Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 59 of 59
  1. #46
    Michael
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network


    "A User" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On 15 Jan 2006 15:32:45 -0800, "Giles" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's
    > >> network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network
    > >> operator. Vodafone would buy Optus airtime wholesale and resell it to
    > >> its customer base, similar to the way Virgin runs its mobile business
    > >> now.
    > >>
    > >> Optus's thoughts turn to Vodafone - Australian IT 13/1/06

    http://australianit.news.com.au/arti...02%5E%5Enbv%5E
    ,00.html
    > >
    > >FYI, Crikey's analysis of a few days ago is now online
    > >http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/20...1622-8969.html

    >
    > I have two comments.
    >
    > Why doesn't Voda buy them out? They are a bigger company globally.


    They dont have the money for it. They are barely profitable in Aus, one year
    of profit after 13 years of operation?

    > I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in
    > Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in
    > reliability.


    A fancy claim to make. So why do they have so few customers?





    See More: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network




  2. #47
    Jeremy Quirke
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network


    "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >
    >> > A ****ed one compared with ours.

    >> How so? *Way* better coverage (all the more impressive considering
    >> GSM1800
    >> is used in most states by most operators), nationwide EDGE & much cheaper
    >> pricing.

    >
    > The coverage is **** and the pricing is ****
    >>
    >>


    If you're using GSM World maps I hope you know that aside from a handful of
    first world countries, they are mostly way out of date, especially true for
    Latin America. If you like I can send you a coverage map of TIM GSM from a
    brochure I picked up in São Paulo. As for the pricing, where are you getting
    this information from? Off the top of my head I was paying R$0,05 for an SMS
    message, which is cheap even by standards in that economy.





  3. #48
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network

    Some gutless ****wit desperately
    cowering behind the entirely appropriate
    Albinarse <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Giles <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking to buy Vodafone's network
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mobile network operator.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that's an interesting one - it would be
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the biggest consolidation of the mobile market
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Australia, ever.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, and I have the vague recollection that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ACCC has said that they wouldnt allow
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Telstra or Optarse to buy it.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was before 3 tho, so it may not be quite
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simple now. And that was Fels too, not the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current top ACCC monkey.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optus and Vodafone would still have distinct
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customer bases though - it's not a merger or
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total business acquisition, it's just the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network infrastructure.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if a separate business was created to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combine and manage the infrastructure?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ACCC wont buy such an obvious end run
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if they wont allow Optarse to buy Vodafone.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optus and Voda would be billed for using it, and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they would also be the shareholders.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what the ACCC cares about, a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in competition when one of the majors
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunches on one of the small number of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitors.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been trying to float that idea for *weeks*,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> albeit my idea involved combining the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure of all the networks.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No thanks. What works is real competition.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're right, but it pains me to think of the vast
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and mainly unnessary, technically) duplication of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. We're paying for all that crap.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are with banks, insurance companys, airlines,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The short story is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that no monopoly ever delivers anything like as
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as real competition, even tho competition isnt
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretically as efficient. In practice no monopoly
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is ever efficient either, essentially because there
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no incentive to be efficient.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the existing model could be more efficient
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without unnecessary triplication of network
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure in barely or unprofitable areas.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can say the same thing about banks, insurance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> companys, airlines, supermarkets, etc etc etc too.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The short story is that no monopoly ever delivers
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything like as well as real competition, even tho
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competition isnt theoretically as efficient. In
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice no monopoly is ever efficient either,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially because there is no incentive to be
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. a subset of the operators provides coverage in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such areas, and charges the remaining operators
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through roaming agreements.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No thanks.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These charges are balanced through a different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subset of operators providing coverage in another
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low density area.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately you might end up getting better overall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coverage that way.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And a monopoly. No thanks.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to work quite well elsewhere.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it doesnt, not anywhere at all.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA is one obvious place that comes to mind.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> US.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or anything like what was being proposed either.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AND their mobile phone system is MUCH worse than ours
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Fraid not.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Fraid so.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Never said there was a monopoly in the US either - far
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> from it.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Pity it aint anything like 'a separate business created
    >>>>>>>>>>>> to combine and manage the infrastructure' either.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> When did I ever say that?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> So what were you referring to with your 'USA is one obvious
    >>>>>>>>>> place that comes to mind' and 'seems to work quite well
    >>>>>>>>>> elsewhere' if it wasnt that which was actually being
    >>>>>>>>>> discussed, or a monopoly ?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I was saying the USA is one obvious place where the original
    >>>>>>>>> theory (i.e. re: national roaming agreements) I discussed
    >>>>>>>>> works in practice.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> They dont have national roaming agreements across all mobile
    >>>>>>>> networks.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Not too difficult.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Pity they dont have that.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> And they also have better pricing, too.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Wrong again.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> And Brazil is another example.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> A ****ed one compared with ours.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> How so? *Way* better coverage
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Pig ignorant lie.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Like you would know. Unless you've been to Brazil, I would say
    >>>>>>>>> *you* are the pig-ignorant one.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> That aint the only way to work stuff like that out.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> (all the more impressive considering GSM1800 is used in most
    >>>>>>>>>>> states by most operators), nationwide EDGE & much cheaper
    >>>>>>>>>>> pricing.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Pig ignorant lie on that last too.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Like you would know.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Like you would. You clearly dont with the US and Brazil.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Care to enlighten me then?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> YOU made those stupid pig ignorant claims.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> YOU get to do the substantiation of those stupid pig ignorant
    >>>>>> claims. THATS how it works.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> There is NO universal national roaming on US mobile networks.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> While say Tracfone does roam, its much more expensive per
    >>>>>> year for short calls than our sims that have no flagfall and a
    >>>>>> per second charge like say the Optarse Usage Only plan etc.
    >>>>
    >>>>> *Yawn*
    >>>>
    >>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >>>
    >>> *Yawn*

    >>
    >>
    >> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


    > When you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, dig up, stupid!


    Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.





  4. #49
    A User
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network

    On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:50:47 GMT, Albinus <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >A User wrote:
    >
    >> I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in
    >> Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in
    >> reliability.

    >
    >
    >Just curious, how are you measuring "best engineered"?


    Consistently better coverage. I don't mean in the country I am talking
    about nooks and crannies at least some of the big cities, high spots
    (most GSM networks seem to fail), fewer issues technically and able to
    access data people who know what they are talking about.

    Consistently have to use Optus and Telstra as well, but Voda has lower
    dropout rate and coverage that I can rely on, in the coverage areas.

    Have to share, got a new line put in a city building, was talking to
    the Telstra dude in the basement as he was punching down my
    connection, he couldn't call out on his Telstra mobile, had to lend
    him my Voda. He just chuckled. This is NOT an isolated incident. This
    is 75 metres from a capital city GPO, at ground level.



  5. #50
    A User
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network

    On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:30:20 GMT, "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"A User" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> On 15 Jan 2006 15:32:45 -0800, "Giles" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is looking to buy Vodafone's
    >> >> network infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual mobile network
    >> >> operator. Vodafone would buy Optus airtime wholesale and resell it to
    >> >> its customer base, similar to the way Virgin runs its mobile business
    >> >> now.
    >> >>
    >> >> Optus's thoughts turn to Vodafone - Australian IT 13/1/06

    >http://australianit.news.com.au/arti...02%5E%5Enbv%5E
    >,00.html
    >> >
    >> >FYI, Crikey's analysis of a few days ago is now online
    >> >http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/20...1622-8969.html

    >>
    >> I have two comments.
    >>
    >> Why doesn't Voda buy them out? They are a bigger company globally.

    >
    >They dont have the money for it. They are barely profitable in Aus, one year
    >of profit after 13 years of operation?
    >


    Voda global is 3-4 times bigger capitalisation than Telstra. If they
    wanted to, they could.

    >> I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in
    >> Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in
    >> reliability.

    >
    >A fancy claim to make. So why do they have so few customers?
    >


    Dec 04 Additions, Dec 05 Additions, Dec 05 Market Share, Dec 05
    Revenue share
    Telstra 318,000 168,000 44.40% 43.00%
    Optus 283,000 91,000 32.00% 33.00%
    Vodafone 156,000 165,000 18.00% 15%
    Hutchison 108,000 91,000 5.70% 9%

    Really?



  6. #51
    Albinus
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > Some gutless ****wit desperately
    > cowering behind the entirely appropriate
    > Albinarse <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>
    >>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>news:[email protected]...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Giles <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>looking to buy Vodafone's network
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mobile network operator.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, that's an interesting one - it would be
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the biggest consolidation of the mobile market
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in Australia, ever.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, and I have the vague recollection that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the ACCC has said that they wouldnt allow
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Telstra or Optarse to buy it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That was before 3 tho, so it may not be quite
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that simple now. And that was Fels too, not the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>current top ACCC monkey.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Optus and Vodafone would still have distinct
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>customer bases though - it's not a merger or
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>total business acquisition, it's just the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>network infrastructure.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What if a separate business was created to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>combine and manage the infrastructure?
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The ACCC wont buy such an obvious end run
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if they wont allow Optarse to buy Vodafone.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Optus and Voda would be billed for using it, and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they would also be the shareholders.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Irrelevant to what the ACCC cares about, a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reduction in competition when one of the majors
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lunches on one of the small number of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>competitors.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've been trying to float that idea for *weeks*,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>albeit my idea involved combining the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>infrastructure of all the networks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No thanks. What works is real competition.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're right, but it pains me to think of the vast
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(and mainly unnessary, technically) duplication of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>infrastructure. We're paying for all that crap.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We are with banks, insurance companys, airlines,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The short story is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that no monopoly ever delivers anything like as
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well as real competition, even tho competition isnt
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>theoretically as efficient. In practice no monopoly
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is ever efficient either, essentially because there
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is no incentive to be efficient.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But the existing model could be more efficient
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without unnecessary triplication of network
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>infrastructure in barely or unprofitable areas.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can say the same thing about banks, insurance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>companys, airlines, supermarkets, etc etc etc too.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The short story is that no monopoly ever delivers
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anything like as well as real competition, even tho
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>competition isnt theoretically as efficient. In
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>practice no monopoly is ever efficient either,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>essentially because there is no incentive to be
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>efficient.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. a subset of the operators provides coverage in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>such areas, and charges the remaining operators
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through roaming agreements.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No thanks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>These charges are balanced through a different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>subset of operators providing coverage in another
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>low density area.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ultimately you might end up getting better overall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>coverage that way.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And a monopoly. No thanks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seems to work quite well elsewhere.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No it doesnt, not anywhere at all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>USA is one obvious place that comes to mind.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>US.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Or anything like what was being proposed either.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AND their mobile phone system is MUCH worse than ours
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anyway.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Fraid not.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Fraid so.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Never said there was a monopoly in the US either - far
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>from it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Pity it aint anything like 'a separate business created
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>to combine and manage the infrastructure' either.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>When did I ever say that?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>So what were you referring to with your 'USA is one obvious
    >>>>>>>>>>>place that comes to mind' and 'seems to work quite well
    >>>>>>>>>>>elsewhere' if it wasnt that which was actually being
    >>>>>>>>>>>discussed, or a monopoly ?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>I was saying the USA is one obvious place where the original
    >>>>>>>>>>theory (i.e. re: national roaming agreements) I discussed
    >>>>>>>>>>works in practice.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>They dont have national roaming agreements across all mobile
    >>>>>>>>>networks.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Not too difficult.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Pity they dont have that.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>And they also have better pricing, too.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Wrong again.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Brazil is another example.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>A ****ed one compared with ours.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>How so? *Way* better coverage
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Pig ignorant lie.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Like you would know. Unless you've been to Brazil, I would say
    >>>>>>>>>>*you* are the pig-ignorant one.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>That aint the only way to work stuff like that out.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>(all the more impressive considering GSM1800 is used in most
    >>>>>>>>>>>>states by most operators), nationwide EDGE & much cheaper
    >>>>>>>>>>>>pricing.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Pig ignorant lie on that last too.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Like you would know.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Like you would. You clearly dont with the US and Brazil.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Care to enlighten me then?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>YOU made those stupid pig ignorant claims.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>YOU get to do the substantiation of those stupid pig ignorant
    >>>>>>>claims. THATS how it works.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>There is NO universal national roaming on US mobile networks.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>While say Tracfone does roam, its much more expensive per
    >>>>>>>year for short calls than our sims that have no flagfall and a
    >>>>>>>per second charge like say the Optarse Usage Only plan etc.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>*Yawn*
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >>>>
    >>>>*Yawn*
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

    >
    >
    >>When you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, dig up, stupid!

    >
    >
    > Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >
    >


    Rod, Rod, Rod... you really need to come up with some more original
    content again mate!



  7. #52
    Michael
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network


    "A User" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:50:47 GMT, Albinus <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >A User wrote:
    > >
    > >> I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in
    > >> Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in
    > >> reliability.

    > >
    > >
    > >Just curious, how are you measuring "best engineered"?

    >
    > Consistently better coverage. I don't mean in the country I am talking


    Better coverage, what drugs are you on?

    I've used Telstra GSM and CDMA, Optus GSM, Voda GSM, dabbled a little with
    "3" and orange CDMA.

    Out of the first four, Voda have consistently the worst coverage. Not enough
    data on the last two to comment

    > (most GSM networks seem to fail), fewer issues technically and able to


    fewer customers to serve

    > Consistently have to use Optus and Telstra as well, but Voda has lower
    > dropout rate and coverage that I can rely on, in the coverage areas.


    Does 0.7% dropout rate REALLY matter versus 0.8%?

    Dropout rates on all the GSM nets are tiny enough not to matter

    > Have to share, got a new line put in a city building, was talking to
    > the Telstra dude in the basement as he was punching down my
    > connection, he couldn't call out on his Telstra mobile, had to lend
    > him my Voda. He just chuckled. This is NOT an isolated incident. This
    > is 75 metres from a capital city GPO, at ground level.


    Inbuilding coverage is not guaranteed on any network.

    And I could name sites were Voda GSM doesnt work and Telstra GSM does.





  8. #53
    Michael
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network

    > >> >FYI, Crikey's analysis of a few days ago is now online
    > >> >http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/20...1622-8969.html
    > >>
    > >> I have two comments.
    > >>
    > >> Why doesn't Voda buy them out? They are a bigger company globally.

    > >
    > >They dont have the money for it. They are barely profitable in Aus, one

    year
    > >of profit after 13 years of operation?
    > >

    > Voda global is 3-4 times bigger capitalisation than Telstra. If they
    > wanted to, they could.


    They could spend the money, but they CANT, because they cant even make
    profit on their basic operations.

    > >> I personally think the Voda 2.5 network is the best engineered in
    > >> Aus, better than Optus and Telstra, it would result in a drop in
    > >> reliability.

    > >
    > >A fancy claim to make. So why do they have so few customers?
    > >

    >
    > Dec 04 Additions, Dec 05 Additions, Dec 05 Market Share, Dec 05
    > Revenue share
    > Telstra 318,000 168,000 44.40% 43.00%
    > Optus 283,000 91,000 32.00% 33.00%
    > Vodafone 156,000 165,000 18.00% 15%
    > Hutchison 108,000 91,000 5.70% 9%
    >
    > Really?


    Exactly.
    Hutch has only been around a few years firstly with CDMA and then 3G, so I
    accept their 9% market share.

    TELSTRA, VODA, and OPTUS HAVE BEEN IN GSM FOR 11-12 YEARS EACH.

    Therefore, with full GSM competition, 15% market share after 11 years is
    UNACCEPTABLE.
    Simple facts, 100%/3 = 33%. Thats the average benchmark.

    Optus just meets the benchmark.
    Telstra exceeds it well.

    Vodafone is a failure in Australia.

    The additions are irrelevant as they are, as Voda adds mainly prepaid, low
    ARPU, and half dont ever recharge.
    Why do you think they gave away 600 000 prepaid SIMs in the newspaper? Just
    to bump up their SIOs





  9. #54
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network

    Some gutless ****wit desperately
    cowering behind the entirely appropriate
    Albinarse <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> Albinarse <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Giles <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking to buy Vodafone's network
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mobile network operator.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that's an interesting one - it would
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be the biggest consolidation of the mobile
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market in Australia, ever.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, and I have the vague recollection that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ACCC has said that they wouldnt allow
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Telstra or Optarse to buy it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was before 3 tho, so it may not be quite
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simple now. And that was Fels too, not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current top ACCC monkey.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optus and Vodafone would still have distinct
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customer bases though - it's not a merger or
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total business acquisition, it's just the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network infrastructure.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if a separate business was created to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combine and manage the infrastructure?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ACCC wont buy such an obvious end run
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if they wont allow Optarse to buy Vodafone.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optus and Voda would be billed for using it,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they would also be the shareholders.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what the ACCC cares about, a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in competition when one of the majors
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunches on one of the small number of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitors.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been trying to float that idea for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *weeks*, albeit my idea involved combining the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure of all the networks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No thanks. What works is real competition.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're right, but it pains me to think of the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast (and mainly unnessary, technically)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplication of infrastructure. We're paying for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that crap.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are with banks, insurance companys, airlines,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The short story is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that no monopoly ever delivers anything like as
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as real competition, even tho competition
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isnt theoretically as efficient. In practice no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monopoly is ever efficient either, essentially
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no incentive to be efficient.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the existing model could be more efficient
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without unnecessary triplication of network
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure in barely or unprofitable areas.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can say the same thing about banks, insurance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> companys, airlines, supermarkets, etc etc etc too.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The short story is that no monopoly ever delivers
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything like as well as real competition, even tho
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competition isnt theoretically as efficient. In
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice no monopoly is ever efficient either,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially because there is no incentive to be
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. a subset of the operators provides coverage
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in such areas, and charges the remaining operators
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through roaming agreements.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No thanks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These charges are balanced through a different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subset of operators providing coverage in another
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low density area.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately you might end up getting better overall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coverage that way.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And a monopoly. No thanks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to work quite well elsewhere.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it doesnt, not anywhere at all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA is one obvious place that comes to mind.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or anything like what was being proposed either.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AND their mobile phone system is MUCH worse than ours
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Fraid not.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fraid so.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never said there was a monopoly in the US either - far
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pity it aint anything like 'a separate business created
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to combine and manage the infrastructure' either.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> When did I ever say that?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> So what were you referring to with your 'USA is one obvious
    >>>>>>>>>>>> place that comes to mind' and 'seems to work quite well
    >>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere' if it wasnt that which was actually being
    >>>>>>>>>>>> discussed, or a monopoly ?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> I was saying the USA is one obvious place where the original
    >>>>>>>>>>> theory (i.e. re: national roaming agreements) I discussed
    >>>>>>>>>>> works in practice.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> They dont have national roaming agreements across all mobile
    >>>>>>>>>> networks.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Not too difficult.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Pity they dont have that.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> And they also have better pricing, too.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Wrong again.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Brazil is another example.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A ****ed one compared with ours.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> How so? *Way* better coverage
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Pig ignorant lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Like you would know. Unless you've been to Brazil, I would
    >>>>>>>>>>> say *you* are the pig-ignorant one.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> That aint the only way to work stuff like that out.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> (all the more impressive considering GSM1800 is used in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> most states by most operators), nationwide EDGE & much
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> cheaper pricing.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Pig ignorant lie on that last too.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Like you would know.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Like you would. You clearly dont with the US and Brazil.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Care to enlighten me then?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> YOU made those stupid pig ignorant claims.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> YOU get to do the substantiation of those stupid pig ignorant
    >>>>>>>> claims. THATS how it works.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> There is NO universal national roaming on US mobile networks.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> While say Tracfone does roam, its much more expensive per
    >>>>>>>> year for short calls than our sims that have no flagfall and a
    >>>>>>>> per second charge like say the Optarse Usage Only plan etc.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> *Yawn*
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> *Yawn*
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

    >>
    >>
    >>> When you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, dig up, stupid!

    >>
    >>
    >> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


    > Rod, Rod, Rod... you really need to come up with some more original content
    > again mate!


    You never ever qualify for anything like that.






  10. #55
    Albinus
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > Some gutless ****wit desperately
    > cowering behind the entirely appropriate
    > Albinarse <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>
    >>>Albinarse <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Giles <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>looking to buy Vodafone's network
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>infrastructure and make Vodafone a virtual
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mobile network operator.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, that's an interesting one - it would
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be the biggest consolidation of the mobile
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>market in Australia, ever.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, and I have the vague recollection that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the ACCC has said that they wouldnt allow
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Telstra or Optarse to buy it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That was before 3 tho, so it may not be quite
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that simple now. And that was Fels too, not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the current top ACCC monkey.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Optus and Vodafone would still have distinct
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>customer bases though - it's not a merger or
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>total business acquisition, it's just the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>network infrastructure.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sure.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What if a separate business was created to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>combine and manage the infrastructure?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The ACCC wont buy such an obvious end run
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if they wont allow Optarse to buy Vodafone.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Optus and Voda would be billed for using it,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and they would also be the shareholders.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Irrelevant to what the ACCC cares about, a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reduction in competition when one of the majors
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lunches on one of the small number of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>competitors.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've been trying to float that idea for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*weeks*, albeit my idea involved combining the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>infrastructure of all the networks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No thanks. What works is real competition.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're right, but it pains me to think of the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>vast (and mainly unnessary, technically)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>duplication of infrastructure. We're paying for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all that crap.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We are with banks, insurance companys, airlines,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The short story is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that no monopoly ever delivers anything like as
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well as real competition, even tho competition
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>isnt theoretically as efficient. In practice no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>monopoly is ever efficient either, essentially
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>because there is no incentive to be efficient.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But the existing model could be more efficient
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without unnecessary triplication of network
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>infrastructure in barely or unprofitable areas.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can say the same thing about banks, insurance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>companys, airlines, supermarkets, etc etc etc too.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The short story is that no monopoly ever delivers
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anything like as well as real competition, even tho
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>competition isnt theoretically as efficient. In
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>practice no monopoly is ever efficient either,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>essentially because there is no incentive to be
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>efficient.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i.e. a subset of the operators provides coverage
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in such areas, and charges the remaining operators
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through roaming agreements.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No thanks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>These charges are balanced through a different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>subset of operators providing coverage in another
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>low density area.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ultimately you might end up getting better overall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>coverage that way.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And a monopoly. No thanks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seems to work quite well elsewhere.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No it doesnt, not anywhere at all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>USA is one obvious place that comes to mind.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>US.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Or anything like what was being proposed either.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AND their mobile phone system is MUCH worse than ours
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anyway.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'Fraid not.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fraid so.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Never said there was a monopoly in the US either - far
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>from it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pity it aint anything like 'a separate business created
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to combine and manage the infrastructure' either.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>When did I ever say that?
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>So what were you referring to with your 'USA is one obvious
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>place that comes to mind' and 'seems to work quite well
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>elsewhere' if it wasnt that which was actually being
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>discussed, or a monopoly ?
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>I was saying the USA is one obvious place where the original
    >>>>>>>>>>>>theory (i.e. re: national roaming agreements) I discussed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>works in practice.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>They dont have national roaming agreements across all mobile
    >>>>>>>>>>>networks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Not too difficult.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Pity they dont have that.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>And they also have better pricing, too.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Wrong again.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Brazil is another example.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A ****ed one compared with ours.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>How so? *Way* better coverage
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Pig ignorant lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Like you would know. Unless you've been to Brazil, I would
    >>>>>>>>>>>>say *you* are the pig-ignorant one.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>That aint the only way to work stuff like that out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(all the more impressive considering GSM1800 is used in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>most states by most operators), nationwide EDGE & much
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>cheaper pricing.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Pig ignorant lie on that last too.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Like you would know.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Like you would. You clearly dont with the US and Brazil.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Care to enlighten me then?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>YOU made those stupid pig ignorant claims.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>YOU get to do the substantiation of those stupid pig ignorant
    >>>>>>>>>claims. THATS how it works.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>There is NO universal national roaming on US mobile networks.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>While say Tracfone does roam, its much more expensive per
    >>>>>>>>>year for short calls than our sims that have no flagfall and a
    >>>>>>>>>per second charge like say the Optarse Usage Only plan etc.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>*Yawn*
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>*Yawn*
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>When you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, dig up, stupid!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

    >
    >
    >>Rod, Rod, Rod... you really need to come up with some more original content
    >>again mate!

    >
    >
    > You never ever qualify for anything like that.
    >
    >
    >


    But even people as pathetic as me require a change every now and again!



  11. #56
    Rod Speed
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network

    Some gutless ****wit desperately
    cowering behind the entirely appropriate
    Albinarse <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> Albinarse <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Albinarse <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Quirke <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Giles <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting plan... Apparently Optus is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking to buy Vodafone's network
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure and make Vodafone a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual mobile network operator.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remains to be seen if the ACCC would
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that's an interesting one - it would
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be the biggest consolidation of the mobile
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market in Australia, ever.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, and I have the vague recollection
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the ACCC has said that they wouldnt
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow Telstra or Optarse to buy it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was before 3 tho, so it may not be
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite that simple now. And that was Fels
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too, not the current top ACCC monkey.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optus and Vodafone would still have
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct customer bases though - it's not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a merger or total business acquisition,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's just the network infrastructure.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if a separate business was created to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combine and manage the infrastructure?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ACCC wont buy such an obvious end run
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if they wont allow Optarse to buy Vodafone.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optus and Voda would be billed for using it,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they would also be the shareholders.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what the ACCC cares about, a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in competition when one of the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majors lunches on one of the small number of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitors.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been trying to float that idea for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *weeks*, albeit my idea involved combining
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the infrastructure of all the networks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No thanks. What works is real competition.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're right, but it pains me to think of the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast (and mainly unnessary, technically)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplication of infrastructure. We're paying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for all that crap.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are with banks, insurance companys,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> airlines, supermarkets, etc etc etc too. The
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short story is that no monopoly ever delivers
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything like as well as real competition,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even tho competition isnt theoretically as
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient. In practice no monopoly is ever
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient either, essentially because there is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no incentive to be efficient.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the existing model could be more efficient
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without unnecessary triplication of network
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure in barely or unprofitable areas.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can say the same thing about banks, insurance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> companys, airlines, supermarkets, etc etc etc
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too. The short story is that no monopoly ever
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivers anything like as well as real
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competition, even tho competition isnt
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretically as efficient. In practice no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monopoly is ever efficient either, essentially
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no incentive to be efficient.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. a subset of the operators provides coverage
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in such areas, and charges the remaining
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operators through roaming agreements.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No thanks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These charges are balanced through a different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subset of operators providing coverage in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another low density area.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately you might end up getting better
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall coverage that way.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And a monopoly. No thanks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to work quite well elsewhere.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it doesnt, not anywhere at all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA is one obvious place that comes to mind.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the US.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or anything like what was being proposed either.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AND their mobile phone system is MUCH worse than ours
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Fraid not.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fraid so.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never said there was a monopoly in the US either - far
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pity it aint anything like 'a separate business created
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to combine and manage the infrastructure' either.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When did I ever say that?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what were you referring to with your 'USA is one
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious place that comes to mind' and 'seems to work
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite well elsewhere' if it wasnt that which was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually being discussed, or a monopoly ?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> I was saying the USA is one obvious place where the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> original theory (i.e. re: national roaming agreements) I
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed works in practice.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> They dont have national roaming agreements across all
    >>>>>>>>>>>> mobile networks.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not too difficult.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Pity they dont have that.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> And they also have better pricing, too.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong again.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Brazil is another example.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A ****ed one compared with ours.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How so? *Way* better coverage
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pig ignorant lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Like you would know. Unless you've been to Brazil, I would
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> say *you* are the pig-ignorant one.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> That aint the only way to work stuff like that out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (all the more impressive considering GSM1800 is used in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most states by most operators), nationwide EDGE & much
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheaper pricing.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pig ignorant lie on that last too.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Like you would know.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Like you would. You clearly dont with the US and Brazil.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Care to enlighten me then?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> YOU made those stupid pig ignorant claims.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> YOU get to do the substantiation of those stupid pig ignorant
    >>>>>>>>>> claims. THATS how it works.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> There is NO universal national roaming on US mobile networks.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> While say Tracfone does roam, its much more expensive per
    >>>>>>>>>> year for short calls than our sims that have no flagfall and
    >>>>>>>>>> a per second charge like say the Optarse Usage Only plan etc.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> *Yawn*
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> *Yawn*
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> When you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole, dig up, stupid!
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

    >>
    >>
    >>> Rod, Rod, Rod... you really need to come up with some more original
    >>> content again mate!

    >>
    >>
    >> You never ever qualify for anything like that.


    > But even people as pathetic as me require a change every now and again!


    You still dont qualify.





  12. #57
    TA 2000
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network


    Rod Speed Wrote:
    >
    > Remains to be seen if the ACCC would allow it.


    That could well be the case,

    Another option could be for Vodafone to shut down its network in rural
    area and just roam on optus in those area's.


    --
    TA 2000



  13. #58
    Tom Smyth
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network


    "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >> > There aint no monopoly with mobile phone telcos in the US.
    >> >
    >> > Or anything like what was being proposed either.
    >> >
    >> > AND their mobile phone system is MUCH worse than ours anyway.

    >>
    >> 'Fraid not. Never said there was a monopoly in the US either - far from

    > it.
    >> And Brazil is another example.

    >
    > Rods right on this one, and your wrong. Simple


    I love your clarification posts.

    I don't know what I'd do without you.





  14. #59
    L G
    Guest

    Re: Optus plans buyout of Vodafone network

    Tom Smyth wrote:
    > I love your clarification posts.
    >
    > I don't know what I'd do without you.
    >


    lol

    I guess a lot of people are in the same boat here. But killfile (or
    filter) out a few posters and the noise goes down dramatically ...



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234