Telstra/Optus/Howard/Sol Trujillo

and how much did you pay back then to the PMG to make an overseas or STD
call, ****wit dunnychild

"Don H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Franc Zabkar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:05:47 GMT, "Don H" <[email protected]>
>> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>
>> ># A traditional Labour govt would re-nationalise Telstra, abolish AWAs,
> and
>> >appoint an Australian CEO. It would kick Singtel back to Singapore.
>> >Ah,
>> >for the good old days.
>>
>> I remember that in the bad old days it needed up to four Telecom
>> employees to install one residential telephone. Thankfully things have
>> changed.
>>
>> BTW, I think that Sydney Water needs a bit of a shakeup, too. I
>> recently reported a leak and was asked whether the leak was coming
>> from the tap, the meter, or the pipe. When I asked why, I was told
>> that there were three different crews who specialised in each area.
>> <shrug>
>>
>> - Franc Zabkar
>> --
>> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
>
> # Of course any human institution is liable to defective operation, but
> likewise, any defect can be remedied.
> Anecdotal stories tend to gain wide currency, while the daily operations
> where no problem is encountered are taken for granted. It's like the
> Weather Bureau - everyone gloats when "they got it wrong" in their
> predictions....
> I remember when Telstra and Australia Post were combined in the PMG
> (Postmaster-General's Dept), everyone did their job, with no major problem
> that I can recall.
> Nowadays, it's all ideology: how privatisation, and choice, and
> competition, and such-like crap, is good for you, like it or not.
> But all this too has its own set of defects - and these are starting to
> bite, particularly when foreign ownership gets an open go.
>
>

and how much did you pay back then to the PMG to make an overseas or STD
call, ****wit dunnychild???



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

---

› See More: Telstra/Optus/Howard/Sol Trujillo

>> I remember when Telstra and Australia Post were combined in the PMG
>> (Postmaster-General's Dept), everyone did their job, with no major
>> problem
>> that I can recall.

After from the fact it was usual to take 4-6 weeks to have a new phone
connection, and an STD call, in real terms, was 5 times the price it is now?

IDD? No one could afford to make IDD calls then.

Now, I can make an IDD call for the same price, IF NOT CHEAPER, than my
mobile

"Michael J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> >> I remember when Telstra and Australia Post were combined in the PMG
> >> (Postmaster-General's Dept), everyone did their job, with no major
> >> problem
> >> that I can recall.
>
> After from the fact it was usual to take 4-6 weeks to have a new phone
> connection, and an STD call, in real terms, was 5 times the price it is
now?
>
> IDD? No one could afford to make IDD calls then.
>
> Now, I can make an IDD call for the same price, IF NOT CHEAPER, than my
> mobile
>
>
# Yes, technology has advanced, hasn't it? And Telstra was in the
forefront, before the privatisaion rot set in.
I assume you'll be quite happy when, down the track, our
telecommunication system is run from Singapore?

Don H wrote:

>"Michael J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>
>
>>>> I remember when Telstra and Australia Post were combined in the PMG
>>>>(Postmaster-General's Dept), everyone did their job, with no major
>>>>problem
>>>>that I can recall.
>>>>
>>>>
>>After from the fact it was usual to take 4-6 weeks to have a new phone
>>connection, and an STD call, in real terms, was 5 times the price it is
>>
>>
>now?
>
>
>>IDD? No one could afford to make IDD calls then.
>>
>>Now, I can make an IDD call for the same price, IF NOT CHEAPER, than my
>>mobile
>>
>>
>>
>>
> # Yes, technology has advanced, hasn't it? And Telstra was in the
>forefront, before the privatisaion rot set in.
> I assume you'll be quite happy when, down the track, our
>telecommunication system is run from Singapore?
>
>
>
Telstra was never in the forefront. And what has changed is not because
of 'privatisation' - Telstra's two successive John-Howard-appointee CEOs
have virtually halted long-term investment. This means that Telstra's
future has been curtailed by poor choices.

But thanks to Keating-implemented deregulation we have other licensees
(one of them from Singapore) who *have* invested in the long-term. IOW,
you are benefitting from the long-term faith and trust of pension fund
holders in Singapore and other countries who *have* invested into our
telecommunications infrastructure.

But don't expect further 'privatisation' from Howard (and consequently
better services) - Howard's record is higher taxes and subsidies. Like
the half-baked bush broadband subsidy. Why do we (via the government)
subsidise the bush when it could quite simply be funded via spectrum
auctions. Plus the $10b or so that Packer didn't pay for free-to-air TV
licenses.

In the meantime, Telstra has become a political party. This is their
response to the OPEL proposal:
"a foreign owned company, using a partnership with Elders as a front,
with no record of investing in regional Australia"

Don H <[email protected]> wrote
> Michael J <[email protected]> wrote
>> Don H <[email protected]> wrote

>>> I remember when Telstra and Australia Post were combined
>>> in the PMG (Postmaster-General's Dept), everyone did their
>>> job, with no major problem that I can recall.

That's always been the problem with Altzhiemers.

>> After from the fact it was usual to take 4-6 weeks to have a new phone
>> connection, and an STD call, in real terms, was 5 times the price it is now?

>> IDD? No one could afford to make IDD calls then.

>> Now, I can make an IDD call for the same price, IF NOT CHEAPER, than my mobile

> Yes, technology has advanced, hasn't it?

It aint technology that did that, its real competition.

> And Telstra was in the forefront, before the privatisaion rot set in.

Pig ignorant lie. It was real competition with IDD that produced that.

> I assume you'll be quite happy when, down the track,
> our telecommunication system is run from Singapore?

Taint gunna happen. Telstra STILL produces a
profit that leaves all the rest IN TOTAL for dead.

Mainly as a result of giving fools like you the bums rush, right out the door.

B J Foster <[email protected]> wrote
> Don H wrote
>> Michael J <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Don H wrote

>>>> I remember when Telstra and Australia Post were combined in the PMG (Postmaster-General's
>>>> Dept), everyone did their job, with no major problem> that I can recall.

>>> After from the fact it was usual to take 4-6 weeks to have a new phone connection, and an STD
>>> call, in real terms, was 5 times the price it is now?

>>> IDD? No one could afford to make IDD calls then.

>>> Now, I can make an IDD call for the same price, IF NOT CHEAPER, than my mobile

>> Yes, technology has advanced, hasn't it? And Telstra was in the forefront, before the
>> privatisaion rot set in.
>> I assume you'll be quite happy when, down the track, our telecommunication system is run from
>> Singapore?

> Telstra was never in the forefront.

Pig ignorant lie, most obviously with adsl.

> And what has changed is not because of 'privatisation' - Telstra's two successive
> John-Howard-appointee CEOs have virtually halted long-term investment.

Another pig ignorant lie, most obviously with NextG and before that CDMA.

> This means that Telstra's future has been curtailed by poor choices.

Another pig ignorant lie, most obviously with adsl.

> But thanks to Keating-implemented deregulation we have other licensees (one of them from
> Singapore) who *have* invested in the long-term.

No more than Telstra has.

> IOW, you are benefitting from the long-term faith and trust of pension fund holders in Singapore
> and other countries who *have* invested into our telecommunications infrastructure.

Another pig ignorant lie. What Singtel has invested in the expansion of
the Optarse GSM system is comparable to what Telstra has invested
in NextG and Telstras investment in adsl has left Optarse's for dead.

> But don't expect further 'privatisation' from Howard

Corse there will be.

> (and consequently better services)

Thats arguable with T3.

> - Howard's record is higher taxes and subsidies.

Another pig ignorant lie. Taxes have been significantly
reduced from the rates that fool Keating had.

> Like the half-baked bush broadband subsidy. Why do we (via the government)
> subsidise the bush when it could quite simply be funded via spectrum auctions. Plus the $10b or so
> that Packer didn't pay for free-to-air TV licenses.

They are funded by the flogging off of Telstra instead.

> In the meantime, Telstra has become a political party.

Another pig ignorant lie. A political player at most. Party have members, stupid.

> This is their response to the OPEL proposal:
> "a foreign owned company, using a partnership with Elders as a front, with no record of investing
> in regional Australia"

Just the usual bare faced Telstra lie. Pity about the
GSM investment Optarse has done in regional Aust.

The satellite system in spades.

In article <%[email protected]>, "Don H" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> I assume you'll be quite happy when, down the track, our
>telecommunication system is run from Singapore?

Well, if it comes to a choice, I'd rather have a system run well from
Singapore than one run badly from Canberra.

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email protected]LID

Rod Speed wrote:

>B J Foster <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>>Don H wrote
>>
>>
>>>Michael J <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don H wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>>I remember when Telstra and Australia Post were combined in the PMG (Postmaster-General's
>>>>>Dept), everyone did their job, with no major problem> that I can recall.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>After from the fact it was usual to take 4-6 weeks to have a new phone connection, and an STD
>>>>call, in real terms, was 5 times the price it is now?
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>IDD? No one could afford to make IDD calls then.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>Now, I can make an IDD call for the same price, IF NOT CHEAPER, than my mobile
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>Yes, technology has advanced, hasn't it? And Telstra was in the forefront, before the
>>>privatisaion rot set in.
>>>I assume you'll be quite happy when, down the track, our telecommunication system is run from
>>>Singapore?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Telstra was never in the forefront.
>>
>>
>
>Pig ignorant lie, most obviously with adsl.
>
>
Like hell. Only rolled out in defence because the local loop was
regulated. Without deregulation (by Keating) Telstra would now blithely
be guaranteeing 300 baud only.

>
>
>>And what has changed is not because of 'privatisation' - Telstra's two successive
>>John-Howard-appointee CEOs have virtually halted long-term investment.
>>
>>
>
>Another pig ignorant lie, most obviously with NextG and before that CDMA.
>
>
If NextG (nice 'marketing' solution, BTW) was a credible solution and
Telstra was more intent on building solutions than playing politics then
why wasn't NextG offered as a solution for bush broadband?

>
>
>>This means that Telstra's future has been curtailed by poor choices.
>>
>>
>
>Another pig ignorant lie, most obviously with adsl.
>
>
Optus/Elders gets nearly $1b of taxpayers money to put DSLAMs in rural
exchanges. Shame Telstra decided to play politics instead.

>>But thanks to Keating-implemented deregulation we have other licensees (one of them from
>>Singapore) who *have* invested in the long-term.
>>
>>
>
>No more than Telstra has.
>
>
Telstra won't supply ADSL2 unless a competitor does first. Why not? Is
the core of the company strategy 'defence'


>
>
>>IOW, you are benefitting from the long-term faith and trust of pension fund holders in Singapore
>>and other countries who *have* invested into our telecommunications infrastructure.
>>
>>
>
>Another pig ignorant lie. What Singtel has invested in the expansion of
>the Optarse GSM system is comparable to what Telstra has invested
>in NextG and Telstras investment in adsl has left Optarse's for dead.
>
>
>
>>But don't expect further 'privatisation' from Howard
>>
>>
>
>Corse there will be.
>
>
He's just decided that we should *subsidise* bush broadband you dork!
That's hardly privatisation, is it?

>
>
>>(and consequently better services)
>>
>>
>
>Thats arguable with T3.
>
>
>
>>- Howard's record is higher taxes and subsidies.
>>
>>
>
>Another pig ignorant lie. Taxes have been significantly
>reduced from the rates that fool Keating had.
>
>
Stay out of economics, is my suggestion. You don't want to make a fool
of yourself in that domain as well.

>
>
>>Like the half-baked bush broadband subsidy. Why do we (via the government)
>>subsidise the bush when it could quite simply be funded via spectrum auctions. Plus the $10b or so
>>that Packer didn't pay for free-to-air TV licenses.
>>
>>
>
>They are funded by the flogging off of Telstra instead.
>
>
So Packer benefits from the selloff of Telstra? Nice

>
>
>>In the meantime, Telstra has become a political party.
>>
>>
>
>Another pig ignorant lie. A political player at most. Party have members, stupid.
>
>
Define "node" in the acronym 'FTTN', stupid


>
>
>>This is their response to the OPEL proposal:
>>"a foreign owned company, using a partnership with Elders as a front, with no record of investing
>>in regional Australia"
>>
>>
>
>Just the usual bare faced Telstra lie. Pity about the
>GSM investment Optarse has done in regional Aust.
>
>The satellite system in spades.
>
>
>
Satphones have been around for at least 15 years. First (because they
were a monopoly) they had no incentive to use them for the bush, now
(because USO is a lucrative revenue earner) they are cross-subsidised by
the other telcos *and* city dwellers *and* they want
government.subsidies. The whole place needs an ANO audit - no evidence
of technical skills at the top.

B J Foster <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> B J Foster <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Don H wrote
>>>> Michael J <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Don H wrote

>>>>>> I remember when Telstra and Australia Post were combined in the
>>>>>> PMG (Postmaster-General's Dept), everyone did their job, with no
>>>>>> major problem> that I can recall.

>>>>> After from the fact it was usual to take 4-6 weeks to have a new
>>>>> phone connection, and an STD call, in real terms, was 5 times the
>>>>> price it is now?

>>>>> IDD? No one could afford to make IDD calls then.

>>>>> Now, I can make an IDD call for the same price, IF NOT CHEAPER,
>>>>> than my mobile

>>>> Yes, technology has advanced, hasn't it? And Telstra was in the forefront, before the
>>>> privatisaion rot set in.
>>>> I assume you'll be quite happy when, down the track, our telecommunication system is run from
>>>> Singapore?

>>> Telstra was never in the forefront.

>> Pig ignorant lie, most obviously with adsl.

> Like hell.

Fraid so. They were the first to have adsl available for residential customers.

> Only rolled out in defence because the local loop was regulated.

Pig ignorant lie.

> Without deregulation (by Keating) Telstra would now blithely be guaranteeing 300 baud only.

Pig ignorant lie.

>>> And what has changed is not because of 'privatisation' - Telstra's
>>> two successive John-Howard-appointee CEOs have virtually halted
>>> long-term investment.

>> Another pig ignorant lie, most obviously with NextG and before that CDMA.

> If NextG (nice 'marketing' solution, BTW) was a credible solution

Nothing like you original pig ignorant lie.

> and Telstra was more intent on building solutions than playing politics
> then why wasn't NextG offered as a solution for bush broadband?

It was by Telstra, its just much slower than WiMax.

Doesnt alter the fact that NextG is a long term
investment, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

So was GSM for that matter. And adsl too.

>>> This means that Telstra's future has been curtailed by poor choices.

>> Another pig ignorant lie, most obviously with adsl.

> Optus/Elders gets nearly $1b of taxpayers money to put DSLAMs in rural exchanges.

Wrong again, the bulk of that $1B is paying for WiMax.

> Shame Telstra decided to play politics instead.

No they didnt, FTTN was never about rural exchanges with Telstra.

>>> But thanks to Keating-implemented deregulation we have other licensees (one of them from
>>> Singapore) who *have* invested in the long-term.

>> No more than Telstra has.

> Telstra won't supply ADSL2 unless a competitor does first.

Irrelevant to whether adsl1 was an obvious long term
investment, you pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

> Why not? Is the core of the company strategy 'defence'

Irrelevant to whether adsl1 was an obvious long term
investment, you pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

>>> IOW, you are benefitting from the long-term faith and trust of pension fund holders in Singapore
>>> and other countries who *have* invested into our telecommunications infrastructure.

>> Another pig ignorant lie. What Singtel has invested in the expansion of the Optarse GSM system is
>> comparable to what Telstra has invested
>> in NextG and Telstras investment in adsl has left Optarse's for dead.

>>> But don't expect further 'privatisation' from Howard

>> Corse there will be.

> He's just decided that we should *subsidise* bush broadband you dork!

Irrelevant to whether there will be further privatisation from
Howard, you pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

The Future Fund wont be holding on to its Telstra holding
forever, you pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

> That's hardly privatisation, is it?

Irrelevant whether it is or not, you pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

Medibank will likely be flogged off sometime and it isnt likely to be the only one either.

>>> (and consequently better services)

>> Thats arguable with T3.

>>> - Howard's record is higher taxes and subsidies.

>> Another pig ignorant lie. Taxes have been significantly
>> reduced from the rates that fool Keating had.

> Stay out of economics, is my suggestion. You don't want to make a fool of yourself in that domain
> as well.

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

>>> Like the half-baked bush broadband subsidy. Why do we (via the government) subsidise the bush
>>> when it could quite simply be funded via spectrum auctions. Plus the $10b or so that Packer
>>> didn't pay for free-to-air TV licenses.

>> They are funded by the flogging off of Telstra instead.

> So Packer benefits from the selloff of Telstra? Nice

Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything
like that, you pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

>>> In the meantime, Telstra has become a political party.

>> Another pig ignorant lie. A political player at most. Partys have members, stupid.

> Define "node" in the acronym 'FTTN', stupid

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

>>> This is their response to the OPEL proposal:
>>> "a foreign owned company, using a partnership with Elders as a front, with no record of
>>> investing in regional Australia"

>> Just the usual bare faced Telstra lie. Pity about the
>> GSM investment Optarse has done in regional Aust.

>> The satellite system in spades.

> Satphones have been around for at least 15 years.

The satellite system involves a hell of a lot more than
satphones, you pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

> First (because they were a monopoly) they had no incentive to use them for the bush, now (because
> USO is a lucrative revenue earner) they are cross-subsidised by the other telcos *and* city
> dwellers *and* they want government.subsidies. The whole place needs an ANO audit - no evidence of
> technical skills at the top.

The satellite system involves a hell of a lot more than
satphones, you pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

"B J Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Don H wrote:
>
> >"Michael J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>>> I remember when Telstra and Australia Post were combined in the PMG
> >>>>(Postmaster-General's Dept), everyone did their job, with no major
> >>>>problem
> >>>>that I can recall.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>After from the fact it was usual to take 4-6 weeks to have a new phone
> >>connection, and an STD call, in real terms, was 5 times the price it is
> >>
> >>
> >now?
> >
> >
> >>IDD? No one could afford to make IDD calls then.
> >>
> >>Now, I can make an IDD call for the same price, IF NOT CHEAPER, than my
> >>mobile
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > # Yes, technology has advanced, hasn't it? And Telstra was in the
> >forefront, before the privatisaion rot set in.
> > I assume you'll be quite happy when, down the track, our
> >telecommunication system is run from Singapore?
> >
> >
> >
> Telstra was never in the forefront. And what has changed is not because
> of 'privatisation' - Telstra's two successive John-Howard-appointee CEOs
> have virtually halted long-term investment. This means that Telstra's
> future has been curtailed by poor choices.
>
> But thanks to Keating-implemented deregulation we have other licensees
> (one of them from Singapore) who *have* invested in the long-term. IOW,
> you are benefitting from the long-term faith and trust of pension fund
> holders in Singapore and other countries who *have* invested into our
> telecommunications infrastructure.
>
> But don't expect further 'privatisation' from Howard (and consequently
> better services) - Howard's record is higher taxes and subsidies. Like
> the half-baked bush broadband subsidy. Why do we (via the government)
> subsidise the bush when it could quite simply be funded via spectrum
> auctions. Plus the $10b or so that Packer didn't pay for free-to-air TV
> licenses.
>
> In the meantime, Telstra has become a political party. This is their
> response to the OPEL proposal:
> "a foreign owned company, using a partnership with Elders as a front,
> with no record of investing in regional Australia"

What your views on private asset companies like Silcar given permission by
Telstra to tap into Telstra's computer network so Telstra can sack a few
thousand of its own employees.
Silcar now gains 98% of its work from Telstra. Silcar pays their employees
far less than Telstra for an equivalent job.

http://www.silcar.com.au/

"Brian Yates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:v%[email protected]...
>
>> Silcar now gains 98% of its work from Telstra. Silcar pays their
>> employees
> far less than Telstra for an equivalent job.
>
> http://www.silcar.com.au/
>

Welcome to the free market, comrade..

>> >> I remember when Telstra and Australia Post were combined in the PMG
>> >> (Postmaster-General's Dept), everyone did their job, with no major
>> >> problem
>> >> that I can recall.
>>
>> After from the fact it was usual to take 4-6 weeks to have a new phone
>> connection, and an STD call, in real terms, was 5 times the price it is
> now?
>>
>> IDD? No one could afford to make IDD calls then.
>>
>> Now, I can make an IDD call for the same price, IF NOT CHEAPER, than my
>> mobile
>>
> # Yes, technology has advanced, hasn't it? And Telstra was in the
> forefront, before the privatisaion rot set in.
> I assume you'll be quite happy when, down the track, our
> telecommunication system is run from Singapore?

Read the post again and see who I was supporting, fool.

> If NextG (nice 'marketing' solution, BTW) was a credible solution and
> Telstra was more intent on building solutions than playing politics then
> why wasn't NextG offered as a solution for bush broadband?

You cant offer a "solution" for something that isn't a problem.

NextG is already here. It already works.

Opel is unnecessary and duplication of existing assets.

But if it provides more competition and cheaper prices to customers, im all
for it.

> Telstra won't supply ADSL2 unless a competitor does first. Why not? Is the
> core of the company strategy 'defence'

They dont want to have to resell it, and fair enough to Telstra. Its their
asset and they can do what they like. Turn about is fair play

>>Another pig ignorant lie. What Singtel has invested in the expansion of
>>the Optarse GSM system is comparable to what Telstra has invested
>>in NextG and Telstras investment in adsl has left Optarse's for dead.

Bull**** anyway, Optus's GSM expansion is much less in cost than the CDMA or
NextG networks.

> What your views on private asset companies like Silcar given permission by
> Telstra to tap into Telstra's computer network so Telstra can sack a few

Explain your tin-hat statements.

What "tapping in"?
What "computer systems"?

They mainly do power and not much else for Telstra

> thousand of its own employees.

> Silcar now gains 98% of its work from Telstra. Silcar pays their employees

Big whoop, their problem

> far less than Telstra for an equivalent job.

Who cares, their problem.
>
> http://www.silcar.com.au/
>
>

"Michael J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Opel is unnecessary and duplication of existing assets.
>
Pity Coonan thinks otherwise. The government was wise enough to avoid
Telstra. Sol Trujillo and Phil Burgess's continued whinging and
tantrum-chucking got them in an even worse position.
>
>> Telstra won't supply ADSL2 unless a competitor does first. Why not? Is
>> the core of the company strategy 'defence'
>
> They dont want to have to resell it, and fair enough to Telstra. Its their
> asset and they can do what they like.

Pity Coonan thinks otherwise. The government was wise enough to avoid
Telstra. Sol Trujillo and Phil Burgess's continued whinging and
tantrum-chucking got them in an even worse position.

Turn about is fair play
>
>>>Another pig ignorant lie. What Singtel has invested in the expansion of
>>>the Optarse GSM system is comparable to what Telstra has invested
>>>in NextG and Telstras investment in adsl has left Optarse's for dead.
>
> Bull**** anyway, Optus's GSM expansion is much less in cost than the CDMA
> or NextG networks.
>
>
>
Pity Coonan thinks otherwise. The government was wise enough to avoid
Telstra. Sol Trujillo and Phil Burgess's continued whinging and
tantrum-chucking got them in an even worse position.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com