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.
Anonymous, is there anything in this world you ARE happy with????
I gave Telstra the flick after 30 years of being their client because they didn't value my loyalty, and because they apparently realise their products and services can't compete with their peer telcos so they're now hell bent on trying to mitigate their losses by introducing all manner of financial charges. Telstra, drop all your outrageous penalty fees including credit card payment fees, and I might - just might !!!! - consider coming back. Yes, every other **** company charges them, but you never used to. Take a page out of the NAB book and actually get competitive - get rid of your fees. Because some one else will do it first and take a competitive advantage over you.
I moved to 3Mobile because for $20 less they offer 3.6MBps mobile broadband vs 512kBps and 6MB data transfer vs 1MB.
Why would anyone choose Telstra when they so bloody mindedly refuse to compete ?
This is where the Commonwealth Government should exercise and/or tighten the provisions of the Currency Act.
Cash is the universal transaction medium in this country and it is illegal to apply a penalty for its use or refuse to accept cash as a payment for goods or services.
Yes, some companies do get away with it, namely the NRMA at some of their kiosks and real estate agents but that is because people don't know what their rights are.
Mr Thodey looks like the good guy at the moment because he's about to hand back every cent that Telstra just stole off their customers but the bottom line is this: this fee should never have been introduced in the first place.
Yes taking the lead and saying we won't chase a few easy dollars is a good thing and can provide some marketing ammunition over the competitors but it is ultimately a cost to the company that will be recovered elsewhere or via shareholder value.
The fee is a transaction handling fee and does not apply a penalty for paying in person via cash or credit card. I thought this fee was just albeit 70c too high.
I like many forward thing people chose to move to an automatic debit system for council rates, gas/water & electricity utilities, phone and even my credit cards are automatically paid each month. This doesn't need an intimate knowledge of how the internet works and saves paper, trips to the post office as well as potential late fees (as mentioned above).
Telstra was viciously attacked for introducing the fee but the media and public seemed to conveniently overlook or skim past the fact they were waiving the fee to pensioners unlike other companies.
I hope next time there is a story about port offices being under staffed and having long queues that people consider these types of measures are in place to help reduce these queues.
The fee was $2.20 so the fee was $2.20 too high, not the 70c you seemed to pluck out of the air without rhyme or reason.
When a business sets up its fee structure it is supposed to take into account the expenses required to collect payments. At one time cash was the ONLY option available and the post office and Telecom Business Offices were the only places you could pay your bill.
Adding fees for paying in cash is therefore just a money grab and Telstra was right to eventually agree to this and reverse what was a moronic decision.
"Telstra was viciously attacked for introducing the fee but the media and public seemed to conveniently overlook or skim past the fact they were waiving the fee to pensioners unlike other companies."
I didn't overlook that but not everyone who pays in cash is a pensioner, are they...
For the record I, like you, pay all my bills online although I do this manually because automated systems have a habit of stuffing things up now and then and the poor customer gets the blame for it. Unfortunately not everyone has Internet access and a lot of people don't trust the Internet or the phone and there's also a lot of people who don't have credit cards. Why should they pay extra when costs relating to cash transactions should have already been factored in to business costs more than 100 years ago?
Telstra started charging these fees long after many of their major competitors introduced fees. Add this to the likes of airlines, electricity & gas suppliers, many retailers for credit card use, councils (and many others) what makes the Telstra move so unique to seemingly upset so many people? I suspect the only answer for this is that there is a very vocal group who troll the media for anything Telstra and try to put a negative spin on it.
Lets not go back 100 years to when you were born but instead lets look to only 20 years ago. There were none of these types of fees and Australia post also did not collect payments for most companies. Now that the business model of Australia Post has changed and they try to operate as a private company and to make a profit they need to recover costs associated with additional staff and systems. They do this by charging Telstra for the service, a service and additional operating cost that didn't exist 20 years ago.
The simple fact is Telstra automatically exempted over 1,000,000 bills each month to an easily identifiable group of struggling people. There is no uproar that the likes of VHA and Optus will not remove the fee, will not offer this type of exemption or will make people manually apply for it (who will sit on the phone for ages and pay the cost of the call to save around $2?). Yes not everyone who pays cash is a pensioner but at least they made an effort.
The actual average fee charged by Telstra's major rivals is $1.50 which is where the 70c too much came from.
Now they have removed the fee common sense would dictate the pressure is on the other companies to follow but as they are not regularly vilified in the same manner as Telstra the whole fee argument is bound to be forgotten.
But then again looking for common sense by using a discussion forum about Telstra on ZDNet is probably the wrong place to start.
This thread was about Telstra, not its competitors and local governments. Telstra is wrong to have considered a fee for those paying cash, end of story. Let's have that common sense discussion you seek about the other matters you raise at the appropriate time shall we... or does you accusaion of parallel conduct on Telstra's part justify that $1.50 you think they should be able to steal from people?
Lose the argument and try to change history.
The way I read this is you had no issue is mentioning other companies and industries in your first post above, in fact you encouraged it by responding with "Why should they pay extra when costs relating to cash transactions should have already been factored in to business costs more than 100 years ago?" That opens the door as wide as you can get to make comparisons.
I not only stand by my comments but have greater resolve to to people like you. The simple fact that you try to deny this has any similarities with actions undertaken by many other companies, the fact you are calling Telstra a thief but deny wrongdoing by other companies simply reinforces my argument of vilification against them.
Farewell ... for now
Carlos it would be better and you would get a more intelligent argument if you engaged a retarded chimp at the local zoo.
It seems it's OK for Telstra opponents to charge the cash payment fee but not for Telstra to do likewise. Go figure.
Sydney Lawrence 24/10 ... "and note that no matter how devilishly provoked I NEVER LOSE MY COOL OR STOOP TO ABUSIVE RHETORIC.
Well Mr. FOS what is that above?
Reading Mel's contribution to the comms debate and your always sugary Telstra, what about my wife's portfolio, desperation, we all know who the retarded chimp is...
The one wearing Elton John's shirt and Mr. T's bling, here -
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Telstra-shareholders-fear-break-up-Video/0,130061791,339299390,00.htm
But with due respect to my elders, after watching that clip, all of the interviewees in total, wouldn't equate to one retarded chimp.
So my feeling towards "some (not all) TLS shareholders", has unequivocally, been reaffirmed.
I bet Mr. Thodey and Co, dread the AGM/having to face those without enough intelligence to know what day it is, let alone understand the intricacies of comms.
Especially when you consider these same people have their own selfish financial agendas clouding what little commonsense and the minimalistic intelligence, they may actually possess!
Sydney, what you and Carlos obviously fail to realise is that the news report we are all commenting on relates to Telstra withdrawing a fee that they had no legal or moral right to charge their customers. I will put a smile on your faces by saying that I don't approve of other companies doing it and I do seem to remember addressing that in an earlier post when I mentioned Telstra's rivals plus the NRMA, however we can discuss that aspect until we are blue in the face but IT IS NOT RELEVANT. This thread is about Telstra's backflip rattling the cages of two vehemently pro-Telstra chimps; to wit, yourself and the hare-brained Carlos; but has nothing to do with any other company. When there is a post relating to other ISPs charging like wounded bulls, as Telstra does, or charging illegal fees, as Telstra attempted to do, then I will happily make similar comments in relation to that, as I am sure you will have no trouble in doing, given your blantant pro-Telstra bias.
It will also interest both you you to note that not all ISPs charge extra to pay cash although many charge a credit card fee, which is another rort but a legal one.
Telstra's recent foray into charging for cash payments pertains to another illegal activity, parallel conduct - that being a company placing their customers at a disadvantage because a competitor does the same thing.
Possibly the most irrelevant contributor on this irrelevant "news" site talking about irrelevance. what a joke.
yes you are.
Do you Google Wave?
If you want attention online, then mention that you have a couple of Google Wave invites to giveaway and watch… Watch it now
Thunderbird 3 takes flight
Thunderbird 3 is finally here, after a gestation period measured in
years. The latest version of Mozilla's fr… Watch it now
Google Chrome beta for Mac
It's not fully baked yet, but Google Chrome for Mac reaches a major milestone with the release of an official … Watch it now
How do you build a smarter planet?
Having problems with complex data center? Simplify your data center now.
Conroy explains his magic filter
Copenhagen lessons on green IT
Welcome to National Censorship Day
Best Servers
Want to find out what the best servers are?
Check out the top rated here!
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.
Time also the drop the $10 fee for late payment on Foxtel. The day any competition enters the market for Foxtel, I'm off. Crap service and very expensive.