SMH thinks CDMA is analogue

Sydney Morning Herald (4 Aug 2007) quote: "Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile
today threatened to stop Telstra closing down its analogue mobile phone
network in the bush if the government is not happy with replacement
services."

and...

"Mr Vaile said the government had the power to make that decision because
Telstra was a monopoly provider in regard to CDMA - the analogue-based
service."

Analogue my arse!

Yet again more bull**** reporting from a rag that should be hung on the
dunny door.



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

---

› See More: SMH thinks CDMA is analogue

.....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision, Telstra can do what
they damn please. Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he
and the Libs dispensed with ownership of the monolith?

"thegoons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sydney Morning Herald (4 Aug 2007) quote: "Deputy Prime Minister Mark
> Vaile today threatened to stop Telstra closing down its analogue mobile
> phone network in the bush if the government is not happy with replacement
> services."
>
> and...
>
> "Mr Vaile said the government had the power to make that decision because
> Telstra was a monopoly provider in regard to CDMA - the analogue-based
> service."
>
> Analogue my arse!
>
> Yet again more bull**** reporting from a rag that should be hung on the
> dunny door.
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>



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

thegoons <[email protected]> wrote:

> ....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision, Telstra can do what they damn please.

Wrong, the govt can still mandate that if they want.

> Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he and the Libs dispensed with ownership of
> the monolith?

Its still by far the biggest share holder and can still mandate that even if it wasnt.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision, Telstra can do
>> what they damn please.
>
> Wrong, the govt can still mandate that if they want.

Wrong, commercial decision. Unlikely to be able to put that sort of licence
condition on them without a High Court Challenge.
>
>> Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he and the Libs
>> dispensed with ownership of the monolith?
>
> Its still by far the biggest share holder and can still mandate that even
> if it wasnt.
>
>

Nope, not since the Telstra corporation Act was amended; such ministerial
directives no longer exist. In any case it is the Commonwealth's Future Fund
that has that share and hence Federal Ministers cannot exercise such powers,
rather the FF trustees can.



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

thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote

>>> ....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision, Telstra can do what they damn please.

>> Wrong, the govt can still mandate that if they want.

> Wrong,

Nope, you watch.

> commercial decision.

Pity that the govt is STILL by far the largest shareholder.

> Unlikely to be able to put that sort of licence condition on them without a High Court Challenge.

They can try any challenge they like, they'll loose. Perfectly constitutional, ****wit.

>>> Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he and the Libs dispensed with ownership of
>>> the monolith?

>> Its still by far the biggest share holder and can still mandate that even if it wasnt.

> Nope,

Yep.

> not since the Telstra corporation Act was amended; such ministerial directives no longer exist.

You dont need a ministerial directive, ****wit.

> In any case it is the Commonwealth's Future Fund that has that share and hence Federal Ministers
> cannot exercise such powers, rather the FF trustees can.

And three guesses who appoints the FF trustees, ****wit.

Commercial decision - Telstra will tell the Government to like it or lump
it. Just as the Government did to Telstra when it awarded OPEL the rural
broadband contract. Tough f'ing titties to you Mark Vaile.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>> ....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision, Telstra can do
>>>> what they damn please.
>
>>> Wrong, the govt can still mandate that if they want.
>
>> Wrong,
>
> Nope, you watch.
>
>> commercial decision.
>
> Pity that the govt is STILL by far the largest shareholder.
>
>> Unlikely to be able to put that sort of licence condition on them without
>> a High Court Challenge.
>
> They can try any challenge they like, they'll loose. Perfectly
> constitutional, ****wit.
>
>>>> Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he and the Libs
>>>> dispensed with ownership of the monolith?
>
>>> Its still by far the biggest share holder and can still mandate that
>>> even if it wasnt.
>
>> Nope,
>
> Yep.
>
>> not since the Telstra corporation Act was amended; such ministerial
>> directives no longer exist.
>
> You dont need a ministerial directive, ****wit.
>
>> In any case it is the Commonwealth's Future Fund that has that share and
>> hence Federal Ministers cannot exercise such powers, rather the FF
>> trustees can.
>
> And three guesses who appoints the FF trustees, ****wit.
>



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

thegoons <[email protected]> wrote:

> Commercial decision

Nope, the govt can mandate anything they like, like the USO for example.

> Telstra will tell the Government to like it or lump it.

Just like they did with the wholesale pricing eh ?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

> Just as the Government did to Telstra when it awarded OPEL the rural broadband contract.

Different matter entirely with new spending.

> Tough f'ing titties to you Mark Vaile.

Wanna bet ?


> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>>> ....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision, Telstra
>>>>> can do what they damn please.
>>
>>>> Wrong, the govt can still mandate that if they want.
>>
>>> Wrong,
>>
>> Nope, you watch.
>>
>>> commercial decision.
>>
>> Pity that the govt is STILL by far the largest shareholder.
>>
>>> Unlikely to be able to put that sort of licence condition on them
>>> without a High Court Challenge.
>>
>> They can try any challenge they like, they'll loose. Perfectly
>> constitutional, ****wit.
>>
>>>>> Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he and the
>>>>> Libs dispensed with ownership of the monolith?
>>
>>>> Its still by far the biggest share holder and can still mandate
>>>> that even if it wasnt.
>>
>>> Nope,
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> not since the Telstra corporation Act was amended; such ministerial
>>> directives no longer exist.
>>
>> You dont need a ministerial directive, ****wit.
>>
>>> In any case it is the Commonwealth's Future Fund that has that
>>> share and hence Federal Ministers cannot exercise such powers,
>>> rather the FF trustees can.
>>
>> And three guesses who appoints the FF trustees, ****wit.

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 23:27:47 +1000 in aus.comms.mobile thegoons may have written:
> Yet again more bull**** reporting from a rag that should be hung on the
> dunny door.

Indeed. not only getting it wrong, but contradicting themselves further
into the article?

But it wasn't just the SMH... It was pretty much everyone who cut n
pasted that AAP article. The Age and The Herald Sun (ie, the
competition) both made the same mistake by blindly reporducing exactly
the same article.

So not only should the editors' be shot for such shoddy work, so should
the original writer for AAP.

PD

--
Paul Day

CDMA is not USO, you cannot mandate a commercial organisation to maintain a
non-USO service (particularly when other carriers have not been forced to
offer CDMA).

Sol just gave Coonan and Vaile an appropriate brown-eye in response to
their request/demand.


"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Commercial decision
>
> Nope, the govt can mandate anything they like, like the USO for example.
>
>> Telstra will tell the Government to like it or lump it.
>
> Just like they did with the wholesale pricing eh ?
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
>
>> Just as the Government did to Telstra when it awarded OPEL the rural
>> broadband contract.
>
> Different matter entirely with new spending.
>
>> Tough f'ing titties to you Mark Vaile.
>
> Wanna bet ?
>
>
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>>>> ....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision, Telstra
>>>>>> can do what they damn please.
>>>
>>>>> Wrong, the govt can still mandate that if they want.
>>>
>>>> Wrong,
>>>
>>> Nope, you watch.
>>>
>>>> commercial decision.
>>>
>>> Pity that the govt is STILL by far the largest shareholder.
>>>
>>>> Unlikely to be able to put that sort of licence condition on them
>>>> without a High Court Challenge.
>>>
>>> They can try any challenge they like, they'll loose. Perfectly
>>> constitutional, ****wit.
>>>
>>>>>> Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he and the
>>>>>> Libs dispensed with ownership of the monolith?
>>>
>>>>> Its still by far the biggest share holder and can still mandate
>>>>> that even if it wasnt.
>>>
>>>> Nope,
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> not since the Telstra corporation Act was amended; such ministerial
>>>> directives no longer exist.
>>>
>>> You dont need a ministerial directive, ****wit.
>>>
>>>> In any case it is the Commonwealth's Future Fund that has that
>>>> share and hence Federal Ministers cannot exercise such powers,
>>>> rather the FF trustees can.
>>>
>>> And three guesses who appoints the FF trustees, ****wit.
>
>



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

You better tell Coonan that she cant do what she has just done, ****wit.

Dont be too surprised when she makes an obscene gesture
in your general direction, just like everyone else does.


Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote:
> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Commercial decision
>
> Nope, the govt can mandate anything they like, like the USO for
> example.
>> Telstra will tell the Government to like it or lump it.
>
> Just like they did with the wholesale pricing eh ?
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
>
>> Just as the Government did to Telstra when it awarded OPEL the rural
>> broadband contract.
>
> Different matter entirely with new spending.
>
>> Tough f'ing titties to you Mark Vaile.
>
> Wanna bet ?
>
>
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>>>> ....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision, Telstra
>>>>>> can do what they damn please.
>>>
>>>>> Wrong, the govt can still mandate that if they want.
>>>
>>>> Wrong,
>>>
>>> Nope, you watch.
>>>
>>>> commercial decision.
>>>
>>> Pity that the govt is STILL by far the largest shareholder.
>>>
>>>> Unlikely to be able to put that sort of licence condition on them
>>>> without a High Court Challenge.
>>>
>>> They can try any challenge they like, they'll loose. Perfectly
>>> constitutional, ****wit.
>>>
>>>>>> Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he and the
>>>>>> Libs dispensed with ownership of the monolith?
>>>
>>>>> Its still by far the biggest share holder and can still mandate
>>>>> that even if it wasnt.
>>>
>>>> Nope,
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> not since the Telstra corporation Act was amended; such ministerial
>>>> directives no longer exist.
>>>
>>> You dont need a ministerial directive, ****wit.
>>>
>>>> In any case it is the Commonwealth's Future Fund that has that
>>>> share and hence Federal Ministers cannot exercise such powers,
>>>> rather the FF trustees can.
>>>
>>> And three guesses who appoints the FF trustees, ****wit.

thegoons <[email protected]> wrote:

> CDMA is not USO,

No one ever said it was.

> you cannot mandate a commercial organisation to maintain a non-USO service

You can when you get to decide whether you will
allow a particular use of particular spectrum space.

> (particularly when other carriers have not been forced to offer CDMA).

Irrelevant to what is allowed by the govt in particular spectrum space.

> Sol just gave Coonan and Vaile an appropriate brown-eye in response to their request/demand.

Pure bluff, you watch.


> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote

>>> Commercial decision
>>
>> Nope, the govt can mandate anything they like, like the USO for
>> example.
>>> Telstra will tell the Government to like it or lump it.
>>
>> Just like they did with the wholesale pricing eh ?
>>
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
>>
>>> Just as the Government did to Telstra when it awarded OPEL the rural
>>> broadband contract.
>>
>> Different matter entirely with new spending.
>>
>>> Tough f'ing titties to you Mark Vaile.
>>
>> Wanna bet ?
>>
>>
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> ....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision, Telstra
>>>>>>> can do what they damn please.
>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, the govt can still mandate that if they want.
>>>>
>>>>> Wrong,
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you watch.
>>>>
>>>>> commercial decision.
>>>>
>>>> Pity that the govt is STILL by far the largest shareholder.
>>>>
>>>>> Unlikely to be able to put that sort of licence condition on them
>>>>> without a High Court Challenge.
>>>>
>>>> They can try any challenge they like, they'll loose. Perfectly
>>>> constitutional, ****wit.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he and the
>>>>>>> Libs dispensed with ownership of the monolith?
>>>>
>>>>>> Its still by far the biggest share holder and can still mandate
>>>>>> that even if it wasnt.
>>>>
>>>>> Nope,
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>>> not since the Telstra corporation Act was amended; such
>>>>> ministerial directives no longer exist.
>>>>
>>>> You dont need a ministerial directive, ****wit.
>>>>
>>>>> In any case it is the Commonwealth's Future Fund that has that
>>>>> share and hence Federal Ministers cannot exercise such powers,
>>>>> rather the FF trustees can.
>>>>
>>>> And three guesses who appoints the FF trustees, ****wit.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> CDMA is not USO,
>
> No one ever said it was.
>
>> you cannot mandate a commercial organisation to maintain a non-USO
>> service
>
> You can when you get to decide whether you will
> allow a particular use of particular spectrum space.

All the Govt can do is NOT allow Telstra to use the CDMA spectrum space any
longer. They cant force them to use it

ACMA can force people NOT to operate a particular service (eg: CDMA) in a
particular spectrum, however it cannot demand Telstra to continue an
unviable commercial operation. When will you ever learn that this is a
purely commercial decision for Telstra management, irrespective of how many
tantrums and threats Vaile and Coonan make.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> CDMA is not USO,
>
> No one ever said it was.
>
>> you cannot mandate a commercial organisation to maintain a non-USO
>> service
>
> You can when you get to decide whether you will
> allow a particular use of particular spectrum space.
>
>> (particularly when other carriers have not been forced to offer CDMA).
>
> Irrelevant to what is allowed by the govt in particular spectrum space.
>
>> Sol just gave Coonan and Vaile an appropriate brown-eye in response to
>> their request/demand.
>
> Pure bluff, you watch.
>
>
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>> Commercial decision
>>>
>>> Nope, the govt can mandate anything they like, like the USO for
>>> example.
>>>> Telstra will tell the Government to like it or lump it.
>>>
>>> Just like they did with the wholesale pricing eh ?
>>>
>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>>> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
>>>
>>>> Just as the Government did to Telstra when it awarded OPEL the rural
>>>> broadband contract.
>>>
>>> Different matter entirely with new spending.
>>>
>>>> Tough f'ing titties to you Mark Vaile.
>>>
>>> Wanna bet ?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision, Telstra
>>>>>>>> can do what they damn please.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, the govt can still mandate that if they want.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you watch.
>>>>>
>>>>>> commercial decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pity that the govt is STILL by far the largest shareholder.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlikely to be able to put that sort of licence condition on them
>>>>>> without a High Court Challenge.
>>>>>
>>>>> They can try any challenge they like, they'll loose. Perfectly
>>>>> constitutional, ****wit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he and the
>>>>>>>> Libs dispensed with ownership of the monolith?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its still by far the biggest share holder and can still mandate
>>>>>>> that even if it wasnt.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>>> not since the Telstra corporation Act was amended; such
>>>>>> ministerial directives no longer exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> You dont need a ministerial directive, ****wit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case it is the Commonwealth's Future Fund that has that
>>>>>> share and hence Federal Ministers cannot exercise such powers,
>>>>>> rather the FF trustees can.
>>>>>
>>>>> And three guesses who appoints the FF trustees, ****wit.
>
>



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

Michael J <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote

>>> CDMA is not USO,

>> No one ever said it was.

>>> you cannot mandate a commercial organisation to maintain a non-USO service

>> You can when you get to decide whether you will
>> allow a particular use of particular spectrum space.

> All the Govt can do is NOT allow Telstra to use the CDMA spectrum space any longer. They cant
> force them to use it

Its much more complicated than that with license conditions.

thegoons <[email protected]> wrote:

> ACMA can force people NOT to operate a particular service (eg: CDMA) in a particular spectrum,
> however it cannot demand Telstra to continue an unviable commercial operation.

Its nothing like as black and white as that.

> When will you ever learn that this is a purely commercial decision for Telstra management,
> irrespective of how many tantrums and threats Vaile and Coonan make.

Coonan has clearly had legal advice otherwise.

And you have got egg all over your ****wit face, as always.


> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote

>>> CDMA is not USO,
>>
>> No one ever said it was.
>>
>>> you cannot mandate a commercial organisation to maintain a non-USO
>>> service
>>
>> You can when you get to decide whether you will
>> allow a particular use of particular spectrum space.
>>
>>> (particularly when other carriers have not been forced to offer
>>> CDMA).
>>
>> Irrelevant to what is allowed by the govt in particular spectrum
>> space.
>>> Sol just gave Coonan and Vaile an appropriate brown-eye in
>>> response to their request/demand.
>>
>> Pure bluff, you watch.
>>
>>
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>>> Commercial decision
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the govt can mandate anything they like, like the USO for
>>>> example.
>>>>> Telstra will tell the Government to like it or lump it.
>>>>
>>>> Just like they did with the wholesale pricing eh ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>>>> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
>>>>
>>>>> Just as the Government did to Telstra when it awarded OPEL the
>>>>> rural broadband contract.
>>>>
>>>> Different matter entirely with new spending.
>>>>
>>>>> Tough f'ing titties to you Mark Vaile.
>>>>
>>>> Wanna bet ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>> thegoons <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ....and Vaile forgets that it is a commercial decision,
>>>>>>>>> Telstra can do what they damn please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong, the govt can still mandate that if they want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you watch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commercial decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pity that the govt is STILL by far the largest shareholder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlikely to be able to put that sort of licence condition on
>>>>>>> them without a High Court Challenge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They can try any challenge they like, they'll loose. Perfectly
>>>>>> constitutional, ****wit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has this 'failed Jackaroo from Taree' forgotten that he and
>>>>>>>>> the Libs dispensed with ownership of the monolith?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its still by far the biggest share holder and can still mandate
>>>>>>>> that even if it wasnt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not since the Telstra corporation Act was amended; such
>>>>>>> ministerial directives no longer exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You dont need a ministerial directive, ****wit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any case it is the Commonwealth's Future Fund that has that
>>>>>>> share and hence Federal Ministers cannot exercise such powers,
>>>>>>> rather the FF trustees can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And three guesses who appoints the FF trustees, ****wit.