Results 1 to 15 of 31
- 06-17-2007, 04:28 AM #1James BellGuest
Legal battleground
The G9 proposal relies on the Government confiscating Telstra's copper
network, and then forcing Telstra to pay G9 to connect to it.
This ACCC sponsored confiscation of assets on such a scale will inevitably
get bogged down in constitutional litigation for several years including
multi-billion dollar claims for compensation by Telstra on behalf of its 1.6
million shareholders.
Shareholders who had bought shares in T3 will also bring multi-billion
dollar class actions against the Government in relation to the assurances
and representations in the T3 prospectus to the effect that the
telecommunications regulatory regime is considered settled and appropriate
by the Government.
Customers who had chosen Telstra as their network provider are likely to
bring significant compensation claims against G9 and the Government in
relation to the inevitable service disruptions.
G9's proposal also relies on the Government agreeing to provide it with a
legislated monopoly for 20 years - this is a gross distortion of the
National Competition Policy which successive Commonwealth Governments have
supported and pursued for over 15 years.
This Government sponsored confiscation of private assets would also
significantly alter the international investment community's perception of
"sovereign risk" with investments in Australia. Such confiscation would put
Australia into the same risk category as quasi-dictatorships around the
world and would result in the diversion of significant offshore investment
away from Australia. This will detrimentally affect the national economy,
Australian business and all Australians.
The Chairman of the ACCC effectively becomes a shadow director - who
resolves disputes between the network owners and the manager, decides how to
adjust prices, etc if an "Unanticipated Event" occurs. The ACCC also decides
concepts like what is "Commercially Prudent". Clearly this is a conflict of
interest, and unprecedented interference by regulators.
The main players in G9 including SingTel Optus, Primus and financier
Investec are all foreign owned and controlled entities who collectively will
end up with majority ownership and control of Telstra's network. This would
breach current effective foreign ownership limits on such Australian assets
and, given the controlling interest of the Singapore Government in SingTel
Optus, would also pose serious national security concerns for Australia.
G9 would also involve complex legal joint venture structures between an
unmanageable number of parties. Historically, legal structures with this
number of parties either collapse under the weight of infighting or stagnate
in perpetual indecision.
Financially fails to add up
G9's costings are flawed and their prices are simply unbelievable.
Maintenance of the copper network is clearly costed far too low at $50m per
year. How do the G9 plan to refresh and upgrade the network?
No "National asset"
G9 propose a "20 year life of investment" - in 20 years time we would still
be stuck with ADSL2+ speeds of only 12Mbps to 20Mbps. We project speeds
required in 20 years time will be at least five times that: 100Mbps to 1Gbps
per household.
G9's proposal demands a 20 year statutory monopoly to prevent other carriers
from building competing broadband networks, so there's no encouragement for
innovation, competition, or new investment.
Other countries are already deploying fibre networks with speeds of up to
100Mbps. G9's proposal would relegate Australia to a 20Mbps cul-de sac, and
Australia will be left behind as overseas competitors work even smarter and
faster.
G9's proposal *****s disaster for rural Australians.
Telstra's metropolitan lines currently cross-subsidise the rural network by
hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
This allows regional and rural people to have access to telecommunications
services on the same terms as city people, despite actual costs being
massively greater.
Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply be
left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?
› See More: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
- 06-17-2007, 06:04 AM #2quandong nutGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:28:58 GMT, "James Bell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Legal battleground
(snip crapola about telstra-instigated trouble and strife if they don't get
their way and aren't allowed to take the ball and go home)
Then the solution is simple - Telstra get off their high horse, stop whining,
and agree with the ACCC on wholesale access to Telstra's proposed network.
- 06-17-2007, 06:32 AM #3Uncle BullyGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
"James Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Legal battleground
> The G9 proposal relies on the Government confiscating Telstra's copper
> network, and then forcing Telstra to pay G9 to connect to it.
>
Sweet. About time too.
- 06-17-2007, 04:59 PM #4Bigpond NewsGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
And a reduction in our share price, like what alaways happens when telstra
is in court. You can tell Telstra is run by seppos. "We don't like what our
competition/ACCC is doing. Let's sue 'em". Get ****ed James
"James Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Legal battleground
> The G9 proposal relies on the Government confiscating Telstra's copper
> network, and then forcing Telstra to pay G9 to connect to it.
>
> This ACCC sponsored confiscation of assets on such a scale will inevitably
> get bogged down in constitutional litigation for several years including
> multi-billion dollar claims for compensation by Telstra on behalf of its
> 1.6 million shareholders.
>
> Shareholders who had bought shares in T3 will also bring multi-billion
> dollar class actions against the Government in relation to the assurances
> and representations in the T3 prospectus to the effect that the
> telecommunications regulatory regime is considered settled and appropriate
> by the Government.
>
> Customers who had chosen Telstra as their network provider are likely to
> bring significant compensation claims against G9 and the Government in
> relation to the inevitable service disruptions.
>
> G9's proposal also relies on the Government agreeing to provide it with a
> legislated monopoly for 20 years - this is a gross distortion of the
> National Competition Policy which successive Commonwealth Governments have
> supported and pursued for over 15 years.
>
> This Government sponsored confiscation of private assets would also
> significantly alter the international investment community's perception of
> "sovereign risk" with investments in Australia. Such confiscation would
> put Australia into the same risk category as quasi-dictatorships around
> the world and would result in the diversion of significant offshore
> investment away from Australia. This will detrimentally affect the
> national economy, Australian business and all Australians.
>
> The Chairman of the ACCC effectively becomes a shadow director - who
> resolves disputes between the network owners and the manager, decides how
> to adjust prices, etc if an "Unanticipated Event" occurs. The ACCC also
> decides concepts like what is "Commercially Prudent". Clearly this is a
> conflict of interest, and unprecedented interference by regulators.
>
> The main players in G9 including SingTel Optus, Primus and financier
> Investec are all foreign owned and controlled entities who collectively
> will end up with majority ownership and control of Telstra's network. This
> would breach current effective foreign ownership limits on such Australian
> assets and, given the controlling interest of the Singapore Government in
> SingTel Optus, would also pose serious national security concerns for
> Australia.
>
> G9 would also involve complex legal joint venture structures between an
> unmanageable number of parties. Historically, legal structures with this
> number of parties either collapse under the weight of infighting or
> stagnate in perpetual indecision.
>
> Financially fails to add up
> G9's costings are flawed and their prices are simply unbelievable.
>
> Maintenance of the copper network is clearly costed far too low at $50m
> per year. How do the G9 plan to refresh and upgrade the network?
>
> No "National asset"
> G9 propose a "20 year life of investment" - in 20 years time we would
> still be stuck with ADSL2+ speeds of only 12Mbps to 20Mbps. We project
> speeds required in 20 years time will be at least five times that: 100Mbps
> to 1Gbps per household.
>
> G9's proposal demands a 20 year statutory monopoly to prevent other
> carriers from building competing broadband networks, so there's no
> encouragement for innovation, competition, or new investment.
>
> Other countries are already deploying fibre networks with speeds of up to
> 100Mbps. G9's proposal would relegate Australia to a 20Mbps cul-de sac,
> and Australia will be left behind as overseas competitors work even
> smarter and faster.
>
> G9's proposal *****s disaster for rural Australians.
>
> Telstra's metropolitan lines currently cross-subsidise the rural network
> by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
> This allows regional and rural people to have access to telecommunications
> services on the same terms as city people, despite actual costs being
> massively greater.
> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply be
> left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?
>
>
>
- 06-18-2007, 03:18 AM #5Two BobGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
> G9's proposal also relies on the Government agreeing to provide it with a
> legislated monopoly for 20 years - this is a gross distortion of the
> National Competition Policy which successive Commonwealth Governments have
> supported and pursued for over 15 years.
Crap! Telstra/Telecom/PMG had the monopoly since year dot. Now that they
don't, they put up a screaming match.
> This Government sponsored confiscation of private assets would also
> significantly alter the international investment community's perception of
> "sovereign risk" with investments in Australia. Such confiscation would
> put Australia into the same risk category as quasi-dictatorships around
> the world and would result in the diversion of significant offshore
> investment away from Australia. This will detrimentally affect the
> national economy, Australian business and all Australians.
These 'assets' have already been confiscated from the population by the
govmt so they could sell them off. What else is new?
> G9 propose a "20 year life of investment" - in 20 years time we would
> still be stuck with ADSL2+ speeds of only 12Mbps to 20Mbps. We project
> speeds required in 20 years time will be at least five times that: 100Mbps
> to 1Gbps per household.
Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I
remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt
budge from that high speed even though everyone was screaming for better
speeds.
>
> G9's proposal demands a 20 year statutory monopoly to prevent other
> carriers from building competing broadband networks, so there's no
> encouragement for innovation, competition, or new investment.
>
> Other countries are already deploying fibre networks with speeds of up to
> 100Mbps. G9's proposal would relegate Australia to a 20Mbps cul-de sac,
> and Australia will be left behind as overseas competitors work even
> smarter and faster.
>
> G9's proposal *****s disaster for rural Australians.
>
> Telstra's metropolitan lines currently cross-subsidise the rural network
> by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
> This allows regional and rural people to have access to telecommunications
> services on the same terms as city people, despite actual costs being
> massively greater.
> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply be
> left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?
>
>
>
>
- 06-18-2007, 03:38 PM #6Michael JGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I
> remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt
No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.
>> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply
>> be left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?
Hopefully.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
- 06-19-2007, 05:03 AM #7Two BobGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I
>> remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt
>
> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.
I made the claim, which is fact, I was involved in the field at the time.
Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.
>>> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply
>>> be left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?
>
> Hopefully.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
- 06-19-2007, 01:16 PM #8Rod SpeedGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
Two Bob <[email protected]> wrote
> Michael J <[email protected]> wrote
>> Two Bob <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they said
>>> that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt
>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.
> I made the claim, which is fact,
That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.
> I was involved in the field at the time.
And even then never had a ****ing clue.
> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.
He is right, no such claim was ever made.
>>>> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services
>>>> simply be left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?
>> Hopefully.
- 06-20-2007, 02:18 AM #9Two BobGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
>
>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I
>>>> remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they
>>>> wouldnt
>
>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.
>
>> I made the claim, which is fact,
>
> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.
>
>> I was involved in the field at the time.
>
> And even then never had a ****ing clue.
>
>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.
>
> He is right, no such claim was ever made.
I must be wrong, Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time
and he wasn't.
- 06-20-2007, 03:57 AM #10Rod SpeedGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
Two Bob <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed
>>>>> goes. I remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient,
>>>>> and they wouldnt
>>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.
>>> I made the claim, which is fact,
>> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.
>>> I was involved in the field at the time.
>> And even then never had a ****ing clue.
>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.
>> He is right, no such claim was ever made.
> I must be wrong,
As always.
> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time
Pity about your ear to ear dog ****.
> and he wasn't.
Wrong, as always.
- 06-21-2007, 05:17 AM #11Two BobGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
>
>>> And even then never had a ****ing clue.
>
>>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.
>
>>> He is right, no such claim was ever made.
>
>> I must be wrong,
>
> As always.
>
>> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time
>
> Pity about your ear to ear dog ****.
>
>> and he wasn't.
>
> Wrong, as always.
Oh, where were you sitting that day, I must have missed you.
- 06-21-2007, 01:08 PM #12Rod SpeedGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
Two Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they
>>>>>>> said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even
>>>>>>> though everyone was screaming for better speeds.
>>>>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.
>>>>> I made the claim, which is fact,
>>>> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.
>>>>> I was involved in the field at the time.
>>>> And even then never had a ****ing clue.
>>>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.
>>>> He is right, no such claim was ever made.
>>> I must be wrong,
>> As always.
>>> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time
>> Pity about your ear to ear dog ****.
>>> and he wasn't.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Oh, where were you sitting that day, I must have missed you.
You wouldnt even know what I look like, ****wit.
And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed hallucinations.
- 06-22-2007, 10:20 AM #13thegoonsGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>
Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
- 06-22-2007, 01:07 PM #14Rod SpeedGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
Two Bob <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they
>>>>>>>>> said that 75bpm was quite
>>>>>>>>> sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even
>>>>>>>>> though everyone was screaming for better speeds.
>>>>>>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.
>>>>>>> I made the claim, which is fact,
>>>>>> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.
>>>>>>> I was involved in the field at the time.
>>>>>> And even then never had a ****ing clue.
>>>>>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.
>>>>>> He is right, no such claim was ever made.
>>>>> I must be wrong,
>>>> As always.
>>>>> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time
>>>> Pity about your ear to ear dog ****.
>>>>> and he wasn't.
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>> Oh, where were you sitting that day, I must have missed you.
>> You wouldnt even know what I look like, ****wit.
> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name?
Nope.
>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
> False!
Name the product. You cant, no such animal.
>> It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed hallucinations.
> As always, you have that knack of personally endearing yourself to everyone you come into contact
> with.
Never ever could bull**** and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
- 06-22-2007, 01:10 PM #15Rod SpeedGuest
Re: G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous
thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Two Blob wrote
>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they said
>>> that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even though
>>> everyone was screaming for better speeds.
>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.
That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do.
And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway.
That silly old fart has never ever had a ****ing clue, and thats obviously
why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door.
Similar Threads
- Cars
- alt.cellular.verizon
- RingTones
- alt.cellular.verizon
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat