Telstra vindicates a decade of next generation hype

Comment by Grahame Lynch

Telstra's transformation day might not only herald a turnaround in the poor
market perceptions of the company, but it also just might go down as the
moment that the company becomes a international poster child for the next
generation network cause.

Having spent what seems like a decade or more fielding press releases,
interviews and corporaten propaganda on the wonders of next generation
networks and third generation cellular networks and so on, it is inevitable
that one becomes rather blasé, if not cynical, about what has for years
appeared to be nothing more than hyped up attempts to compress product
cycles.

But the numbers presented by Telstra yesterday were truly stunning
vindications of the claims made for the advantages of IP and 3G.

For starters came a slide showing the "network cost per megabyte."

According to Telstra, if GPRS comes in at 100 on this measure, EDGE (the
TDMA-based 3G standard) comes in at around 50, WCDMA (1999 standard) at less
than 10, HSDPA at somewhere around 2 or 3, and HSPA+ - the standard
currently envisaged for the Next G net - at about 1!

3G appears to compress voice costs by impressive increments as well. If GSM
comes at about 100, Next G currently comes in at 45 but with future
optimization comes in at around 25.

There were also some similar impressive data points on the fixed network
side. The capex to sales ratio for the "Next IP" network now comes in about
10% to 12%, compared to 18% for legacy networks.

The interesting thing is that all these new "supply" capabilities seem to be
gaining some reward on the "demand" side.

Telstra now places its Next G data ARPU - expressed as a percentage of
overall APRU - at 31.3%, second only to Japan, land of the great long
i-Mode! This seems to show that with the right speeds and content offerings,
there are genuine revenue reasons to go for the latest and greatest HSPA
upgrades.

Interestingly, about half of the data traffic volume on Next G comes from
country areas, which suggests that the offering is gaining traction as a
fixed broadband substitute, particularly since data flows on the legacy CDMA
network were skewed almost entirely to metro areas.

Next G would also appear to be carrying about four times more data traffic
than CDMA does on a monthly basis.

Telstra has also surprised on some other metrics. It is now the fourth
largest online media provider in Australia, measured by unique audience per
month, with 5.441m users in September, behind only Google, Microsoft and
News.com.au and ahead of eBay and Yahoo! Telstra presented a somewhat
enigmatic slide that no doubt was highly meaningful to scientific marketer
types which suggested that the direct revenue from content accounts for only
16% of the "cumulative total revenue attributable to online content," with
the sheer bulk attributable to "broadband pull through", "broadband
retention" and "incremental broadband ARPU." Certainly, broadband and PSTN
bundles seem good for business, as they appear to halve the churn rate.

---

› See More: Telstra vindicates a decade of next generation hype

Alan Parkington wrote:
> For starters came a slide showing the "network cost per megabyte."

Falling costs which doesn't flow on to consumers.

> 3G appears to compress voice costs by impressive increments as well. If GSM
> comes at about 100, Next G currently comes in at 45 but with future
> optimization comes in at around 25.

Pity about the fact LastG is a dead end, and WiMAX pisses and ****s on
W-CDMA's cost per byte.

Pity about the fact that wireless technologies are pretty much hitting
Shannon's theorem, and that future needs will require FAR more spectrum.

Pity about the fact that ALL the 4G Mobile WiMAX spectrum is owned by
Unwired and Austar - A whole 200Mhz+.

Good ****ing luck Telstra competing with that with your ****ing pathetic
15Mhz band of spectrum! Prices and quota's will HAVE to remain
ridiculously high and restrictive or you'll overload the NextG white
elephant.

> There were also some similar impressive data points on the fixed network
> side. The capex to sales ratio for the "Next IP" network now comes in about
> 10% to 12%, compared to 18% for legacy networks.

Wow. An all IP network. Welcome to the 1990's.

> Telstra has also surprised on some other metrics. It is now the fourth
> largest online media provider in Australia, measured by unique audience per
> month, with 5.441m users in September, behind only Google, Microsoft and
> News.com.au and ahead of eBay and Yahoo! Telstra presented a somewhat
> enigmatic slide that no doubt was highly meaningful to scientific marketer
> types which suggested that the direct revenue from content accounts for only
> 16% of the "cumulative total revenue attributable to online content," with
> the sheer bulk attributable to "broadband pull through", "broadband
> retention" and "incremental broadband ARPU." Certainly, broadband and PSTN
> bundles seem good for business, as they appear to halve the churn rate.

"Meaningless jargon masturbation"

James Bell wrote:
> Alan Parkington wrote:
>> For starters came a slide showing the "network cost per megabyte."
>
> Falling costs which doesn't flow on to consumers.

So you didn't notice the 87% cut to PAYG data rates recently?

>
>> 3G appears to compress voice costs by impressive increments as well.
>> If GSM comes at about 100, Next G currently comes in at 45 but with
>> future optimization comes in at around 25.
>
> Pity about the fact LastG is a dead end, and WiMAX pisses and ****s on
> W-CDMA's cost per byte.

Yeah, and which company plans to roll out 6000+ WiMax base stations in
this country to compete with NextG?

>
> Pity about the fact that wireless technologies are pretty much hitting
> Shannon's theorem, and that future needs will require FAR more spectrum.

Yep, but the only spectrum available is useless microwave spectrum that
has next to no refractive properties and easily attenuates in rain and
vegetation let alone masonry/concrete walls so it's ****ing useless for
mobile purposes.

> Pity about the fact that ALL the 4G Mobile WiMAX spectrum is owned by
> Unwired and Austar - A whole 200Mhz+.

WiMax isn't even remotely considered 4G. It's just a dumb wireless IP
network that can't natively support voice calls. Even the ITU only
considers it a 3G network by stretching the definitions.
Oh, and the 2.3/3.3GHz WiMax spectrum has horrible RF properties for
mobile users - that's why it's mainly deployed in fixed locations with
external antennas to get any decent coverage.

> Good ****ing luck Telstra competing with that with your ****ing pathetic
> 15Mhz band of spectrum! Prices and quota's will HAVE to remain
> ridiculously high and restrictive or you'll overload the NextG white
> elephant.

It's called frequency re-use by having sufficient cells to cover the
population. Telstra doesn't just have 15MHz, they have a LOT more
spectrum than ANY other telco in this country available at their disposal.

>> There were also some similar impressive data points on the fixed
>> network side. The capex to sales ratio for the "Next IP" network now
>> comes in about 10% to 12%, compared to 18% for legacy networks.
>
> Wow. An all IP network. Welcome to the 1990's.

ROTFL. Yeah, there were heaps of IP switches capable of terabit per
second data switching capacity with full QoS functionality back in the
90's. NOT!

Alan Parkington <[email protected]> wrote:

> Comment by Grahame Lynch

How amazing that it isnt a comment of yours.

> Telstra's transformation day might not only herald a turnaround in the poor market perceptions of the company,

Corse it wont, its too obviously pure mex bull****.

> but it also just might go down as the moment that the company becomes a international poster child for the next
> generation network cause.

Not a chance. The most that will ever happen is that anyone
with a clue realises that its just another sucker for the mex
bull****. Too stupid to even notice the mex's history.

> Having spent what seems like a decade or more fielding press releases, interviews and corporaten propaganda on the
> wonders of next generation networks and third generation cellular networks and so on, it is inevitable that one
> becomes rather blasé, if not cynical, about what has for years appeared to be nothing more than hyped up attempts to
> compress product cycles.

And anyone with a clue noticed that its pure mex bull**** this time around too.

> But the numbers presented by Telstra yesterday were truly stunning
> vindications of the claims made for the advantages of IP and 3G.

Some are easily stunned. Likely because of their ear to ear dog ****.

> For starters came a slide showing the "network cost per megabyte."

> According to Telstra, if GPRS comes in at 100 on this measure, EDGE
> (the TDMA-based 3G standard) comes in at around 50, WCDMA (1999
> standard) at less than 10, HSDPA at somewhere around 2 or 3, and
> HSPA+ - the standard currently envisaged for the Next G net - at about 1!

Then the NextG data charges are an even more utterly obscene ripoff.

> 3G appears to compress voice costs by impressive increments as well. If GSM comes at about 100, Next G currently comes
> in at 45 but with future optimization comes in at around 25.

Its no surprise that things improve with time, stupid.

> There were also some similar impressive data points on the fixed
> network side. The capex to sales ratio for the "Next IP" network now
> comes in about 10% to 12%, compared to 18% for legacy networks.

You'll have to pardon us if we dont actually cream our jeans, child.

> The interesting thing is that all these new "supply" capabilities
> seem to be gaining some reward on the "demand" side.

Goggledegook.

> Telstra now places its Next G data ARPU - expressed as a percentage of
> overall APRU - at 31.3%, second only to Japan, land of the great long i-Mode!

Wota ****ing wanker.

> This seems to show that with the right speeds and content offerings, there are genuine revenue reasons to go for the
> latest and greatest HSPA upgrades.

Pity about the utterly obscene data charges, stupid.

> Interestingly, about half of the data traffic volume on Next G comes from country areas,

Hardly surprising given the alternatives available to others, stupid.

> which suggests that the offering is gaining traction as a fixed broadband substitute,

Pigs arse it does.

> particularly since data flows on the legacy CDMA network were skewed almost entirely to metro areas.

Because telstra didnt bother to provide an adequate data service anywhere else, stupid.

> Next G would also appear to be carrying about four times more data traffic than CDMA does on a monthly basis.

Pity about the utterly obscene data charges, stupid.

> Telstra has also surprised on some other metrics.

Only for those very easily surprised.

> It is now the fourth largest online media provider in Australia, measured by unique audience per month, with 5.441m
> users in September, behind only Google, Microsoft and News.com.au and ahead of eBay and Yahoo!

Only if you ignore the mass of illegal activity, stupid.

> Telstra presented a somewhat enigmatic slide that no doubt was highly meaningful to scientific marketer types which
> suggested that the direct revenue from content accounts for only 16% of the "cumulative total revenue attributable to
> online content," with the sheer bulk attributable to "broadband pull through", "broadband retention" and "incremental
> broadband ARPU."

More meaningless gobbledegook.

> Certainly, broadband and PSTN bundles seem good for business, as they appear to halve the churn rate.

You need new glasses. And a brain.

davmel wrote:
> James Bell wrote:
>> Alan Parkington wrote:
>>> For starters came a slide showing the "network cost per megabyte."
>>
>> Falling costs which doesn't flow on to consumers.
>
> So you didn't notice the 87% cut to PAYG data rates recently?

..87 x Ridiculously Exorbitant = Still Exorbitant, ****wit.

>>> 3G appears to compress voice costs by impressive increments as well.
>>> If GSM comes at about 100, Next G currently comes in at 45 but with
>>> future optimization comes in at around 25.
>>
>> Pity about the fact LastG is a dead end, and WiMAX pisses and ****s on
>> W-CDMA's cost per byte.
>
> Yeah, and which company plans to roll out 6000+ WiMax base stations in
> this country to compete with NextG?

Nobody but a company run by a bunch of ****wits replacing an existing
technology which suited better than LastG would.

>> Pity about the fact that wireless technologies are pretty much hitting
>> Shannon's theorem, and that future needs will require FAR more spectrum.
>
> Yep, but the only spectrum available is useless microwave spectrum that
> has next to no refractive properties and easily attenuates in rain and
> vegetation let alone masonry/concrete walls so it's ****ing useless for
> mobile purposes.

While it's true the lower frequencies have better propagation, you're
yet again talking bull****, ****wit.

Pity about the 3G networks @ 2.1Ghz ****wit.

Pity about the fact Mobile WiMAX networks will be rolled out with MIMO +
Beamforming technologies which drastically increases gain to mitigate
the frequency issue.

Pity about the underlying technology being OFDM, which gives one the
choice of large distances or high-bandwidth per MS.

>> Pity about the fact that ALL the 4G Mobile WiMAX spectrum is owned by
>> Unwired and Austar - A whole 200Mhz+.
>
> WiMax isn't even remotely considered 4G. It's just a dumb wireless IP
> network that can't natively support voice calls.

So NextIP's just a dumb IP network you terminal ****wit. Ever heard of
QoS, ****wit?

> Even the ITU only
> considers it a 3G network by stretching the definitions.

Only in your mind child.

> Oh, and the 2.3/3.3GHz WiMax spectrum has horrible RF properties for
> mobile users - that's why it's mainly deployed in fixed locations with
> external antennas to get any decent coverage.

Rubbish, ****wit.

>> Good ****ing luck Telstra competing with that with your ****ing
>> pathetic 15Mhz band of spectrum! Prices and quota's will HAVE to
>> remain ridiculously high and restrictive or you'll overload the NextG
>> white elephant.
>
> It's called frequency re-use by having sufficient cells to cover the
> population. Telstra doesn't just have 15MHz, they have a LOT more
> spectrum than ANY other telco in this country available at their disposal.

Such as?

>
>>> There were also some similar impressive data points on the fixed
>>> network side. The capex to sales ratio for the "Next IP" network now
>>> comes in about 10% to 12%, compared to 18% for legacy networks.
>>
>> Wow. An all IP network. Welcome to the 1990's.
>
> ROTFL. Yeah, there were heaps of IP switches capable of terabit per
> second data switching capacity with full QoS functionality back in the
> 90's. NOT!

All-IP service labeled labeled serbased networks have been around since
the stone ages, ****wit. 'Next IP' is a nice way of saying 'catching up
with every other carrier' or 'capex that should of been made to replace
old **** years ago'.

Sycophants... really.

davmel wrote:
> James Bell wrote:
>> Alan Parkington wrote:
>>> For starters came a slide showing the "network cost per megabyte."
>>
>> Falling costs which doesn't flow on to consumers.
>
> So you didn't notice the 87% cut to PAYG data rates recently?

..87 x Ridiculously Exorbitant = Still Exorbitant, ****wit.

>>> 3G appears to compress voice costs by impressive increments as well.
>>> If GSM comes at about 100, Next G currently comes in at 45 but with
>>> future optimization comes in at around 25.
>>
>> Pity about the fact LastG is a dead end, and WiMAX pisses and ****s on
>> W-CDMA's cost per byte.
>
> Yeah, and which company plans to roll out 6000+ WiMax base stations in
> this country to compete with NextG?

Only a company run by a bunch of ****wits who would replace an existing
technology which suited better than LastG and need 6000+ BTS's in the
process.

>> Pity about the fact that wireless technologies are pretty much hitting
>> Shannon's theorem, and that future needs will require FAR more spectrum.
>
> Yep, but the only spectrum available is useless microwave spectrum that
> has next to no refractive properties and easily attenuates in rain and
> vegetation let alone masonry/concrete walls so it's ****ing useless for
> mobile purposes.

While it's true the lower frequencies have better propagation, you're
yet again talking bull****, ****wit.

Pity about the 3G networks @ 2.1Ghz ****wit.

Pity about the fact Mobile WiMAX networks will be rolled out with MIMO +
Beamforming technologies which drastically increases gain to mitigate
the frequency issue.

Pity about the underlying technology being OFDM, which gives one the
choice of large distances or high-bandwidth per MS.

>> Pity about the fact that ALL the 4G Mobile WiMAX spectrum is owned by
>> Unwired and Austar - A whole 200Mhz+.
>
> WiMax isn't even remotely considered 4G. It's just a dumb wireless IP
> network that can't natively support voice calls.

So NextIP's just a dumb IP network you terminal ****wit. Ever heard of
QoS, ****wit?

> Even the ITU only
> considers it a 3G network by stretching the definitions.

Only in your mind child.

> Oh, and the 2.3/3.3GHz WiMax spectrum has horrible RF properties for
> mobile users - that's why it's mainly deployed in fixed locations with
> external antennas to get any decent coverage.

Rubbish, ****wit.

>> Good ****ing luck Telstra competing with that with your ****ing
>> pathetic 15Mhz band of spectrum! Prices and quota's will HAVE to
>> remain ridiculously high and restrictive or you'll overload the NextG
>> white elephant.
>
> It's called frequency re-use by having sufficient cells to cover the
> population. Telstra doesn't just have 15MHz, they have a LOT more
> spectrum than ANY other telco in this country available at their disposal.

Such as?

>
>>> There were also some similar impressive data points on the fixed
>>> network side. The capex to sales ratio for the "Next IP" network now
>>> comes in about 10% to 12%, compared to 18% for legacy networks.
>>
>> Wow. An all IP network. Welcome to the 1990's.
>
> ROTFL. Yeah, there were heaps of IP switches capable of terabit per
> second data switching capacity with full QoS functionality back in the
> 90's. NOT!

All-IP service labeled networks have been around since
the stone ages, ****wit. 'Next IP' is a nice way of saying 'catching up
with every other carrier' or 'capex that should of been made to replace
old **** years ago'.

Sycophants... really.

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:33:29 GMT, Alan Parkington wrote:

> Comment by Grahame Lynch
>
> Telstra's transformation day might not only herald a turnaround in the poor
> market perceptions of the company, but it also just might go down as the
> moment that the company becomes a international poster child for the next
> generation network cause.

Bwahahahahahaha! Best comedy all week!

James Bell wrote:
> davmel wrote:
>> James Bell wrote:
>>> Alan Parkington wrote:
>>>> For starters came a slide showing the "network cost per megabyte."
>>>
>>> Falling costs which doesn't flow on to consumers.
>>
>> So you didn't notice the 87% cut to PAYG data rates recently?
>
> .87 x Ridiculously Exorbitant = Still Exorbitant, ****wit.

Only for dole collectors like yourself.
You can sit and whine about the prices, but the rest of us are more than
happy to get on with our lives and take advantage of the massive
coverage NextG provides which no other network comes even remotely close
to matching without resorting to satellite systems - which ARE expensive
in comparison.

> Only a company run by a bunch of ****wits who would replace an existing
> technology which suited better than LastG and need 6000+ BTS's in the
> process.

Better suited my ass! CDMA is totally inferior to GSM/UMTS on so many
levels plus has falling market share worldwide and will only end up
being used in the USA.
You'll still be whining about CDMA long after it's complete dead.

> While it's true the lower frequencies have better propagation, you're
> yet again talking bull****, ****wit.

No, you just proved my point with that confirmation.

> Pity about the 3G networks @ 2.1Ghz ****wit.

Good example to prove my point. 3G @ 2100 has pathetic in building
penetration compared to lower frequency networks.

> Pity about the fact Mobile WiMAX networks will be rolled out with MIMO +
> Beamforming technologies which drastically increases gain to mitigate
> the frequency issue.

So WiMax has to use fancy complex antennas to increase gain to cover
greater distances? ROTFL. If you think every MS and base will have those
features you're delusional. It will add substantially to the cost.

> Pity about the underlying technology being OFDM, which gives one the
> choice of large distances or high-bandwidth per MS.

Go back to school and learn what OFDM is ****wit.

>>> Pity about the fact that ALL the 4G Mobile WiMAX spectrum is owned by
>>> Unwired and Austar - A whole 200Mhz+.
>>
>> WiMax isn't even remotely considered 4G. It's just a dumb wireless IP
>> network that can't natively support voice calls.
>
> So NextIP's just a dumb IP network you terminal ****wit. Ever heard of
> QoS, ****wit?

Even a ****wit like yourself knows that IP doesn't have QoS built-in.
You have to put additional headers in i.e. MPLS to add QoS.

>> Even the ITU only considers it a 3G network by stretching the
>> definitions.
>
> Only in your mind child.

No, only in your terminally ****ed up deluded mind.
Obviously you don't read the news:
http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2007/30.html

>> Oh, and the 2.3/3.3GHz WiMax spectrum has horrible RF properties for
>> mobile users - that's why it's mainly deployed in fixed locations with
>> external antennas to get any decent coverage.
>
> Rubbish, ****wit.

If you think WiMax will provide the same coverage distance as NextG then
you're seriously deluded.

>>> Good ****ing luck Telstra competing with that with your ****ing
>>> pathetic 15Mhz band of spectrum! Prices and quota's will HAVE to
>>> remain ridiculously high and restrictive or you'll overload the NextG
>>> white elephant.
>>
>> It's called frequency re-use by having sufficient cells to cover the
>> population. Telstra doesn't just have 15MHz, they have a LOT more
>> spectrum than ANY other telco in this country available at their
>> disposal.
>
> Such as?

Go have a look at the ACMA database, Telstra has enormous amounts of
spectrum.

>>
>>>> There were also some similar impressive data points on the fixed
>>>> network side. The capex to sales ratio for the "Next IP" network now
>>>> comes in about 10% to 12%, compared to 18% for legacy networks.
>>>
>>> Wow. An all IP network. Welcome to the 1990's.
>>
>> ROTFL. Yeah, there were heaps of IP switches capable of terabit per
>> second data switching capacity with full QoS functionality back in the
>> 90's. NOT!
>
> All-IP service labeled networks have been around since
> the stone ages, ****wit. 'Next IP' is a nice way of saying 'catching up
> with every other carrier' or 'capex that should of been made to replace
> old **** years ago'.

MPLS based networks have only been implemented in this decade ****wit,
not the stone age.
How many other carriers have an all IP core network covering as large an
area and as many users as Telstra?

It's hard to believe someone as vocal as yourself is utterly clueless,
but I guess that's why you're on the dole.

davmel wrote:
> James Bell wrote:
>> davmel wrote:
>>> James Bell wrote:
>>>> Alan Parkington wrote:
>>>>> For starters came a slide showing the "network cost per megabyte."
>>>>
>>>> Falling costs which doesn't flow on to consumers.
>>>
>>> So you didn't notice the 87% cut to PAYG data rates recently?
>>
>> .87 x Ridiculously Exorbitant = Still Exorbitant, ****wit.
>
> Only for dole collectors like yourself.
> You can sit and whine about the prices, but the rest of us are more than
> happy to get on with our lives and take advantage of the massive
> coverage NextG provides which no other network comes even remotely close
> to matching without resorting to satellite systems - which ARE expensive
> in comparison.

For the vast majority of Australians who don't live out in the middle of
****ing nowhere like you do (how's the Aboriginal intervention treating
you these days?), coverage out in the sticks is completely and utterly
****ing irrelevant.

>> Only a company run by a bunch of ****wits who would replace an existing
>> technology which suited better than LastG and need 6000+ BTS's in the
>> process.
>
> Better suited my ass! CDMA is totally inferior to GSM/UMTS on so many
> levels plus has falling market share worldwide and will only end up
> being used in the USA.
> You'll still be whining about CDMA long after it's complete dead.
>
>> While it's true the lower frequencies have better propagation, you're
>> yet again talking bull****, ****wit.
>
> No, you just proved my point with that confirmation.
>
>> Pity about the 3G networks @ 2.1Ghz ****wit.
>
> Good example to prove my point. 3G @ 2100 has pathetic in building
> penetration compared to lower frequency networks.

Maybe out in the sticks where you live, ****wit.

>> Pity about the fact Mobile WiMAX networks will be rolled out with MIMO +
>> Beamforming technologies which drastically increases gain to mitigate
>> the frequency issue.
>
> So WiMax has to use fancy complex antennas to increase gain to cover
> greater distances? ROTFL. If you think every MS and base will have those
> features you're delusional. It will add substantially to the cost.
>
>> Pity about the underlying technology being OFDM, which gives one the
>> choice of large distances or high-bandwidth per MS.
>
> Go back to school and learn what OFDM is ****wit.

Go learn about SOFDMA, ****wit. You clearly haven't.

>>>> Pity about the fact that ALL the 4G Mobile WiMAX spectrum is owned
>>>> by Unwired and Austar - A whole 200Mhz+.
>>>
>>> WiMax isn't even remotely considered 4G. It's just a dumb wireless IP
>>> network that can't natively support voice calls.
>>
>> So NextIP's just a dumb IP network you terminal ****wit. Ever heard of
>> QoS, ****wit?
>
> Even a ****wit like yourself knows that IP doesn't have QoS built-in.
> You have to put additional headers in i.e. MPLS to add QoS.

.... and that's exactly what it supports, you terminal ignorant ****wit.

>>> Even the ITU only considers it a 3G network by stretching the
>>> definitions.
>>
>> Only in your mind child.
>
> No, only in your terminally ****ed up deluded mind.
> Obviously you don't read the news:
> http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2007/30.html

I don't see any mention of 'stretching the definitions', you gutless
****wit. THAT'S what I was referring to.

Pity about 802.16m btw.

>>> Oh, and the 2.3/3.3GHz WiMax spectrum has horrible RF properties for
>>> mobile users - that's why it's mainly deployed in fixed locations
>>> with external antennas to get any decent coverage.
>>
>> Rubbish, ****wit.
>
> If you think WiMax will provide the same coverage distance as NextG then
> you're seriously deluded.

For metropolitan and equivalent regional areas, it'll do it just fine,
and with a lower 'cost per mega byte' which is the context of this whole
discussion, ****wit.

>>>> Good ****ing luck Telstra competing with that with your ****ing
>>>> pathetic 15Mhz band of spectrum! Prices and quota's will HAVE to
>>>> remain ridiculously high and restrictive or you'll overload the
>>>> NextG white elephant.
>>>
>>> It's called frequency re-use by having sufficient cells to cover the
>>> population. Telstra doesn't just have 15MHz, they have a LOT more
>>> spectrum than ANY other telco in this country available at their
>>> disposal.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> Go have a look at the ACMA database, Telstra has enormous amounts of
> spectrum.

Post a link ****wit. I'll be curious to see these swaths of spectrum in
the 850Mhz band TLS will need if they to be able to provide any form of
realbroadband data services in the future.

>>>>> There were also some similar impressive data points on the fixed
>>>>> network side. The capex to sales ratio for the "Next IP" network
>>>>> now comes in about 10% to 12%, compared to 18% for legacy networks.
>>>>
>>>> Wow. An all IP network. Welcome to the 1990's.
>>>
>>> ROTFL. Yeah, there were heaps of IP switches capable of terabit per
>>> second data switching capacity with full QoS functionality back in
>>> the 90's. NOT!
>> All-IP service labeled networks have been around since
>> the stone ages, ****wit. 'Next IP' is a nice way of saying 'catching up
>> with every other carrier' or 'capex that should of been made to replace
>> old **** years ago'.
>
> MPLS based networks have only been implemented in this decade ****wit,
> not the stone age.
> How many other carriers have an all IP core network covering as large an
> area and as many users as Telstra?

Plenty of O/S Telco's have been using an IP core for yonks now. Most of
Telstra competition has been using a 'NEXT IP' equivalent core for years
as well, ****wit.

> It's hard to believe someone as vocal as yourself is utterly clueless,
> but I guess that's why you're on the dole.

Says the guy who spends all his time posting pointless **** on
whirlpool. Christ, sycophants...

James Bell wrote:
>
> Says the guy who spends all his time posting pointless **** on
> whirlpool. Christ, sycophants...

ROTFL. Says the guy who spends all his time spouting so much vulgar
clueless garbage on newsgroups because he can't post something remotely
intelligent on a moderated forum...

"James Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alan Parkington wrote:
>> For starters came a slide showing the "network cost per megabyte."
>
> Falling costs which doesn't flow on to consumers.
>
>> 3G appears to compress voice costs by impressive increments as well. If
>> GSM comes at about 100, Next G currently comes in at 45 but with future
>> optimization comes in at around 25.
>
> Pity about the fact LastG is a dead end, and WiMAX pisses and ****s on
> W-CDMA's cost per byte.

What Wimax mobile network? We dont have any in Australia, dick

Pipe dreams are just that, pipe dreams

Michael wrote:
> What Wimax mobile network? We dont have any in Australia, dick
>
> Pipe dreams are just that, pipe dreams

Yeah, a pipe dream with a realisation of about ~18 months.

"James Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael wrote:
>> What Wimax mobile network? We dont have any in Australia, dick
>>
>> Pipe dreams are just that, pipe dreams
>
> Yeah, a pipe dream with a realisation of about ~18 months.

Not doubt they will roll it out one year, whether it actually works at all
is a different story.

You have to laugh at Opel, they dont even exist yet.

On Sun, 15 Kislev 5768 20:28 Michael translated the ancient runes
thusly:

>
> "James Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Michael wrote:
>>> What Wimax mobile network? We dont have any in Australia, dick
>>>
>>> Pipe dreams are just that, pipe dreams
>>
>> Yeah, a pipe dream with a realisation of about ~18 months.
>
> Not doubt they will roll it out one year, whether it actually works
> at all is a different story.
>
> You have to laugh at Opel, they dont even exist yet.

Yeah, they do, they're a German car compnay, a subsiduary of GM. I
remember all the taxis in Aden in the early 60's being Opels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel

Kate :-)
--
--
"How many of them can we make die?"
*--- March of Cambreadth

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

"Kate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 15 Kislev 5768 20:28 Michael translated the ancient runes
> thusly:
>
>>
>> "James Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> What Wimax mobile network? We dont have any in Australia, dick
>>>>
>>>> Pipe dreams are just that, pipe dreams
>>>
>>> Yeah, a pipe dream with a realisation of about ~18 months.
>>
>> Not doubt they will roll it out one year, whether it actually works
>> at all is a different story.
>>
>> You have to laugh at Opel, they dont even exist yet.
>
> Yeah, they do, they're a German car compnay, a subsiduary of GM. I
> remember all the taxis in Aden in the early 60's being Opels.

****. Sprung.