Telstra - What a f*cking whinger!

Read this, try not to laugh:
http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/Home/ByTheWay.aspx

---

› See More: Telstra - What a f*cking whinger!

Horace Wachope . wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:42:32 +0000, thegoons wrote:
>
>> Read this, try not to laugh:
>> http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/Home/ByTheWay.aspx
>
> Leaving aside the wanky style of writing, it's a reasonable point to be
> making.
>
> I doubt many Australians are aware of the size of Vodafone.
>
What is the point ? Of course VF is bigger as they are operating all
over the world. So what ? Got nothing to do with the regulation 'debate'
they are trying to have. Last time I checked Vodafone were not
controlling the essentially all last mile infrastructure and milking the
rest of Australia with an asset payed for by taxpayers.

L G wrote:

> What is the point ? Of course VF is bigger as they are operating all
> over the world. So what ? Got nothing to do with the regulation 'debate'
> they are trying to have. Last time I checked Vodafone were not
> controlling the essentially all last mile infrastructure and milking the
> rest of Australia with an asset payed for by taxpayers.

If they are so big why don't they spend 10 or 20 billion dollars and
build another one?

Nick Adams wrote:

> If they are so big why don't they spend 10 or 20 billion dollars and
> build another one?

Who needs another network ? All that is required is fair access to the
current one. And let everybody compete on a fair basis and spend their
money on SERVICES that actually help customers.

Horace Wachope . wrote:

> L G (Leon Garde?) seems to think that it's not OK for Telstra to milk what
> used to be taypayer owned infrastructure, but that it's OK for the
> foreign-owned Vodafone to be effectively subsidized to do so.

And where exactly is Vodafone being subsidised ? Vodafone is not even
playing in the landline and broadband space (apart from 3G), where the
infrastructure problem lies.

And what is the problem with being foreign-owned anyway ? Without these
foreign-owned companies we would have ZERO competition in the mobile
space. I am not even a VF client, but I am glad they are here and afaik
they build their own mobile network.

And that's not even the issue in the current discussion. The problem is
in the fixed line and broadband area. Without companies like for example
the AUSSIE-owned Internode, iiNet, .... we would still be thinking that
256K is 'broadband' speed and ADSL2 would be something that exists
overseas. That's the area where Telstra has been stifling competition
for years and that is why regulation is needed more than ever. Australia
is falling behind other nations in just about every telecoms statistic I
have seen lately.

You might wanna luck overseas and see what's happening elsewhere. But
that might be to scary - because there's foreigners.

L G wrote:
> Nick Adams wrote:
>
>> If they are so big why don't they spend 10 or 20 billion dollars and
>> build another one?
>
> Who needs another network ? All that is required is fair access to the
> current one. And let everybody compete on a fair basis and spend their
> money on SERVICES that actually help customers.

Analogy: I don't own a fridge. You (probably) have one. I demand that I
be able to put my stuff in your fridge. Considering the cost of running
the fridge is minimal I'm only prepared to give you 10 cents a day.

Nick Adams wrote:
> L G wrote:
>
>> Nick Adams wrote:
>>
>>> If they are so big why don't they spend 10 or 20 billion dollars and
>>> build another one?
>>
>>
>> Who needs another network ? All that is required is fair access to the
>> current one. And let everybody compete on a fair basis and spend their
>> money on SERVICES that actually help customers.
>
>
> Analogy: I don't own a fridge. You (probably) have one. I demand that I
> be able to put my stuff in your fridge. Considering the cost of running
> the fridge is minimal I'm only prepared to give you 10 cents a day.

No problem. Just two questions :

1. Will it be beer you're putting in there ?
2. Do you expect to be able to take it out again ?

If yes and no, then I'll give you a discount. 5c per week.

Nick Adams wrote:

> Analogy: I don't own a fridge. You (probably) have one. I demand that I
> be able to put my stuff in your fridge. Considering the cost of running
> the fridge is minimal I'm only prepared to give you 10 cents a day.

I'd be asking how Telstra ended up 'owning' the beer fridge in the first
place and how come they want to be the only ones allowed to control
access to the fridge if it is not economical to build another fridge.

But however flawed I like the beer fridge analogy anyway. Let's not get
too serious about it. Have a cold one mate. Cheers !

L G <[email protected]> writes:

>Horace Wachope . wrote:

>> L G (Leon Garde?) seems to think that it's not OK for Telstra to milk what
>> used to be taypayer owned infrastructure, but that it's OK for the
>> foreign-owned Vodafone to be effectively subsidized to do so.

>And where exactly is Vodafone being subsidised ? Vodafone is not even
>playing in the landline and broadband space (apart from 3G), where the
>infrastructure problem lies.

>And what is the problem with being foreign-owned anyway ? Without these
>foreign-owned companies we would have ZERO competition in the mobile
>space. I am not even a VF client, but I am glad they are here and afaik
>they build their own mobile network.

>And that's not even the issue in the current discussion. The problem is
>in the fixed line and broadband area. Without companies like for example
>the AUSSIE-owned Internode, iiNet, .... we would still be thinking that
>256K is 'broadband' speed and ADSL2 would be something that exists
>overseas. That's the area where Telstra has been stifling competition
>for years and that is why regulation is needed more than ever. Australia
>is falling behind other nations in just about every telecoms statistic I
>have seen lately.

Iinet might be leading at the moment with their ADSL-2 rollout, but they
cannot get the mail server configuration right. Emails from several Iinet
customers are getting rejected by my server because the hostnames being
presented in the HELO command don't resolve to anything in the DNS! They
appear to be former Ihug servers going on the structure of the hostnames.

No valid DNS resolution means the email will be rejected.

I use Optarse for my mobiles which has been, since a few years ago at least,
foreign owned by the Singapore government cartel's favourite company
SingTel.

Craig.
--
Craig Dewick ([email protected]). http://lios.apana.org.au/~craig
APANA Sydney Deputy Regional Co-ordinator. Operator of Jedi (APANA Sydney POP)
Always striving for a secure long-term future in an insecure short-term world
Have you exported a crypto system today? Do your bit to undermine the NSA.

L G <[email protected]> wrote
> Horace Wachope wrote:

>> L G (Leon Garde?) seems to think that it's not OK for Telstra to
>> milk what used to be taypayer owned infrastructure, but that it's OK
>> for the foreign-owned Vodafone to be effectively subsidized to do so.

> And where exactly is Vodafone being subsidised ? Vodafone is not even
> playing in the landline and broadband space (apart from 3G), where the
> infrastructure problem lies.

> And what is the problem with being foreign-owned anyway ? Without
> these foreign-owned companies we would have ZERO competition in the
> mobile space. I am not even a VF client, but I am glad they are here
> and afaik they build their own mobile network.

> And that's not even the issue in the current discussion. The problem
> is in the fixed line and broadband area. Without companies like for
> example the AUSSIE-owned Internode, iiNet, .... we would still be
> thinking that 256K is 'broadband' speed

Lie, 1500 was always available from telstra.

> and ADSL2 would be something that exists overseas.

Another lie. That stuff always shows up here over time.

> That's the area where Telstra has been stifling competition for years

Lie, most obviously with their very cheap adsl.

> and that is why regulation is needed more than ever.

Pathetic, really.

> Australia is falling behind other nations in just about every telecoms
> statistic I have seen lately.

Another mindless pig ignorant lie.

> You might wanna luck overseas and see what's happening elsewhere. But that
> might be to scary - because there's foreigners.

Pathetic, really.

Horace Wachope . <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:56:57 +1030, L G wrote:
>
>> Horace Wachope . wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:42:32 +0000, thegoons wrote:
>>>
>>>> Read this, try not to laugh:
>>>> http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/Home/ByTheWay.aspx
>>>
>>> Leaving aside the wanky style of writing, it's a reasonable point
>>> to be making.
>>>
>>> I doubt many Australians are aware of the size of Vodafone.
>>
>> What is the point ?
>
> The point is that Vodafone can easily afford to compete with Telstra
> in an open, less regulated market.
>
>> Of course VF is bigger as they are operating all
>> over the world. So what ? Got nothing to do with the regulation
>> 'debate' they are trying to have.
>
> Yes it does. It shows that Vodafone can easily afford to compete with
> Telstra in an open, less regulated market.
>
>> Last time I checked Vodafone were not
>> controlling the essentially all last mile infrastructure and milking
>> the rest of Australia with an asset payed for by taxpayers.

> It was paid for by the Government.

It was actually paid for by the telstra customers, who also paid a
tax to the govt when they paid for their phone services, the 'dividend'

> The Government sold (half of it) and floated the company.
> And the money raised (many, many billions) was put to
> public use. The shareholders who paid that money are
> entitled to "milk" the asset for all its worth. And given
> that Telstra is paying dividends to the Government out
> of its capital reserves, we, as taxpayers, seem to be getting
> a fairly good deal for our remaining 50% shareholding.

Horace Wachope . <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Horace Wachope <[email protected]> wrote
>>> L G wrote
>>>> Horace Wachope wrote
>>>>> thegoons wrote

>>>>>> Read this, try not to laugh:
>>>>>> http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/Home/ByTheWay.aspx

>>>>> Leaving aside the wanky style of writing, it's a reasonable point
>>>>> to be making.

>>>>> I doubt many Australians are aware of the size of Vodafone.

>>>> What is the point ?

>>> The point is that Vodafone can easily afford to compete with Telstra
>>> in an open, less regulated market.

>>>> Of course VF is bigger as they are operating all
>>>> over the world. So what ? Got nothing to do with the regulation
>>>> 'debate' they are trying to have.

>>> Yes it does. It shows that Vodafone can easily afford to compete
>>> with Telstra in an open, less regulated market.

>>>> Last time I checked Vodafone were not
>>>> controlling the essentially all last mile infrastructure and
>>>> milking the rest of Australia with an asset payed for by taxpayers.

>>> It was paid for by the Government.

>> It was actually paid for by the telstra customers, who also paid a
>> tax to the govt when they paid for their phone services, the 'dividend'

> Yeah, I don't deny that. How about: It was paid for by the Government
> with taxes collected from customers when they paid for their phone services?

Still backwards. It was actually paid for out of telstra's cash flow
that came from its customers, and some of that cashflow was also
paid to the govt as a 'dividend' even when it was still 100% govt owned.

> The point I was trying to make is that it was
> legitimate for the Government to sell Telstra.

Sure, I didnt comment on that bit.

> Some seem to think that the Govt was "selling our own asset to
> us" which is superficially correct, but it was more a case of the
> asset (or part of it) being liquidated (though still a poor analogy),
> as the funds went into consolidated revenue.

> The point I was trying to make is that the fact that "all the last
> mile infrastructure" was paid for by taxpayers/ phone users

Just phone users.

> is irrelevant because it has been (partially) sold.

Sure, I didnt comment on that either.

> LG's argumemt is ridiculous, anyway, because even if "taypayers"
> still did own 100% of the infrastructure, it would be far more
> preferable for Telstra to "milk" its customers when it's paying
> dividends to the Govt, than for foreign companies to "milk" it via
> subsidization when they're paying dividends to foreign shareholders.

In practice Vodafone doesnt actually pay dividends to foreign
shareholders, basically because they have never made a profit.

Optarse never made a profit except with their mobile operation.

So there is a real sense in which customers of telstra are gouged
by the govt rather more than the customers of foreign telcos.

> Was the tax actually called the "dividend"

Yes, that's what telstra called it even when 100%
govt owned. It was clearly a tax on phone users.

> or did you forget to finish the sentence? (no full stop :-)

Down, boy

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> writes:

>L G <[email protected]> wrote
>> Horace Wachope wrote:

>>> L G (Leon Garde?) seems to think that it's not OK for Telstra to
>>> milk what used to be taypayer owned infrastructure, but that it's OK
>>> for the foreign-owned Vodafone to be effectively subsidized to do so.

>> And where exactly is Vodafone being subsidised ? Vodafone is not even
>> playing in the landline and broadband space (apart from 3G), where the
>> infrastructure problem lies.

>> And what is the problem with being foreign-owned anyway ? Without
>> these foreign-owned companies we would have ZERO competition in the
>> mobile space. I am not even a VF client, but I am glad they are here
>> and afaik they build their own mobile network.

>> And that's not even the issue in the current discussion. The problem
>> is in the fixed line and broadband area. Without companies like for
>> example the AUSSIE-owned Internode, iiNet, .... we would still be
>> thinking that 256K is 'broadband' speed

>Lie, 1500 was always available from telstra.

But only if you're within 3.5 km from the exchange, etc.

>> and ADSL2 would be something that exists overseas.

>Another lie. That stuff always shows up here over time.

But only when the telco's think it's to their best advantage. That's why
Telstra isn't launching it yet.

>> That's the area where Telstra has been stifling competition for years

>Lie, most obviously with their very cheap adsl.

And very crap ADSL.

Rod's on Speed again...
--
Vote 1 - Oobi for Australian Prime Minister. [email protected]
Tell the Lebs that come to Cronulla to Respect the Locals or PISS OFF!
Sock Puppets 'R' Us Inc. Burn the US, UK and Australian flags in protest!
Bomb US Military installations and kill US military personal on foreign soil.

Sock Puppets R Us <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> writes
>> L G <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Horace Wachope wrote:

>>>> L G (Leon Garde?) seems to think that it's not OK for Telstra to
>>>> milk what used to be taypayer owned infrastructure, but that it's
>>>> OK for the foreign-owned Vodafone to be effectively subsidized to
>>>> do so.

>>> And where exactly is Vodafone being subsidised ? Vodafone is not
>>> even playing in the landline and broadband space (apart from 3G),
>>> where the infrastructure problem lies.

>>> And what is the problem with being foreign-owned anyway ? Without
>>> these foreign-owned companies we would have ZERO competition in the
>>> mobile space. I am not even a VF client, but I am glad they are here
>>> and afaik they build their own mobile network.

>>> And that's not even the issue in the current discussion. The problem
>>> is in the fixed line and broadband area. Without companies like for
>>> example the AUSSIE-owned Internode, iiNet, .... we would still be
>>> thinking that 256K is 'broadband' speed

>> Lie, 1500 was always available from telstra.

> But only if you're within 3.5 km from the exchange, etc.

Irrelevant, none of the competitors did any better than that.

>>> and ADSL2 would be something that exists overseas.

>> Another lie. That stuff always shows up here over time.

> But only when the telco's think it's to their best advantage.

Another lie, that isnt what saw Telstra price
adsl as cheap as dialup if you use it much.

> That's why Telstra isn't launching it yet.

Nope, the problem is with the dslams already out there.

Easier for the competitors who were very late with dslams to
choose to use those which support that when they eventually do.

>>> That's the area where Telstra has been stifling competition for years

>> Lie, most obviously with their very cheap adsl.

> And very crap ADSL.

Another pig ignorant lie. Mine's as reliable as
dialup was and one hell of a lot faster and vastly
more reliable in the reliablility per session sense.

Horace Wachope . <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Horace Wachope . <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Horace Wachope <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> L G wrote
>>>>>> Horace Wachope wrote
>>>>>>> thegoons wrote

>>>>>>>> Read this, try not to laugh:
>>>>>>>> http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/Home/ByTheWay.aspx

>>>>>>> Leaving aside the wanky style of writing, it's a reasonable
>>>>>>> point to be making.

>>>>>>> I doubt many Australians are aware of the size of Vodafone.

>>>>>> What is the point ?

>>>>> The point is that Vodafone can easily afford to compete
>>>>> with Telstra in an open, less regulated market.

>>>>>> Of course VF is bigger as they are operating all
>>>>>> over the world. So what ? Got nothing to do with
>>>>>> the regulation 'debate' they are trying to have.

>>>>> Yes it does. It shows that Vodafone can easily afford
>>>>> to compete with Telstra in an open, less regulated market.

>>>>>> Last time I checked Vodafone were not controlling the
>>>>>> essentially all last mile infrastructure and milking the rest
>>>>>> of Australia with an asset payed for by taxpayers.

>>>>> It was paid for by the Government.

>>>> It was actually paid for by the telstra customers, who also paid a
>>>> tax to the govt when they paid for their phone services, the 'dividend'

>>> Yeah, I don't deny that. How about: It was paid for by the Government
>>> with taxes collected from customers when they paid for their phone services?

>> Still backwards. It was actually paid for out of telstra's cash flow
>> that came from its customers, and some of that cashflow was also
>> paid to the govt as a 'dividend' even when it was still 100% govt owned.

> Yup, but what's this tax paid by the telstra customers
> "to the govt when they paid for their phone services"?

The 'dividend' that Telecom/Telstra paid to the govt when
it was still 100% govt owned, billions of bucks per year.

> Are you saying that a tax was added
> to the phone bill, which went to Telstra?

Effectively.

> How'd they get around the requirement
> that all taxes go into consolidated revenue?

That's what happened to it, straight into consolidated revenue.

That only changed later after part of Telstra was sold off.
The dividend which became a real dividend once telstra
was a proper company structure with real dividends
still went straight into consolidated revenue.

A small part of the proceeds of the two floats was
kept separate and used to fund various things.

> Or have I misunderstood what you've said?

Not really except that it was a hidden tax,
not an official tax specified in the tax act etc.

>>> The point I was trying to make is that it was
>>> legitimate for the Government to sell Telstra.

>> Sure, I didnt comment on that bit.

>>> Some seem to think that the Govt was "selling our own asset to
>>> us" which is superficially correct, but it was more a case of the
>>> asset (or part of it) being liquidated (though still a poor
>>> analogy), as the funds went into consolidated revenue.

>>> The point I was trying to make is that the fact that "all the last
>>> mile infrastructure" was paid for by taxpayers/ phone users

>> Just phone users.

> Do you know when that phone user tax was introduced?

Basically when the first 'dividend' was first paid
to the govt while it was still 100% govt owned.

Exactly when is a bit tricky to work out because the postal arm
was still subsidised by the govt well after the telecom arm was
revenue positive and that surplus made by the telecom arm was
used to continue to pay for the losses in the postal arm.

Pretty sure that a dividend was paid to the govt all the time that Telecom
was separated from Aust Post but thats memory, not certainty.

> From the beginning of the time the PMG looked after it?

Cant remember on that.

> My PSTN history is hazy. In the very beginning (and
> I'm talking early 1900s), didn't private companies run it,

There were a number of privately owned phone operations initially.

> and then the govt bought them out/took
> it over and gave it to the PMG to run?

Dunno about 'gave it to the PMG to run'
We never had much in the way of private postal services here.

> I might be thinking of the US.

The phone system was never govt run in the US, only
the postal service was, and they were never part of
the same operation in the US in any national sense.

>>> is irrelevant because it has been (partially) sold.

>> Sure, I didnt comment on that either.

>>> LG's argumemt is ridiculous, anyway, because even if "taypayers"
>>> still did own 100% of the infrastructure, it would be far more
>>> preferable for Telstra to "milk" its customers when it's paying
>>> dividends to the Govt, than for foreign companies to "milk" it via
>>> subsidization when they're paying dividends to foreign shareholders.

>> In practice Vodafone doesnt actually pay dividends to foreign
>> shareholders, basically because they have never made a profit.

>> Optarse never made a profit except with their mobile operation.

>> So there is a real sense in which customers of telstra are gouged
>> by the govt rather more than the customers of foreign telcos.

> Yeah... or, as Telstra presumably see it, Telstra itself is gouged
> by the Govt which then passes on the gouging to its customers.
> Or are you referring to a different gouging?

Yep, that 'dividend' paid to the govt while it was still 100% govt owned.
Billions of bucks a year, literally, in the last few years before the first
float.

> I'm talking about Telstra customers being gouged because
> Telstra passes onto its customers the "losses" associated
> with providing access to competitors at "below cost".

Thats all very theoretical. While telstra doesnt make a profit with
say rural phone services, those are subsidised by other telstra
customers. So when rural phone services are resold by other
telcos like say optarse, those subsidising telstra customers
still subsidise the customers who deal with optarse direct.

And for quite a while the line rent paid by residential customers
was subsidised by the line rent paid by commercial customers.
Tho thats more tricky to calculate since it was really only the
residential customers that didnt make many calls that were
being subsidised by anyone and even thats not completely
clear since they were being paid for by the calls made to
those customers with quite a few of them. It was only really
those who never made many calls and never received many
that were being subsidised much, in spades with rural
customers like that.

Its still not really clear if customers paying $18.50/month
for HomeLine Budget who make and receive few calls are
being subsidised by other telstra customers, because its hard
to break down the real cost of them to telstra while ever telstra
doesnt break out the cost of copper pair maintenance etc.

> I assume that's what Telstra means (for the most part)
> by "regulation" (ie. the ACCC-mandated fees).

Not necessarily only the fees. The thing that appears to have
got right up the mex's nose is the regulation that requires
telstra to resell landline services to anyone who wants to
resell them, even when they have been provided on new
services like fibre to the node services that are claimed
to be done like that so that the customer can get a short
distance from the node to the point of attachment, to get
the higher speeds possible adsl2 and adsl2+

In reality the only reason the mex and its arselickers want
to go that route is so they would have something that they
arent forced to resell to anyone if they dont choose to.

>>> Was the tax actually called the "dividend"

>> Yes, that's what telstra called it even when 100%
>> govt owned. It was clearly a tax on phone users.

> Was the dividend separately added to the cutomers' bills?

Nope. It was always visible in the annual reports,
and called that there, while it was 100% govt owned.

>>> or did you forget to finish the sentence? (no full stop :-)

>> Down, boy

> Heh. I'd forgotten about wogdog.

The dog hasnt.