Telstra OneNumber going... going..

Michael wrote:
> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> thegoons wrote:
>>> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news[email protected]...
>>>>> I know that there are people who would use it if they could. Many
>>>>> people still don't know that the service was ever available. Obviously
>>>>> if you stop selling any service, you'll reach a point where noone uses
>>>>> it, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent the product is.
>>>> They stopped selling it years ago, because no one wanted it then.
>>>>
>>>> Now they are finally canning it. Good on em
>>>>
>>> Hope the ACCC cans Telstra too for forcing the subscribers to reprint
>>> stationery, sign-writing etc
>> I've seen a few companies with their 0500 number printed on their staff
>> members' uniforms. Some people have to pay for their uniforms, so they
>> might be a little peeved by Telstra's decision too.
>
> The world weeps for ****wits
>
>

Is that supposed to make me respond with a tirade of vulgarity and other
evidence of lack of intellect?

---

› See More: Telstra OneNumber going... going..

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> I know that there are people who would use it if they could. Many
>>> people still don't know that the service was ever available. Obviously
>>> if you stop selling any service, you'll reach a point where noone uses
>>> it, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent the product is.
>>
>> They ****ed it at the outset by utilising the 0500 prefix. It was too
>> close
>
> Thats what the ACA allocated them. Not Telstra's issue
>

Bull****. Telstra had a large number of other prefixes avalailable at the
time. FFS - They even moved PSTN subs off of 0392 prefixes to free it up for
ISDN. You are correct in that the ACA allocates them with number ranges, but
they decide *internally* what to do with them then register that intent with
the ACA. They *chose* to use 0500.

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> I know that there are people who would use it if they could. Many
>>>> people still don't know that the service was ever available. Obviously
>>>> if you stop selling any service, you'll reach a point where noone uses
>>>> it, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent the product is.
>>>
>>> They ****ed it at the outset by utilising the 0500 prefix. It was too
>>> close to 0055 and callers were reluctant to call it, thinking they were
>>> calling premium service numbers with their associated high prices.
>>> It was never going to take off.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. I used to have one, but got rid of it. People used to think I
>> was giving them a 0055 number until I explained it to them. The main
>> reason I got rid of it was that if you wanted to utilise the Telepath
>> number but also wanted people to be able to send you an SMS, they needed
>> to have two numbers for you.
>
> It was crap for a few reasons
>
> - the initial pricing was crap . . . until they switched to caller pays,
> it was no good
> - the SMS issue was always a stinger
> - when CND first came in, depending on which trunk your call used, you
> either got CND pass through or not
>
> Then, the killer . . . MNP in Sep 2001!
>
> Because of MNP, Telstra had to respect the diverted call indicator.
>
> I used to direct my 0500 to my Optus mobile. Missed the call, it would go
> to Optus voicemail. After MNP, it stopped going to voicemail as it was a
> double diversion
>
> Thats when i got rid of it.
>
> They ****ed it by not making it a redirection service (ala 1300 / 13 /
> 1800 numbers), but made it a DIVERSION service (ie. the call to 0500
> became a DIVERTED call when it landed on the service you directed it to)
So what you are saying is that the engineers behind it didn;t have a clue.
Was too hard to set the "redirect" bit as a zero?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> thegoons wrote:
>>> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news[email protected]...
>>>>> I know that there are people who would use it if they could. Many
>>>>> people still don't know that the service was ever available.
>>>>> Obviously if you stop selling any service, you'll reach a point where
>>>>> noone uses it, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent the product
>>>>> is.
>>>> They stopped selling it years ago, because no one wanted it then.
>>>>
>>>> Now they are finally canning it. Good on em
>>>>
>>> Hope the ACCC cans Telstra too for forcing the subscribers to reprint
>>> stationery, sign-writing etc
>>
>> I've seen a few companies with their 0500 number printed on their staff
>> members' uniforms. Some people have to pay for their uniforms, so they
>> might be a little peeved by Telstra's decision too.
>
> The world weeps for ****wits

The world does not weep for either Trujillo, Burgess or Bruse; so you are in
fact wrong again as always.

>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Two Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> I know that there are people who would use it if they could. Many
>>> people still don't know that the service was ever available. Obviously
>>> if you stop selling any service, you'll reach a point where noone uses
>>> it, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent the product is.
>>
>> They ****ed it at the outset by utilising the 0500 prefix. It was too
>> close to 0055 and callers were reluctant to call it, thinking they were
>> calling premium service numbers with their associated high prices.
>
> I'll go along with that, I had 0500'telephone' and 0500'technician'
> printed on all my stationary and cards and very few people utilised it for
> the same reason.

That was an ACA decision, Telstra dont allocate prefixes
>
>

"Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> I know that there are people who would use it if they could. Many
>>>> people still don't know that the service was ever available. Obviously
>>>> if you stop selling any service, you'll reach a point where noone uses
>>>> it, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent the product is.
>>>
>>> They ****ed it at the outset by utilising the 0500 prefix. It was too
>>> close
>>
>> Thats what the ACA allocated them. Not Telstra's issue
>>
>
> Bull****. Telstra had a large number of other prefixes avalailable at the
> time. FFS - They even moved PSTN subs off of 0392 prefixes to free it up
> for

They moved NO ONE off 0392. You cant "move someone" off a prefix once they
are on it

> ISDN. You are correct in that the ACA allocates them with number ranges,
> but they decide *internally* what to do with them then register that
> intent with the ACA. They *chose* to use 0500.

No, they applied for a new prefix for TON, and ACA said, "PCS services are
to be used on 05xx prefix, here is your number range"

They couldnt do a thing about it.
>
>

"thegoons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "thegoons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news[email protected]...
>>>>> I know that there are people who would use it if they could. Many
>>>>> people still don't know that the service was ever available.
>>>>> Obviously if you stop selling any service, you'll reach a point where
>>>>> noone uses it, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent the product
>>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> They stopped selling it years ago, because no one wanted it then.
>>>>
>>>> Now they are finally canning it. Good on em
>>>>
>>> Hope the ACCC cans Telstra too for forcing the subscribers to reprint
>>> stationery, sign-writing etc
>>
>> YOU HAVE OVER A YEAR TO GET YOUR **** INTO GEAR
>
> So what? It will still cost businesses either now or in 12 months to make
> the change. Telstra should at least provide free redirections to one
> nominated number for at least another year or so after that. Try
> putting-off paying a Telstra bill for 12 months and see how they like it.
> Take you to

No, as a customer, go **** yourself. Your service is unviable.

Print new business cards today and build a bridge

>> Then, the killer . . . MNP in Sep 2001!
>>
>> Because of MNP, Telstra had to respect the diverted call indicator.
>>
>> I used to direct my 0500 to my Optus mobile. Missed the call, it would go
>> to Optus voicemail. After MNP, it stopped going to voicemail as it was a
>> double diversion
>>
>> Thats when i got rid of it.
>>
>> They ****ed it by not making it a redirection service (ala 1300 / 13 /
>> 1800 numbers), but made it a DIVERSION service (ie. the call to 0500
>> became a DIVERTED call when it landed on the service you directed it to)

> So what you are saying is that the engineers behind it didn;t have a clue.

There may have been tech. reasons why it was unviable, but yes, it was
designed wrong

> Was too hard to set the "redirect" bit as a zero?

Obviously.

They had the technology there already in INWATS and 13 services. Just adapt
it

>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

> No, as a customer, go **** yourself. Your service is unviable.
>
> Print new business cards today and build a bridge

You are obviously someones employee who doesnt have to directly carry the
debt caused by changes made by another company that doesnt care.

"Two Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> No, as a customer, go **** yourself. Your service is unviable.
>>
>> Print new business cards today and build a bridge
>
> You are obviously someones employee who doesnt have to directly carry the
> debt caused by changes made by another company that doesnt care.

And I can guarantee you if I owned a company I wouldnt be continuing
unviable products and services just because MY customer wanted.

buggy whips, anyone?
>
>
>

>>> No, as a customer, go **** yourself. Your service is unviable.
>>>
>>> Print new business cards today and build a bridge
>>
>> You are obviously someones employee who doesnt have to directly carry the
>> debt caused by changes made by another company that doesnt care.
>
> And I can guarantee you if I owned a company I wouldnt be continuing
> unviable products and services just because MY customer wanted.

With that attitude, your customers will be your ex customers which will
result in you being an ex business owner.

How much do you think it would cost them to continue this service? I bet
very little. The hardware is in place, the software is in place, what
expense is there? Just a couple of their bots to make sure it keeps flowing
smoothly. Unviable my arse, more like they couldnt care.

"Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Michael J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that there are people who would use it if they could. Many
>>>>>> people still don't know that the service was ever available.
>>>>>> Obviously if you stop selling any service, you'll reach a point where
>>>>>> noone uses it, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent the product
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>
>>>>> They ****ed it at the outset by utilising the 0500 prefix. It was too
>>>>> close
>>>>
>>>> Thats what the ACA allocated them. Not Telstra's issue
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bull****. Telstra had a large number of other prefixes avalailable at
>>> the time. FFS - They even moved PSTN subs off of 0392 prefixes to free
>>> it up for
>>
>> They moved NO ONE off 0392. You cant "move someone" off a prefix once
>> they are on it
>
> My mistake. It wasn't 0392. It was 032 (prior to the austel numbering
> plan)
> And they most definitely DID move people off of that prefix.

How is that possible?
Moving individual companies from those numbers to new numbers on the same
exchange? Then reallocating the old?

"Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:30:07 +1100, "Two Bob" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>How much do you think it would cost them to continue this service? I bet
>>very little. The hardware is in place, the software is in place, what
>>expense is there? Just a couple of their bots to make sure it keeps
>>flowing
>>smoothly. Unviable my arse, more like they couldnt care.
>
> I reckon it is more a case of '**** this product doesn't make much
> money so let's dump it and force the customers to spend more money!

You dont have to spend any more money than you do now, in fact, you can
spend less

>>How much do you think it would cost them to continue this service? I bet
>>very little. The hardware is in place, the software is in place, what
>>expense is there? Just a couple of their bots to make sure it keeps
>>flowing
>>smoothly. Unviable my arse, more like they couldnt care.
>
> I reckon it is more a case of '**** this product doesn't make much
> money so let's dump it and force the customers to spend more money!

I think you've got it in one! Telstra stopped careing about their customers
a long time ago.

"Michael J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Michael J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that there are people who would use it if they could. Many
>>>>>>> people still don't know that the service was ever available.
>>>>>>> Obviously if you stop selling any service, you'll reach a point
>>>>>>> where noone uses it, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent the
>>>>>>> product is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They ****ed it at the outset by utilising the 0500 prefix. It was too
>>>>>> close
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats what the ACA allocated them. Not Telstra's issue
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bull****. Telstra had a large number of other prefixes avalailable at
>>>> the time. FFS - They even moved PSTN subs off of 0392 prefixes to free
>>>> it up for
>>>
>>> They moved NO ONE off 0392. You cant "move someone" off a prefix once
>>> they are on it
>>
>> My mistake. It wasn't 0392. It was 032 (prior to the austel numbering
>> plan)
>> And they most definitely DID move people off of that prefix.
>
> How is that possible?
> Moving individual companies from those numbers to new numbers on the same
> exchange? Then reallocating the old?

No.
What Kwyj is referring to is bulk cutovers of entire number ranges, one or
more exchanges at a time.
It's a long time ago (and prior to Austel - ACA - ACMA involvement in the
process), but I do remember for example that numbers starting with 2 were
translated to numbers starting with 8 or 5. Similarly, bayside numbers
starting with 9 were tsanslated to numbers starting with 5 (in that case,
mostly 6 digit numbers had a 5 added in front of them.) The result was that
the number range starting with 9 was freed for special things like radio
phone, and the entire 2xxxxxx number range became available for purposes
such as ISDN.