Telstra wants fixed phone line obligation reviewed

Some gutless drug running ****wit desperately cowering behind
Kwyjibo <[email protected]> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant
**** you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running ****wit
thats never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

---

› See More: Telstra wants fixed phone line obligation reviewed

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Some gutless drug running ****wit desperately cowering behind
> Kwyjibo <[email protected]> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant
> **** you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running ****wit
> thats never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Done again, hey Roddles? ****ing useless arse-clown.

--
Kwyj.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Some gutless drug running ****wit desperately cowering behind
> Kwyjibo <[email protected]> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant
> **** you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running ****wit
> thats never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Giving up already? Must be all those drugs you're taking.

--
Kwyj.

Some gutless drug running ****wit desperately cowering behind
Kwyjibo <[email protected]> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant
**** you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running ****wit
thats never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Some gutless drug running ****wit desperately cowering behind
Kwyjibo <[email protected]> wrote just the puerile pig ignorant
**** you'd expect from a desperately cowering drug running ****wit
thats never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:26:54 +0900, Horry <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:55:36 +1000, GB wrote:
>
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>
>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.
>
>
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.'

Mauried <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:26:54 +0900, Horry <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:55:36 +1000, GB wrote:
>>
>>>> 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 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.
>>
>> 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.

> 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.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:10:01 GMT, [email protected] (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. 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.

[email protected] wrote
> [email protected] (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.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Horry <[email protected]> wrote
>> GB wrote
>>> Horry <[email protected]> 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. They paid back all monies given to them back to 1901, with a
commercial rate of interest

Michael <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Horry <[email protected]> wrote
>>> GB wrote
>>>> Horry <[email protected]> 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.

Michael <[email protected]> wrote
> GB <[email protected]> wrote
>> Horry <[email protected]> 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.