Sol's new website - Telstra

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Who should subsidise high-cost telco services to the bush?
>> a) Entire telco industry
>> b) Government
>> c) Telstra
>>
>> How about d) no-one?
>
> Agreed
>
>> What is so bloody special about telco services (beyond a basic phone
>> line)
>> that makes it vitally important that everyone even in the sticks has
>> broadband? The hype about this subject suggests that internet access is
>> more important than hospitals, schools, jobs, etc. It's ok for the
> cockies
>> to have no local hospital, school or jobs just so long as they can watch
>> porn and download the latest bootlegs at 512k or better.
>
> Its f*ckin ridiculous.
>
> Lets have some charging based on cost. Why should I pay $209 for a new
> line
> when there is plenty of capacity all the way from the cabling from my box,
> to the pit, to the exchange.
>
> Let the cockies that need 5km of cable run, pay the full cost.

Not a bad concept, "truth in pricing", but lets start from the top and work
all the way down the chain to the consumer with this. After all, if it is
only fair and reasonable that Telstra charge a realistic cost to your
"cockie", every other product should be costed realistically also.

---

› See More: Sol's new website - Telstra

Michael said....

> Lets have some charging based on cost. Why should I pay $209 for a new
> line when there is plenty of capacity all the way from the cabling from
> my box, to the pit, to the exchange.
>
> Let the cockies that need 5km of cable run, pay the full cost.

How much would that cost, based on your perception of its value?

What if it's unaffordable to either the "cockie" or anyone else who may
require it? Do they do without? Have no telecommunications services at
all? Is that fair?

I don't really want to get into an argument about city dwellers
subsidising rural folks. But really, if you want people to live in the
country to provide the services that we need in order to grow our own
food, then really you have to expect to subsidise them to some extent.


--
Women do come with instructions; ask them.

MJT <[email protected]> wrote
> Michael said....

>> Lets have some charging based on cost. Why should I pay
>> $209 for a new line when there is plenty of capacity all the
>> way from the cabling from my box, to the pit, to the exchange.

>> Let the cockies that need 5km of cable run, pay the full cost.

> How much would that cost, based on your perception of its value?

> What if it's unaffordable to either the "cockie" or anyone else who
> may require it? Do they do without? Have no telecommunications
> services at all? Is that fair?

> I don't really want to get into an argument about city dwellers
> subsidising rural folks. But really, if you want people to live in the
> country to provide the services that we need in order to grow our own
> food, then really you have to expect to subsidise them to some extent.

Bull****, they get paid for what they produce.

"MJT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael said....
>
> > Lets have some charging based on cost. Why should I pay $209 for a new
> > line when there is plenty of capacity all the way from the cabling from
> > my box, to the pit, to the exchange.
> >
> > Let the cockies that need 5km of cable run, pay the full cost.
>
> How much would that cost, based on your perception of its value?

At the very least, factor in the labour needed to hook it up. Lot more than
the cable that already sits in my street all the way back to the exchange
since the estate was built.

> What if it's unaffordable to either the "cockie" or anyone else who may
> require it? Do they do without? Have no telecommunications services at

This is the real world, big boy. If it aint affordable, you dont get it

> all? Is that fair?

You get to go buy a mobile if PSTN aint affordable

> I don't really want to get into an argument about city dwellers
> subsidising rural folks. But really, if you want people to live in the
> country to provide the services that we need in order to grow our own
> food, then really you have to expect to subsidise them to some extent.

Crap****.

Michael wrote:

>> What if it's unaffordable to either the "cockie" or anyone else who may
>> require it? Do they do without? Have no telecommunications services at
>
> This is the real world, big boy. If it aint affordable, you dont get it

Really, you shouldn't be going on about "the real world" when you're
jerking off in front of a PC reading newsgroups...

>> all? Is that fair?
>
> You get to go buy a mobile if PSTN aint affordable

And what if mobile coverage isn't available? Then what? Do you seriously
expect people to be cut off from the rest of the world, no ability to
contact emergency services, for example?

>> I don't really want to get into an argument about city dwellers
>> subsidising rural folks. But really, if you want people to live in the
>> country to provide the services that we need in order to grow our own
>> food, then really you have to expect to subsidise them to some extent.
>
> Crap****.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why you think that this is
"crap****"?



--
Women get minks the same way minks get minks.

"MJT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael wrote:
>
> >> What if it's unaffordable to either the "cockie" or anyone else who may
> >> require it? Do they do without? Have no telecommunications services at
> >
> > This is the real world, big boy. If it aint affordable, you dont get it
>
> Really, you shouldn't be going on about "the real world" when you're
> jerking off in front of a PC reading newsgroups...
>
> >> all? Is that fair?
> >
> > You get to go buy a mobile if PSTN aint affordable
>
> And what if mobile coverage isn't available? Then what? Do you seriously
> expect people to be cut off from the rest of the world, no ability to
> contact emergency services, for example?

You can contact emergency services via GSM mobile, CDMA mobile, your own
PSTN service, a pay phone.

If you choose not to have a PSTN because of cost, your problem. Just like
its always been

> >> I don't really want to get into an argument about city dwellers
> >> subsidising rural folks. But really, if you want people to live in the
> >> country to provide the services that we need in order to grow our own
> >> food, then really you have to expect to subsidise them to some extent.
> >
> > Crap****.
>
> Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why you think that this is
> "crap****"?

Because country folk get paid (well) for their food
And I grow my own,

MJT wrote:

> Michael wrote:
>
>>> What if it's unaffordable to either the "cockie" or anyone else who
>>> may require it? Do they do without?
>> This is the real world, big boy. If it aint affordable, you dont get it
>
> Really, you shouldn't be going on about "the real world" when you're
> jerking off in front of a PC reading newsgroups...
>
>>> Have no telecommunications services at all? Is that fair?

You haven't explained why telecommunications should be different to
virtually everything else. Electricity, water and sewers are more basic
utilities, yet none of them are subsidised for country dwellers by city
dwellers like phones are. There is no universal obligation to have a
local hospital, or local employment.

>> You get to go buy a mobile if PSTN aint affordable
>
> And what if mobile coverage isn't available? Then what? Do you seriously
> expect people to be cut off from the rest of the world, no ability to
> contact emergency services, for example?

What's the point of a phone in say a medical emergency if there is no
local hospital?

There are many economic and non-economic trade-offs between city and
country living - a lot of essentials are dearer in the country but most
people's major expense (real estate) is vastly cheaper. We don't
subsidise most things - so why is a telephone different?

Surely a roof over your head is more basic than a phone, so why don't we
subsidise accomodation for city dwellers (as it is significantly dearer
than for country dwellers)?

In any case, if there was no (econonomically unviable) wired phone system
in the bush, it would be much more likely that modern wireless services
for broadband or phone would be economically viable - probably leading to
better services and more choice for country consumers.

>>> I don't really want to get into an argument about city dwellers
>>> subsidising rural folks.

Why not? That's what this discussion us about.

>>> But really, if you want people to live in
>>> the country to provide the services that we need in order to grow
>>> our own food, then really you have to expect to subsidise them to
>>> some extent.

Bollocks. They live in the country because they prefer it, not out of an
altruistic desire to provide produce for city folk. You might as well
argue that city dwellers live there out of an altruistic desire to produce
manufactured goods for country dwellers.

Tom N <[email protected]> wrote
> MJT wrote
>> Michael wrote

>>>> What if it's unaffordable to either the "cockie" or anyone
>>>> else who may require it? Do they do without?

>>> This is the real world, big boy. If it aint affordable, you dont get it

>> Really, you shouldn't be going on about "the real world"
>> when you're jerking off in front of a PC reading newsgroups...

>>>> Have no telecommunications services at all? Is that fair?

> You haven't explained why telecommunications should be
> different to virtually everything else. Electricity, water and
> sewers are more basic utilities, yet none of them are subsidised
> for country dwellers by city dwellers like phones are.

Some of them are, most obviously electricity
and letters, and police and court services too.

> There is no universal obligation to have
> a local hospital, or local employment.

Yes, the detail is different, but there are subsidys too.

>>> You get to go buy a mobile if PSTN aint affordable

>> And what if mobile coverage isn't available? Then what? Do
>> you seriously expect people to be cut off from the rest of the
>> world, no ability to contact emergency services, for example?

> What's the point of a phone in say a medical
> emergency if there is no local hospital?

You get to whistle up the flying doctor if that is necessary and
get some basic info on what to do if its not that serious etc.

> There are many economic and non-economic trade-offs between
> city and country living - a lot of essentials are dearer in the country
> but most people's major expense (real estate) is vastly cheaper.
> We don't subsidise most things - so why is a telephone different?

Quite a bit more than a phone service is in fact subsidised. Most
obviously with the postal service, particularly the universal letter rate.

> Surely a roof over your head is more basic than a phone,
> so why don't we subsidise accomodation for city dwellers
> (as it is significantly dearer than for country dwellers)?

> In any case, if there was no (econonomically unviable)
> wired phone system in the bush, it would be much
> more likely that modern wireless services for
> broadband or phone would be economically viable

Nope.

> - probably leading to better services
> and more choice for country consumers.

Nope, they'd still have the same choices they have now.

>>>> I don't really want to get into an argument
>>>> about city dwellers subsidising rural folks.

> Why not? That's what this discussion us about.

>>>> But really, if you want people to live in the country to provide
>>>> the services that we need in order to grow our own food, then
>>>> really you have to expect to subsidise them to some extent.

> Bollocks. They live in the country because they prefer it, not out
> of an altruistic desire to provide produce for city folk. You might
> as well argue that city dwellers live there out of an altruistic
> desire to produce manufactured goods for country dwellers.

Tom N wrote:

> What's the point of a phone in say a medical emergency if there is no
> local hospital?

With the services such as Helimed One (Helicopter ambo), for remote
areas, this isn't an issue.

> There are many economic and non-economic trade-offs between city and
> country living - a lot of essentials are dearer in the country but most
> people's major expense (real estate) is vastly cheaper. We don't
> subsidise most things - so why is a telephone different?

Real estate is no longer "vastly" cheaper. Lots of non-metro areas are
experiencing high prices for real estate.

> Bollocks. They live in the country because they prefer it, not out of
> an altruistic desire to provide produce for city folk. You might as
> well argue that city dwellers live there out of an altruistic desire to
> produce manufactured goods for country dwellers.

OK, all the country folk can move to the city as the services that you
guys take for granted are slashed ore become prohibitively expensive.
Then you'll whinge about the skyrocketing prices of fuel, food, etc,
when the producers have to pay super high wages, subsidised housing etc.
to get the people to stay. It's like that with places like remote areas
of WA where there are mining and gas/petroleum operations going on.
No-one goes to Karratha to live because it's a tropical resort. Rather,
people are attracted to the region because of the high wages, subsidised
housing and services.

So, you extend that to more local rural and regional areas, because you
think that people don't deserve to have any modern conveniences because
it's not financially attractive. People move away from country areas,
because there's nothing to keep them there.

What I find ironic, though, in the area of power generation, is that
businesses local to the power stations out in the Latrobe Valley are
charged higher rates of electricity (tarrifs). It's based on a supply
charge, which is central to Melbourne. ie: the further from MEL you are,
the more you pay. Yet, the local businesses are on local feeders, not 20
km from the local distribution network.

Or the people in Sale, whom a lot of work down at Longford or out on the
rigs, are charged rural prices for fuel and gas, particularly for LPG.
All because Esso pumps the raw product down to Hasting for refining. Why
not refine and distribute it from Longford?



--
"I made my fortune the old fashioned way. I inherited it!" - Malcom Forbes

MJT <[email protected]> wrote
> Tom N wrote:

>> What's the point of a phone in say a medical
>> emergency if there is no local hospital?

> With the services such as Helimed One (Helicopter
> ambo), for remote areas, this isn't an issue.

Corse it is, there's a big limit on the range of choppers.

>> There are many economic and non-economic trade-offs between
>> city and country living - a lot of essentials are dearer in the country
>> but most people's major expense (real estate) is vastly cheaper.
>> We don't subsidise most things - so why is a telephone different?

> Real estate is no longer "vastly" cheaper.

Wrong, as always.

> Lots of non-metro areas are experiencing high prices for real estate.

And plenty arent too.

>> Bollocks. They live in the country because they prefer it, not
>> out of an altruistic desire to provide produce for city folk. You
>> might as well argue that city dwellers live there out of an altruistic
>> desire to produce manufactured goods for country dwellers.

> OK, all the country folk can move to the city as the services that you
> guys take for granted are slashed ore become prohibitively expensive.

Wont happen.

> Then you'll whinge about the skyrocketing prices of fuel,
> food, etc, when the producers have to pay super high
> wages, subsidised housing etc. to get the people to stay.

Mindless stuff. The modern reality is that
cheaper food is imported from places like china.

> It's like that with places like remote areas of WA where
> there are mining and gas/petroleum operations going on.

Yes, and the operations doing that are welcome to pay
for the infrastructure costs involved in doing that stuff.

> No-one goes to Karratha to live because it's a tropical resort.

Some do with places like Broome.

> Rather, people are attracted to the region because
> of the high wages, subsidised housing and services.

Some are, some arent. And those operations subsidising
stuff like that are welcome to subsidise phone services too.

> So, you extend that to more local rural and regional areas, because
> you think that people don't deserve to have any modern conveniences
> because it's not financially attractive. People move away from
> country areas, because there's nothing to keep them there.

That never happens. They live there because they prefer it there.

> What I find ironic, though, in the area of power generation, is that
> businesses local to the power stations out in the Latrobe Valley are
> charged higher rates of electricity (tarrifs). It's based on a supply
> charge, which is central to Melbourne. ie: the further from MEL
> you are, the more you pay. Yet, the local businesses are on
> local feeders, not 20 km from the local distribution network.

Like it or lump it.

> Or the people in Sale, whom a lot of work down at Longford or out
> on the rigs, are charged rural prices for fuel and gas, particularly for
> LPG. All because Esso pumps the raw product down to Hasting for
> refining. Why not refine and distribute it from Longford?

Not enough of a market to warrant that, stupid.

> > You haven't explained why telecommunications should be
> > different to virtually everything else. Electricity, water and
> > sewers are more basic utilities, yet none of them are subsidised
> > for country dwellers by city dwellers like phones are.
>
> Some of them are, most obviously electricity
> and letters, and police and court services too.

How are court services subsidised for country folk?

> > Surely a roof over your head is more basic than a phone,
> > so why don't we subsidise accomodation for city dwellers
> > (as it is significantly dearer than for country dwellers)?
>
> > In any case, if there was no (econonomically unviable)
> > wired phone system in the bush, it would be much
> > more likely that modern wireless services for
> > broadband or phone would be economically viable
>
> Nope.

He's right.

> > - probably leading to better services
> > and more choice for country consumers.
>
> Nope, they'd still have the same choices they have now.

larger volume means wireless would be more economically viable

"MJT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom N wrote:
>
> > What's the point of a phone in say a medical emergency if there is no
> > local hospital?
>
> With the services such as Helimed One (Helicopter ambo), for remote
> areas, this isn't an issue.
>
> > There are many economic and non-economic trade-offs between city and
> > country living - a lot of essentials are dearer in the country but most
> > people's major expense (real estate) is vastly cheaper. We don't
> > subsidise most things - so why is a telephone different?
>
> Real estate is no longer "vastly" cheaper. Lots of non-metro areas are
> experiencing high prices for real estate.

Bollocks. Proper rural is "vastly" cheaper.

I was looking at land y'day that was $35k, compared to the $140k I would
expect to pay in the city

> Or the people in Sale, whom a lot of work down at Longford or out on the
> rigs, are charged rural prices for fuel and gas, particularly for LPG.
> All because Esso pumps the raw product down to Hasting for refining. Why
> not refine and distribute it from Longford?

Obviously there is a reason for it, isnt there?

Michael <[email protected]> wrote

>>> You haven't explained why telecommunications should be
>>> different to virtually everything else. Electricity, water and
>>> sewers are more basic utilities, yet none of them are subsidised
>>> for country dwellers by city dwellers like phones are.

>> Some of them are, most obviously electricity
>> and letters, and police and court services too.

> How are court services subsidised for country folk?

The state wears the cost of the magistrate etc visiting that town etc.

>>> Surely a roof over your head is more basic than a phone,
>>> so why don't we subsidise accomodation for city dwellers
>>> (as it is significantly dearer than for country dwellers)?

>>> In any case, if there was no (econonomically unviable)
>>> wired phone system in the bush, it would be much
>>> more likely that modern wireless services for
>>> broadband or phone would be economically viable

>> Nope.

> He's right.

Nope.

>>> - probably leading to better services
>>> and more choice for country consumers.

>> Nope, they'd still have the same choices they have now.

> larger volume means wireless would be more economically viable

Nope. It would still be uneconomic, just like the
decent modern phone exchanges currently are.

Michael wrote:

>> Real estate is no longer "vastly" cheaper. Lots of non-metro areas are
>> experiencing high prices for real estate.
>
> Bollocks. Proper rural is "vastly" cheaper.

Define proper "rural".

> I was looking at land y'day that was $35k, compared to the $140k I would
> expect to pay in the city

Tell me where? Perhaps out somewhere like Ouyen or Donald out in Vic's
mid-west, or similar in other states where there is no economy to speak
of. Where I live, you'd be lucky to pick up a reasonable block for under
$100,000. In fact, it's probably cheaper for me to build down around
where our daughter and her husband live, on the outer fringes of
Melbourne's SE.



--
It's not hard to meet expenses, they are everywhere.

MJT <[email protected]> wrote
> Michael wrote

>>> Real estate is no longer "vastly" cheaper. Lots of non-metro
>>> areas are experiencing high prices for real estate.

>> Bollocks. Proper rural is "vastly" cheaper.

> Define proper "rural".

Nothing in the arsehole of a state, victoria, qualifys.

>> I was looking at land y'day that was $35k,

You can get real rural house blocks for a hell of a lot less than that.

>> compared to the $140k I would expect to pay in the city

> Tell me where? Perhaps out somewhere like Ouyen
> or Donald out in Vic's mid-west, or similar in other
> states where there is no economy to speak of.

More mindless pig ignorant stuff, as
always from this union bludging ****wit.

> Where I live,

Huh

> you'd be lucky to pick up a reasonable block for under $100,000.

Says sweet **** all about the rest of that arsehole of a
state, victoria, let alone anywhere where its actually rural.

> In fact, it's probably cheaper for me to build down
> around where our daughter and her husband live,
> on the outer fringes of Melbourne's SE.

Irrelevant to the rest of that arsehole of a state,
victoria, let alone anywhere where its actually rural.