Our content licensing agreement with AAP stipulates that the material must be taken down 30 days from the date of publication. Therefore this particular story, having exceeded that time frame, has expired. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Our content licensing agreement with AAP stipulates that the material must be taken down 30 days from the date of publication. Therefore this particular story, having exceeded that time frame, has expired. We apologise for any inconvenience.
How many Australian businesses have a vertically integrated monopoly in their respective markets? Er ... 1?
Coles, Woolies, the Big 4 Banks ??? lets face they might grow or can half the stuff they sell at Woolies and Coles but they screw suppliers and over charge customers... ahead of Broadband we're a 3rd world country on competition
The big "4" banks. There are 4 banks competing against each other, aren't they? That's competition!
As for Coles & Woolies, HA! What about Kmart, Target, and Myer? (Even though Coles and Myer are one and the same) Plenty of places to shop.
The telco market has "one" vertically integrated monopoly, while Coles and Woolies are actually "two" monopolies (a duopoly?). And of course there are the 4 banks. I don't really see how any of these companies should be structually separated, because they don't discriminate against other companies, and no one complains about these companies (At least I don't). I am more than happy to shop at these places because "I have a choice". I can choose to shop at Coles, or Woolies, or both. Most regional and rural Australians have no choice but Telstra for broadband.
Besides Myer, these are either owned by Woolies or Wesfarmers (which owns Coles, but not Myer).
where as telecoms are all owned by the monopilist telstra.
Er...the NBN Co. will as well
Can someone explain why Telstra needs to be split if the NBN is to be rolled out as a competitive opponent to Telstra?
It's been explained now hundreds of times. So if you don't understand how it works by now or refuse to accept the reason why, it shows your lack of learning abilities, bias or both.
It's easy being a rude prick on the internet, isn't it? And "hundreds of times"? Really? Obviously, not by you.
Tarrax.
Talking about rude pricks, at least I have never called anyone a prick.
Until now.
Tarrax is right. No better way of describing you.
Maybe that is because it would be far too polite, coming from such a rude prick as you.
new in
you should chnge your name to mike oldloser, burned little telstra moron.
no wonder people hate telstra with pos like you as followers
It may have been explained a hundred times but every time someone just says reduced prices, innovation, competition etc without any form a justification.
Cheaper retail prices. I do not think so as the ACCC sets the wholesale price.
Access to exchanges. Maybe but when an exchange is full it is full. If Telstra has delayed removal of old unused cable to delay access then they will get caught out as seen recently.
Innovation. What innovation is being hampered. We now have naked DSL, VOIP etc all without seperation.
I think the only reason the govt wants Telstra to separate to avoid any competition to it's NBN. If Telstra was able to keep its cable access network then a lot of people who are happy with thier existing service (regardless of the ISP) they will have no reason to change to the NBN. This would make to business case for the NBN that much harder to justify.
If I have overlooked anything I am sure someone will tell me.
wheres *telstras voip and naked dsl*?
telstra don't like them, have avoided them and have not tried to help the comsumer, by being at the forefront of providing them in any way, because such technologies eat into the fixed line $billions.
so, you just answered your own quandary steve.
Steve, Its a glorious and unless it's sorted out soon we're in for a big financial bang.
I don't think the senate which, in effect, is a house of review can sanction the break up of Telstra without sighting the $53 million feasibility study due in Feb 2010.
Australia prides itself of having an impeccable investment regulatory regime but in view of the Telstra hullabaloo. On a scale of one to ten, it would be lucky to score 3.
According to press reports the Future Fund chairman David Murray said that it would be counterproductive for a declared seller of the telco's stock to comment and that it would gradually offload shares to reduce its overweight holding in the company that had dragged down its overall performance.
Well, well if that is not writing on the wall, what is? Perhaps, we should also follow suite and offload our shares and switch the lights off. But Wait there's more, Conroy just issued a warning to Telstra to expect tougher USO benchmarks and $10 million fines to ensure all consumers receive reliable phone services.
All this whilst its competitors: iiNet, Internode, Macquarie Telecom, Netspace, Optus, Primus, TransACT and VHA are calling for its demise.
What we have here is tantamount to the law of the jungle I experienced in Africa.
"Innovation. What innovation is being hampered. We now have naked DSL, VOIP etc all without seperation", says Steve.
So wheres "Telstra's naked DSL and VOIP", Steve?
Shouldn't Australia's #1 Telco with their premium products [sic], be at the forefront of such cutting edge, customer friendly technology and openly encouraging/offering it as a viable alternative?
No... Telstra avoid these money saving technologies like the plague, because they eat into the $billions of "old school technology, fixed line profits".
But that's ok and all businesses do the same, when they have a money pit/monopoly. Telstra simply want to hang on to it for as long as they can; which is understandable and explains their desperation.
But Telstra; please don't hamper technology then claim you don't. Or worse still, hamper whilst claiming to be at the forefront of these new technologies, when you clearly are not!
Looks as though you answered your own quandary, Steve!
My understanding of naked DSL was to avoid forcing customers to have a Telstra telephone when they wished to install a DSL service.
So why would Telstra provide naked DSL to avoid its own telephone service and then replace it with VOIP. This does not make sense.
Exactly Steve, so why did you mention naked DSL, VOIP, innovation, competition and Telstra in the same comment, lol?
It's the other companies, that do not have a money pit/monopoly last mile, NOT TELSTRA who are innovating and bringing on new technologies to save us, the consumers money.
This is why Telstra are being given a kick in the bum from the government. It's not really hard to understand if you actually want to, or aren't so biased as to refuse to. So Steve?
Again you obviously prove the point and answer your own quandary.
Telstra have been intentionally holding back technologies like naked DSL and VOIP, which would save consumers money, to drag out the profits from the old school PSTN.
Isn't that what I said to start with?
or bland.
Steve thank you for your gracious answer to my question which, probably seemed childish to a person of such gigantic intelligence and vast knowledge as Anonymous.
Then why is Murray whinging?
"the Future Fund chairman David Murray said that it would be counterproductive for a declared seller of the telco's stock to comment and that it would gradually offload shares to reduce its overweight holding in the company that had dragged down its overall performance."
Simply because, keeping up with sensible and necessary innovations is costly business.
he isn't whinging, you are, as usual.
Good on you.
what about me and my shares, sob, sob.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Oh Vasso, you tried the Latin route at NWAT, before looking foolish (as usual) with your incessant shareytale nonsense and when your greedy motives were uncovered and sugary Telstra lies exposed, you then refused to correspond with me further.
You do now understand ex-div though (funny how you never answer that, lol).
You see unlike you Vasso, I comment exclusively... Ad honorem.
"You don't need any outside confirmation. You don't need even any research to be done, because you're so absolutely convinced that works the way it works. The power of conviction comes from the heart. Belief comes from the mind."
Robert Pino
"THE Rudd government is likely to back away from its more extreme legislative threats to Telstra if a deal can be quickly reached with the company on the $43 billion national broadband network project."
"Senator Conroy said yesterday that he was not in a position to pre-empt discussions but that Telstra under chief executive David Thodey and chair Catherine Livingstone had engaged in a very constructive approach. "That is to their credit because this is a significant shake-up but they have engaged meaningfully and constructively with the government,"
"There are billions of dollars at stake in very sensitive commercial negotiations. What David and Catherine are doing is representing Telstra's interests as you would expect them to do."
"The bill gives the minister the option of imposing punishments no matter what deal is reached, and Telstra says this will only make it harder to sell any agreement to shareholders."
Extracts, Courtesy: Australia IT 26 October 2009
End of this story.
Gee, the government, Mr Thodey and Mrs/Ms Livingstone are being "very constructive".
Seems like the only people who are not being "constructive relating to the NBN" are the poor me TLS shareholders...
Well, 3 or 4 "really greedy ones"...anyway!
Hard-to-stomach infrastructure
TOPIC : Broadband battles
Alan you are spot on, per item one. (See Infrastructure alarm, October 26.) That is why I sent my The Conversation post (Law of the jungle) to the ASIC Misconduct and Breach Reporting department for their attention.....
"As a Telstra shareholder, I am appalled at the treatment of my share holding in Telstra and disappointed at the inaction by our regulators." Which was duly acknowledged.
As things stand, we are at risk of wasting one decade of the decades-long terms-of-trade boom stretching ahead thanks to the growth of India and China, stuffing about with bits of fibre.
Vasso Massonic 26 Oct 2009 12:01 PM
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Business-Council-of-Australia-Nation-building-infr-pd20091026-X6RDY?OpenDocument
What are you laughing at Vasso?
If the governement has stuffed up (which they haven't in my opinion), but if they have and Australia suffers, that ha ha ha, just proved your blatant lies.
Haven't you been telling us that you are only interested in what's best for Australia, not your shares in Telstra? Well...
Ha ha ha pretty much dispells that as the share driven lie it really is, doesn't it!.
At the clownisness.
Me too at your's, but...
I'm also laughing at your spelling!
As well as your always obvious wanton greed and of course, those now "proven" lies.
Ha ha ha indeed Vasso. Keep up the great work [sic]!
Ha ha ha, is your signature RS. Most replies are all simply Ha Ha Ha'ing at you, you fool.
Google Chrome OS demonstration
Vice President of Product Marketing Sundar Pichai gives a virtual tour of Google's new operating system, Chrom… Watch it now
Malcolm Turnbull's ghost twitterer
At the Sydney Media140 conference several weeks ago, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull admitted he doesn't pe… Watch it now
Surf the Net like it's 1991 with Gopher
The old Gopher protocol is not dead. In fact, it even has Twitter! Here's how to access it.… Watch it now
Having problems with complex data center? Simplify your data center now.
Sick of broken tender sites
Cyberwar: What is it good for?
Is wholesale-only backhaul just a pipedream?
What makes you click?
Tell us for a chance to win a $1,000 GAME gift voucher.
Click here for more.
Optus Deal
Broadband + home phone + PlayStation®3 in a single package price!
Click here for more!
Best Laptops
Check out the best laptops here!
Click here for more.
I hope the High Court has their calendar cleared for the next decade, because if the govt can get away with this no Australian Business is safe.