telstra (for tens upon tens of billions of dollars) through a series of public share offers. That offer included the PSTN. Read the prospectuses for the share offers. > GB wrote >>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private >>> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services. >> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network >> for free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that >> telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't. > No-one received a telephone network for free. Wrong, telstra did with the landline system. > The Government originally owned the network through PMG/Telecom/Telstra. And Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for that. > The Government then sold Telstra (for tens upon tens of > billions of dollars) through a series of public share offers. Thats not the PSTN, that Telstra which was a lot more than just the PSTN. > That offer included the PSTN. Yes, but Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for that. > Read the prospectuses for the share offers. Dont need to on that. >> GB wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Wrong, telstra did with the landline system. More lies and bullshit. >> The Government originally owned the network through PMG/Telecom/Telstra. > > And Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for that. Because Telstra already owned it, you useless twonk. Did you read the bit where he said The government owned it THROUGH Telstra? Now the shareholders own it THROUGH Telstra. Telstra's ownership of the network hasn't changed through privatisation. >> The Government then sold Telstra (for tens upon tens of >> billions of dollars) through a series of public share offers. > > Thats not the PSTN, that Telstra which was a lot more than just the PSTN. More than the PSTN huh? That would mean it INCLUDES the PSTN, fuckwit. >> That offer included the PSTN. > > Yes, but Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for that. They had already paid for it themselves. The government only owned it via their Telstra ownership. When they sold Telstra, they sold the PSTN along with it. Not to hard to figure out is it? SignatureKwyj. Some gutless drug running fuckwit desperately cowering behind Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.com> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant sh.t you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running fuckwit thats never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. > Some gutless drug running fuckwit desperately cowering behind > Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.com> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant > sh.t you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running fuckwit > thats never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. Done again, hey Roddles? f.cking useless arse-clown. SignatureKwyj. Some gutless drug running fuckwit desperately cowering behind Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.com> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant sh.t you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running fuckwit thats never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. >> GB wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > And Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for that. Yes they did. They paid back all monies given to them back to 1901, with a commercial rate of interest > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> GB wrote >>>>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private companies shouldn't be forced to provide >>>>> unprofitable services. >>>> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network >>>> for free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that >>>> telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't. >>> No-one received a telephone network for free. >> Wrong, telstra did with the landline system. >>> The Government originally owned the network through PMG/Telecom/Telstra. >> And Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for that. > Yes they did. No they didnt. > They paid back all monies given to them back to 1901, with a commercial rate of interest Pig ignorant lie. >> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private >> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services. > > Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network for >free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that >telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't. 1. Who got "a country-wide telephone network for free"? 2. I don't think the present argument is over bits of the network, it's rather over bits that *aren't* on the network. (But I admit I may be wrong there.) 3. I see this was cross-posted to aus.comms.mobile. Does that imply you think it would be okay to use a mobile-style connection for the bits not yet on the network? Cheers, Phred. SignatureppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID > GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote >>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private >>> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services. >> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network >> for free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that >> telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't. > 1. Who got "a country-wide telephone network for free"? Telstra, it was owned by the govt. > 2. I don't think the present argument is over bits of the > network, it's rather over bits that *aren't* on the network. Nope, its whether telstra gets to wear the legal USO obligation as a consequence of not having to pay the govt for that country wide phone network. > (But I admit I may be wrong there.) As always on a friday night. > 3. I see this was cross-posted to aus.comms.mobile. Does that imply you think it > would be okay to use a mobile-style connection for the bits not yet on the network? Nope, thats what the poxington mostly does with most of its telstra lies. >> GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Telstra, it was owned by the govt. And the Government owned Telstra. The Government then sold Telstra (including its assets and liabilities, etc.) to the public. >> 2. I don't think the present argument is over bits of the network, it's >> rather over bits that *aren't* on the network. > > Nope, its whether telstra gets to wear the legal USO obligation as a > consequence of not having to pay the govt for that country wide phone > network. The Government OWNED Telstra. The people who bought shares in T1, T2, and T3 paid the Commonwealth money in exchange for a company which had certain assets, including "that country wide phone network". Are you suggesting that the Commonwealth received money for selling something it didn't own (because it had previously given it away for free to Telstra)? Did the Commonwealth rip the public off, or were the prospectuses wrong? > Rod Speed wrote >>> GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote >>>>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private >>>>> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services. >>>> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network for >>>> free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that >>>> telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't. >>> 1. Who got "a country-wide telephone network for free"? >> Telstra, it was owned by the govt. > And the Government owned Telstra. > The Government then sold Telstra (including its assets and liabilities, etc.) to the public. Irrelevant to whether telstra paid a cent to the govt for the landline network and so gets to wear the USO when the govt includes that condition on telstra. >>> 2. I don't think the present argument is over bits of the >>> network, it's rather over bits that *aren't* on the network. >> Nope, its whether telstra gets to wear the legal USO obligation as a consequence >> of not having to pay the govt for that country wide phone network. > The Government OWNED Telstra. Irrelevant to whether telstra paid a cent to the govt for the landline network and so gets to wear the USO when the govt includes that condition on telstra. > The people who bought shares in T1, T2, and T3 paid the > Commonwealth money in exchange for a company which had > certain assets, including "that country wide phone network". Irrelevant to whether telstra paid a cent to the govt for the landline network and so gets to wear the USO when the govt includes that condition on telstra. > Are you suggesting that the Commonwealth > received money for selling something it didn't own Nope, that telstra is a lot more than JUST the landline infrastructure. > (because it had previously given it away for free to Telstra)? JUST that telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for the landline infrastructure. > Did the Commonwealth rip the public off, or were the prospectuses wrong? Neither. Telstra gets to wear the USO that the govt chose to apply to all telcos. Telstra gets to like that or lump it. >> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private >> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services. > > Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network for > free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that > telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't. Too bad no one received any network for free > GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote >>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private companies shouldn't be forced to provide >>> unprofitable services. >> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network for free do not include the right to cherry-pick which >> bits of that >> telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't. > Too bad no one received any network for free Pig ignorant lie. >Taking that to its next logical step, should a metro customer have their >line rent calculated according to their distance from the exchange? Why >should those living next door to the exchange subsidise those on 3km of >copper? Or more - much more - in a lot of cases. Signaturehttp://www.technotranceravesex.net/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=876 Fuk the Jews Tell the Lebs that come to Cronulla to Respect the Locals or PISS OFF! Kaizer Solzay says "Burn the US, UK and Australian flags in protest!" Bomb US Military installations outside the USA! http://lios.apana.org.au/~oobi > Alan Parkington wrote >> From >> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200804/s2218642.htm >> Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide >> a telephone service to every Australian reviewed. >> It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the >> CDMA mobile phone network in favour of its new NextG service. >> The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural >> Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone, >> even in remote areas. >> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning >> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone. >> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation >> of providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where >> that half billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said. >> "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders, > No. Yes. Telstra gets to wear that as a consequence of not being wholly govt owned which is what they wanted. >> should it sit with Government, > In other words, the taxpayers. >> should it sit with industry. > Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers, > rather than just the ones actually receiving remote services. Just like they are with a whole raft of other services like the post, schools, doctors, cops etc. >> Or should the rules be changed?" > As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to > remote-area person who wants the telephone service. Why just with a phone service, and not with the post, schools, doctors, cops etc ? > If the remote-area person can't afford it, and there are public policy > reasons for (1) the remote-area person remaining where he is; and (2) > the remote-area person having a telephone service; then Parliament > can look at subsidizing the service with funds from Consolidated Revenue. Or it can tell telstra that thats what it gets to like or lump as a consequence of not being entirely govt owned, which is what it wanted. >> Alan Parkington wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Yes. Telstra gets to wear that as a consequence of > not being wholly govt owned which is what they wanted. I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Telstra should wear the cost of a "Universal Service Obligation" because it's not wholly government-owned? Vodafone and Optus aren't wholly government-owned either. And who cares what Telstra "wanted"? (I assume the "they" in "which is what they wanted" refers to Telstra's employees/executives.) It's irrelevant what a bunch of employees "wanted". (And the Booth's rhetorical question used the word "should"; not the word "does".) >>> should it sit with Government, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Just like they are with a whole raft of other services like the post, schools, doctors, cops etc. It's not just like that. All those remote services are paid for by the Government/s out of Consolidated Revenue... We don't force Fedex/GPS/Healthscope/Chubb to open unprofitable branches/schools/hospitals/offices in remote locations. >>> Or should the rules be changed?" > >> As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to >> remote-area person who wants the telephone service. > > Why just with a phone service, and not with the post, schools, doctors, cops etc ? See above. >> If the remote-area person can't afford it, and there are public policy >> reasons for (1) the remote-area person remaining where he is; and (2) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Or it can tell telstra that thats what it gets to like or lump as a > consequence of not being entirely govt owned, which is what it wanted. Why shouldn't Parliament also tell Fedex/GPS/Healthscope/Chubb to provide universal service? They're not entirely government-owned (and presumably they "want" to remain that way). This sort of legislative "like it or lump it" interference in private property rights is what you get from the Kremlin/Duma. If the Commonwealth wanted to retain control of Telstra actions, it shouldn't have sold it. > Vodafone and Optus aren't wholly government-owned either. Vodafone and Optus shareholders didn't get a country-wide telephone network and incumbent status completely free-of- charge. GB -- .sig >> Vodafone and Optus aren't wholly government-owned either. > > Vodafone and Optus shareholders didn't get a country-wide > telephone network and incumbent status completely free-of- > charge. Neither did Telstra shareholders, you silly c.nt. Mindlessly repeating the same idiotic line over and over again doesn't make it a fact, you useless fuckwit. SignatureKwyj. >>> Alan Parkington wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >If the Commonwealth wanted to retain control of Telstra actions, it >shouldn't have sold it. I was under the impression that the conditions of the sale of Telstra and ongoing obligations were well-known to intending investors prior to the sell-off. But, I guess, the people complaining about obligations are disappointed that their licence to print money came with strings. --------------------------------- Death is Nature's way of telling you you aren't needed, any more. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Alan Parkington wrote >>>> From >>>> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200804/s2218642.htm >>>> Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide >>>> a telephone service to every Australian reviewed. >>>> It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the >>>> CDMA mobile phone network in favour of its new NextG service. >>>> The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural >>>> Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone, >>>> even in remote areas. >>>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is >>>> questioning whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to >>>> have a telephone. >>>> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation of >>>> providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where that >>>> half billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said. >>>> "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders, >>> No. >> Yes. Telstra gets to wear that as a consequence of >> not being wholly govt owned which is what they wanted. > I don't understand what you're saying. GB said it better. Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free, they get to wear that legal obligation to provide a phone service to everyone too. > Are you saying that Telstra should wear the cost of a "Universal > Service Obligation" because it's not wholly government-owned? No, that it gets to wear that cost because its the ex monopoly that got the entire phone infrastructure handed to it when it was privatised. > Vodafone and Optus aren't wholly government-owned either. Sure. > And who cares what Telstra "wanted"? Anyone who realises they got the privatisation they wanted and that that has some consequences when they get the entire phone infrastructure handed to them for free. > (I assume the "they" in "which is what they wanted" > refers to Telstra's employees/executives.) It's > irrelevant what a bunch of employees "wanted". Nope, not when they get the entire phone infrastructure handed to them for free. > (And the Booth's rhetorical question used the word "should"; not the word "does".) Who cares what that fool said ? What matters is what makes sense. >>>> should it sit with Government, >>> In other words, the taxpayers. >>>> should it sit with industry. >>> Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers, >>> rather than just the ones actually receiving remote services. >> Just like they are with a whole raft of other >> services like the post, schools, doctors, cops etc. > It's not just like that. Yes it is. > All those remote services are paid for by the > Government/s out of Consolidated Revenue... The postal service isnt. > We don't force Fedex/GPS/Healthscope/Chubb to open unprofitable > branches/schools/hospitals/offices in remote locations. None of them got their entire infrastructure handed to them for free. >>>> Or should the rules be changed?" >>> As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to >>> remote-area person who wants the telephone service. >> Why just with a phone service, and not with the post, schools, doctors, cops etc ? > See above. See above. >>> If the remote-area person can't afford it, and there are >>> public policy reasons for (1) the remote-area person >>> remaining where he is; and (2) the remote-area person >>> having a telephone service; then Parliament can look at >>> subsidizing the service with funds from Consolidated Revenue. >> Or it can tell telstra that thats what it gets to like or lump as a >> consequence of not being entirely govt owned, which is what it wanted. > Why shouldn't Parliament also tell Fedex/GPS/ > Healthscope/Chubb to provide universal service? Because they werent handed the entire monopoly infrastructure for free. > They're not entirely government-owned (and presumably they "want" to remain that way). But they werent handed the entire monopoly infrastructure for free. > This sort of legislative "like it or lump it" interference in private > property rights is what you get from the Kremlin/Duma. Wrong. Its what very single modern first world country has done when its privatised a govt monopoly telco. > If the Commonwealth wanted to retain control of Telstra actions, it shouldn't have sold it. Or they can and did chose to privatise it for the advantages that privatisation deliver and chose to mandate the USO as well. And it isnt just telstra that pays for the USO, its funded with a levy thats based on turnover over all the telcos, not just telstra. And whatever some academic argument might or might not conclude, the reality is that labor isnt going to release telstra from what legal obligation the legislation provides for on the USO anyway. > Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free, Lie. Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of dollars for it. SignatureKwyj. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free, > Lie. Fact. > Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of dollars for it. Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Fact. Wrong. >> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of >> dollars for it. > > Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid. Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit. SignatureKwyj. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free, >>> Lie. >> Fact. > Wrong. Nope. >>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of dollars for it. >> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid. > Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit. Your mindless pig ignorant sh.t has always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. You've never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Your mindless pig ignorant sh.t has always been, > and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift, fuckwit? > You've never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. Unlike you, who was adamant that the government wasn't expecting a return on their FTTN investment, then went suddenly quiet when you had your nose rubbed in your stupidity. Good one, Rod, you clueless fuckwit. SignatureKwyj. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free, >>>>> Lie. >>>> Fact. >>> Wrong. >> Nope. >>>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of dollars for it. >>>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid. >>> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit. >> Your mindless pig ignorant sh.t has always been, >> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. > So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit. They were payment for the phone company which had already paid for and owned the infrastructure. No one got anything for free, stupid. SignatureKwyj. >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit. > They were payment for the phone company which had already paid for and owned the infrastructure. Telstra the privatised company didnt own the infrastructure, the govt owned it. > No one got anything for free, stupid. Pig ignorant lie. Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for the landline infrastructure. >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Telstra the privatised company didnt own the infrastructure, the govt owned it. So at the time of T1 (when Telstra first became partly privatized), Telstra didn't own the PSTN?? Did the Commonwealth transfer ownership at some later stage (and get nothing in return -- neither cash, nor an increased stake in the corporation)? >> No one got anything for free, stupid. > > Pig ignorant lie. Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for the landline > infrastructure. Then what on earth did the public pay the Commonwealth tens of billions of dollars for? Call centres, white Telstra vans, and "goodwill"? > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free, >>>>>>>>> Lie. >>>>>>>> Fact. >>>>>>> Wrong. >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid >>>>>>>>> the government billions of dollars for it. >>>>>>>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid. >>>>>>> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit. >>>>>> Your mindless pig ignorant sh.t has always been, >>>>>> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. >>>>> So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift >>>> They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit. >>> They were payment for the phone company which >>> had already paid for and owned the infrastructure. >> Telstra the privatised company didnt own the infrastructure, the govt owned it. > So at the time of T1 (when Telstra first became > partly privatized), Telstra didn't own the PSTN?? Didnt say that. > Did the Commonwealth transfer ownership at some later stage Didnt say that either. > (and get nothing in return -- neither cash, nor an increased stake in the corporation)? Or that. >>> No one got anything for free, stupid. >> Pig ignorant lie. Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for the landline infrastructure. > Then what on earth did the public pay the Commonwealth tens of billions of dollars for? For shares in telstra. > Call centres, white Telstra vans, and "goodwill"? Shares in telstra. >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Telstra the privatised company didnt own the infrastructure, the govt > owned it. Lie. Telstra owned it, and Telstra Corp (the legal entity which owned the network) existed a long time before privatisation. >> No one got anything for free, stupid. > > Pig ignorant lie. Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for the landline > infrastructure. Because the government didn't own it, stupid. Telstra did. SignatureKwyj. Some gutless drug running fuckwit desperately cowering behind Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.com> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant sh.t you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running fuckwit thats never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. > Some gutless drug running fuckwit desperately cowering behind > Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.com> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant > sh.t you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running fuckwit > thats never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. Giving up already? Must be all those drugs you're taking. SignatureKwyj. Some gutless drug running fuckwit desperately cowering behind Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.com> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant sh.t you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running fuckwit thats never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit. Then what were they for? The Telstra "brand"? Check out the prospectuses for the various Telstra floats. The infrastructure was part of the deal. The PSTN network is listed there in the financial statements. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free, >>>>>>> Lie. >>>>>> Fact. >>>>> Wrong. >>>> Nope. >>>>>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of dollars for it. >>>>>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid. >>>>> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit. >>>> Your mindless pig ignorant sh.t has always been, >>>> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. >>> So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift >> They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit. > Then what were they for? Shares in telstra. > The Telstra "brand"? Nope. > Check out the prospectuses for the various Telstra floats. I know what they said thanks. > The infrastructure was part of the deal. Irrelevant to whether telstra ever paid the govt a cent for it. > The PSTN network is listed there in the financial statements. Irrelevant to whether telstra ever paid the govt a cent for it. > From > http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200804/s2218642.htm > Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide a telephone service to > every Australian reviewed. Telstra execs continue to smoke crack cocaine on the job... > It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the CDMA > mobile phone network in favour of its new NextG service. Give the f.ckers an inch, they try to take twenty miles... > The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural > Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone, even > in remote areas. Damn right it does. > Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning > whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone. Damn right they should. They got a country-wide telephone network completely free-of-charge, now they get to live up to their end of the bargain. > "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation of > providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where that > half billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said. Square in the lap of the shareholders who are busily enjoying the free country-wide telephone network that they got completely free- of-charge, that's where it sits. > "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders, should it sit with > Government, should it sit with industry. Or should the rules be > changed?" Yes, absolutely the rules should be changed. There's not enough telecomms regulation in this country. Regulation and oversight desperately needs shoring up, the telcos - particularly the incumbent - have it too easy as it stands. GB -- .sig >> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning >> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone. > > Damn right they should. They got a country-wide telephone network > completely free-of-charge, now they get to live up to their end of the > bargain. Free of charge? You seem to be forgetting the tens of billions of dollars the Commonwealth raised by selling Telstra shares. >> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation of >> providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > free country-wide telephone network that they got completely free- > of-charge, that's where it sits. What a moron. The Government gave away all the Telstra shares did it? In actual fact, the Commonwealth SOLD its "country-wide telephone network" for tens of billions of dollars. >>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning >>> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >In actual fact, the Commonwealth SOLD its "country-wide telephone network" >for tens of billions of dollars. Power Companies have always been entitled to charge the full cost of providing power to people in the bush. Why should phone companies be any differant.' >>>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is >>>> questioning whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> In actual fact, the Commonwealth SOLD its "country-wide telephone >> network" for tens of billions of dollars. > Power Companies have always been entitled to charge > the full cost of providing power to people in the bush. Pig ignorant lie. > Why should phone companies be any differant.' Because the legislators choose to do things differently with them. You get to like that or lump it. >Power Companies have always been entitled to charge the full cost of >providing power to people in the bush. >Why should phone companies be any differant.' But you have an option. If it is more expensive to get grid power connected you can go solar - cost was about the same for installation, then nearly free power, just replace a few batteries each year. No such alternative with phones. If mobile data was affordable, and nextG coverage was available, you would not need to run copper. > mauried@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote >> Power Companies have always been entitled to charge the full cost of providing >> power to people in the bush. Why should phone companies be any differant. > But you have an option. You do with a phone system too. > If it is more expensive to get grid power connected you can go solar > - cost was about the same for installation, then nearly free power, > just replace a few batteries each year. No such alternative with phones. Wrong, you are welcome to have a satellite service instead if you want one. > If mobile data was affordable, Thats not a phone service. > and nextG coverage was available, you would not need to run copper. You dont now, you can have a satellite system if you want one. |
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.