Thodey hails $146m Catholic NBN

By Liam Tung, ZDNet.com.au

13 July 2009 03:04 PM

Tags: catholic, network, telstra, broadband, fibre, thodey, school

Telstra chief David Thodey today announced a $146 million broadband network project to connect over 1550 Catholic Australian schools.

The predominantly fibre network will be installed over the next two years, according to a joint statement by a newly formed company, Catholic Network Australia (CNA), and Telstra.

Thodey made a rare public appearance today to announce the project at St Monica's Primary School in Footscray, Victoria, alongside Francis Moore, chair of the newly formed networking subsidiary of Catholic Resources Ltd, CNA.

The Catholic school network will use Telstra Internet Direct, formerly a BigPond Service, and is planned to connect five datacentres across Australia.

"Together with CNA, Telstra will provide Catholic schools across Australia with the broadband services necessary to access education resources critical to a first rate contemporary learning environment," said Thodey.

According to CNA, which has been tasked with managing the planned network, more than 90 per cent of all Australian Catholic education sites have committed to the new network.

Talkback (48)
Print
E-mail
Share
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Reddit
- Slashdot
- StumbleUpon

Talkback 48 comments

Add your opinion

I have, You have, We all have an NBN . . . . ALREADY Reality Check -- 13/07/09

What was that . .. What did you say !
Telstra is building a new National Broadband Network . . . . . for $146 M.

How can this be?
Reminds of that Simpson's episode when the natives introduced to gambling ask, what is this magic, how can Ace be 1 annnd 11 ?

Conroy and Rudd are big fools with big ego's who got seriously sucked in by Optus/Terria.

This story would be so funny if it was'nt so serious in jeopardising our liberty's and laws.

Re: I have... RL -- 16/07/09 (in reply to #320149131)

Oh really? Then why can't I get it? This so called NBN is only for catholic schools. And if it weren't for Telstra's greed or selfishness, then we might have an NBN right now!

Telstra is simply trying to claw its way back from oblivion. RS -- 13/07/09

Just shows Telstra can do it when they want to.

If only Mr Trujillo and Co hadn't been so greedy back in 2005 and wanted an astronomical return, instead of just accepting the ACCC sanctioned fair return, or at least negotiating a happy medium, then we'd/they'd already have an urban FTTN network.

Plus if Telstra hadn't campaigned relentlessly against those Singaporeans to have the government scrap opel, we would have a rural network too. Oh and if opel were the sham Telstra said, in the end, Telstra would have ended up with both, urban and rural networks and therefore another monopoly.

Repeat after me shareholders - doh!

If they'd have compromised even slightly, we wouldn't be worrying about the NBN and it's implications and Telstra would again be the unchallengable dominant force, but Mr. Trujillo and his ego knew better...NOT.

Oh well they only have themselves to blame!

So 3 cheers for Mr. Trujillo for saving us from another Telstra monopoly, hip hooray...

Whats worse Corruption or Stupidity ! Reality Check -- 13/07/09 (in reply to #320149137)

Wrong on every single point.

But lets just focus on the one point that clearly demonstrates you like the Howard Govt dont have a single solitary clue about telecommunications.

The one point that had everybody on all sides of the Telco industry in fits of laughter.

And stunned at the transparent ineptitude and stupidity of the DBCDE.

Optus " won" the tender based on running Wimax "fixed" (not Wimax Mobile 802.16e) on open public spectrum 5.8Ghz.

That was an EPIC failure on every level from technical to legal and everywhere in between. For both Optus/opel and the Govt.

Thats why Optus/Opel did nothing for the 9mths since "wiinning the contract.

Eventually bought Austar spectrum but that was pointless and hit a massive wall there too.

p.s Thodey so far has exactly the same answer for the govt as Thodey. "No, Telstra is not yours anymore."

@ whats worse [settle petal] RS -- 13/07/09 (in reply to #320149170)

Oh don't cry so, or jump to misconceptions Reality Check!

My comment wasn't aimed at, or even in reply to you. Gee it is easy to rev up the abnormally hot headed, fringe element fanboi, even without trying isn't it?

But, in case you aren't aware, I'll inform you that you are not the only person who is allowed to post here and although it may shock you too, you aren't the only person who is allowed an opinion either!

As such, this is my opinion and if you don't like it, bad ******* luck!

But gee, how about that? I agree opel was at best dodgy, so your entire little trumped up speech was for nought! Perhaps I know as much about comms as you?

Thing is, had Telstra been smart enough to let the government run with the rural opel and concentrate on their urban FTTN, if/when opel failed (as I mentioned above) who then would have also got the nod for the rural network as well as FTTN?

But Telstra, because of the egotistical stupidity and greed of Mr. Trujillo ended up with nothing, instead of one or both. What a guy!

I also agree Telstra isn't "theirs anymore" and yes Thodey does agree with Thodey, how astute. Wow, you do know your comms.

But Telstra was sold with "access laws", which seems to have been conveniently overlooked by Telstra and their fanbois, as they have spruiked "real competition", for the last few years.

But as for seizing Telstra's assets, can't stomach that, even if it is only Telstra!

Bad history? Anonymous -- 13/07/09

"will use Telstra Internet Direct, formerly a BigPond Service"

Excuse me, but Telstra Internet Direct was around for many many years before Bigpond even existed.

If God be for, who can be against. Sydney Lawrence -- 14/07/09

Good work Telstra and the Catholic Network Australia.

"If God be for, who can be against." Anonymous -- 14/07/09 (in reply to #320149443)

Now wait for the hollering from Jason & Co.

Very amusing... Anonymous -- 14/07/09 (in reply to #320149570)

I am normally very critical of Sidney, but, for once, this is an amusing comment....

re Owned ****! Anonymous -- 22/07/09 (in reply to #320149739)

Yep, here's the hollering, right on cue. What a dork.

.....Burnt - ouch! Anonymous -- 23/07/09 (in reply to #320160076)

Yeah whatever - SFB !!!

Blind faith? Anonymous -- 15/07/09

If Telstra can do this for a measly 146M why on Earth to Taxpayers have to fund This Grand NBN for 43 Billion??

Reality check is dead right!!

dear shareholder Anonymous -- 15/07/09 (in reply to #320150507)

because greedy telstra wanted a monopoly, plus maximum roi and there are laws against that, even though you as a shareholder refuse to accept these laws.

reality check is not dead right, he is just as biased and financially motivated as you.

Speak up scarlet pimpernel. Sydney Lawrence -- 16/07/09 (in reply to #320150513)

dear shareholder Anonymous, you speak against a monopoly with intention to assist your interest and that is fine, but please be open and honest in your pursuit.

Answer me this question with a direct and revelant answer. What if an industry started with four participants and because one player, by way of superiour service and pricing, caused the other three to fail, would you expect the ACCC to damage the winning company to assist the weaker?

And don't give me the runaround about Telstra being a monopoly, as Telstra can be challenged by any business willing to invest the billions required for the challenge.

Hopefully, when Senator Conroy organizes the NBN, Telstra will be allowed to supply a service in the best interests of the Australian people, unmolested by opponents who seek to freeload on Telstra investments.

Re: Speak up... Scarlet Pimpernel -- 16/07/09 (in reply to #320151038)

What if an industry started with four participants and because one player, with the help of the Australian government and taxpayers money, caused the other three to fail. And now this triumphant player doesn't want to share with the government, so it turns against them, to bite the hand that feeds it. This player decides to change the rules so that it favours them. Then the government fights back against this player and gives the other players a fighting chance (the NBN) and gives this player a kick in the shins, resulting in the abdication of all the selfish Americans and replacing them with Thodey. That's what happens when you choose to defy the government. It's called Karma.

What happens after that? We shall see.

Thodey Davo -- 16/07/09 (in reply to #320151244)

What an unfortunate name for the head of Telstra!

I've heard he lived up to his name during the Trujillo years and will no doubt continue in the future.

PS. Every one knows that Telstra has a pstn monopoly. What's the point in pretending otherwise?

In answer to Re: Speak up....... Anonymous -- 16/07/09 (in reply to #320151244)

That sounds bloody stupid.

Speak up Sydney RS -- 16/07/09 (in reply to #320151038)

Sydney, seriously!

Sydney, I don't like to forever be critical, but seriously, you need to remove the Telstra blinkers to be able to understand and compare the "entire actual situation", equally.

By doing so, you may actually limit your continual foolish statements and even more foolish questions!

We are NOT talking about an industry which "started with 4 participants", where the ACCC is stifling 1 to advantage the other 3!

Of course this would be unfair. But how on earth did you concoct such tripe?

We are talking about "starting with 1 governmental monopoly participant only - not 4". One which owned the entire comms infrastructure and had 100% clientele.

So put the portfolio down for a second, remove the blinkers; take a deep breath and think! Can you now see the difference in your comparison and reality, Sydney?

Now the hard bit - being sold off, how was/is the best way to be fair to both the monolithic incumbent and also prospective competitors, so as to benefit consumers?

It was determined at the time, rather than splitting Telstra into wholesale and retail, selling the entire company with access rules, regulated by an external umpire (ACCC) was the way to go? They could have split Telstra into 2 or more smaller companies first, which is of course what a lot of people are still wanting. But they didn't - would you have preferred that?

Advantage from deceit. Sydney Lawrence -- 17/07/09 (in reply to #320151503)

RS thank you for your advice but the fact is it is you who, through ignorance or cunning, misunderstand my question.

Do you accept the fact that our competitive system dictates that those (the Company) who are best accepted by the consumer will attain the dominant position, even a monopoly.

If you do, why would you call for assistance from the ACCC to damage the best competitor to assist the failures who had been rejected by Australian customers.

Telstra complies with all and every regulation concerning open access but continues to out perform opponents. Why? because the Australian public embraces and chooses Telstra as their service provider.

As has been explained before those who call for the break-up and destruction of Telstra, and who would gain from the break-up would not be the Australian consumer, but those who refuse to invest to compete and hope to be advantaged by the Telstra wreckage.

Just go back to dream land Sydney RS -- 17/07/09 (in reply to #320151767)

Sydney keep living in your own greedy, share driven little world, where you truly believe Australia's comms revolves around your portfolio and nothing and no one else matters.

Seriously, apart from saying Telstra were a 100% monopoly and regulations were/are needed, I can't spell it out any clearer.

You obviously just don't want to know because your own selfish greed, wont accept it!

EGG ON FACE. Sydney Lawrence -- 17/07/09 (in reply to #320151895)

RS your comments may have some validity IF I was a Telstra shareholder but as I have told you many, many times I sold my Telstra shares bulk moons ago to fund my cruise to South America on the Queen Mary.

Egg on face x 2 RS -- 17/07/09 (in reply to #320152016)

Nice side step Syd, no mention of the monopoly!

Talking about egg on face and you typically side stepping, best not mention (like you avoided when interviewed on nowwearetalking in March) how many "Mrs. Lawrence" has then, eh?

YYURYYUB, yes RS, YY4me. Sydney Lawrence -- 17/07/09 (in reply to #320152118)

Sharp thinking RS.

Too wise indeed! RS -- 17/07/09 (in reply to #320152327)

As that wasn't a denial, yes I am YY4U Sydney.

To Mr Sydney Lawrence. RS -- 18/07/09 (in reply to #320152327)

Mr. Lawrence, after all this time you've been telling us that "you" had no shares in Telstra, to vainly attempt to dissuade us from believing you were financially motivated in your "sickening, sugary support of Telstra". So maybe "you" no longer do have shares?

But you also said you were just commenting here and everywhere else everyday, as a "concerned Australian ONLY", who supports Australian companies, didn't you?

Strange though, for someone who says they support Australian companies, while I always see you commenting about Telstra, I've never seen even one comment from you anywhere supporting Qantas, Harvey Norman or any other Aussie companies but Telstra? Curious.

So being a patriotic Aussie who supports all Aussie companies, how do you feel about smaller icon Aussie companies, who started from scratch up against a ruthless monopoly - Internode and iiNet, Syd?

As a supporter of Aussie companies, I've oddly never seen you say a nice word about these battling Aussie companies. In fact you have called them leeches, when they are just doing business via the rules. Rules which were introduced prior to Telstra being privatised and well before Internode and iiNet even existed.

Battling Aussies up against a giant. A giant who knowing the rules wants to not only change the rules, so that their greedy profits can grow from $3b to $4b, but in the process they blame the access seekers and have people like you support them by referring to the battlers as leeches, for them doing exactly as they are entitled. Disgraceful.

You don't really support Aussie companies, you only support "one" Aussie company, Telstra.

The reason you do so is because you are a financial opponent of all other comms companies who deviously wants to disparage and bring down the other companies to the benefit of Telstra.

WHY??? (((((Because the good "Mrs Lawrence" has a nice big parcel of Telstra shares)))))!!!

By all means continue to comment as you are entitled, but please stop the lies about why you do so and stop cowardly, accusing others of deviously trying to bring down Telstra to the benefit ones own finances, when (although we always knew) you have just admitted and made it abundantly clear, that you alone are the absolute pinnacle of such disgraceful, selfishness.

To R.S. Anonymous -- 18/07/09 (in reply to #320152941)

What a load of nonsense that is. What has QANTAS and Harvey Norman got to do with the Telstra comments made here Besides, you can't tell me that Harvey Norman are not ruthless in their marketing tactics, and overall business dealings in order to make a profit (rofl.) Just take a look at their recent layoffs at OFIS.

@To RS RS -- 18/07/09 (in reply to #320152978)

To spell it out for those,
a) sans brain
b) trying to avoid the issue
c) both of the above

The point is Sydney claims to comment ONLY because he "supports Australian companies (note: plural more than one Aust Co)", but has never done so so for anyone but Telstra. Harvey Norman was just a Co plucked from the air, it could have been any Aust Co for the purpose of the comparison.

Seems as you come to Sydney's defence you are either him or perhaps one of Sydney's fellow shareholders?

If so I understand that you are unable to actually comprehend my comments, because you weren't smart enough to avoid Telstra shares, were you?

NBN saga Anonymous -- 18/07/09

Conroy and Rudd are big fools with big ego's who got seriously sucked in by Optus/Terria.

FAIR GO RS. Sydney Lawrence -- 18/07/09

RS thank you for you enlightening explanation of my motivation for the fact that, at times, I do defend Telstra.

My defence of Telstra, I would hope, is exactly parallel to your intense defence of Internode and iiNet. It just happens to be what I believe, simply as that. I do sympathize with companies who have the melancholy duty to do battle with the Giant but I am sure that with investment, perseverance and the offering of the right products at the right price they can compete. Heaven knows they get enough advantage from the ACCC.

Yes indeed fair go - time for Telstra and you greedy shareholders to do so RS -- 18/07/09 (in reply to #320153220)

Oh you clutch at straws and the wife's portfolio Sydney.

This is the first time I have mentioned Internode or iiNet and you want to compare my "intense" support (which is actually zero, I support no one) to your share driven, dailiy for the last 4 years, Telstra idiocy. BTW you forgot Qantas and Harvey Norman as my other intense supports, lol.

Once again, Telstra do NOT get any advantages from the ACCC. Perhaps if you copy this and put it with those shares you might then be able to understand it?

The regulations were introduced because of Telstra's privatisation and the ACCC is there to make sure Telstra adhere to them. Thats what happens when you are vested a monopoly network. There are rules to stop you gouging or predatory pricing.

And the courts have previously inevitably backed the ACCC, because they are right!

Why look even just yesterday, Telstra wanting to greedily increase the access fees, LOST IN COURT AGAIN.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25797636-643,00.html

Look what they said too - "Telstra has now been left to foot the combined multi-million-dollar legal bill for each of the 14 parties" ...

These parties include Optus, Primus and other competitors.

So Telstra have to hand over many millions OF YOUR (well your wife's) MONEY TO COMPETITORS/PARTIES - who are having a party with the Mrs. money, because Telstra are too stupid to just get on with business and play by THE AGREED RULES!

Sydney it doesn't matter how many times you say it, how many times you read it over at nowwearetalking and how it affects the wife's portfolio.

It is not true about the ACCC, YOU ARE WRONG - that's not from me that is from the Federal Court and many times, not just once!

But I'm sure you, Vasso, Fernando and the other greedy shareholders over at nowwearetalking, all know better than everyone, even the courts and you will all be back here and nowwearetalking tomorrow saying the same unproven (again according to the FEDERAL COURT) bullsh!t!

Disgraceful!

Oops - @yes indeed RS -- 18/07/09 (in reply to #320153238)

This line - "once again, Telstra do NOT get any advantages from the ACCC".

Should read, "Telstra are NOT disadvantaged by the ACCC".

But if you feel inclined Sydney, please feel free to use this typo, to your advantage, since you have nothing else!

BITTER AND TWISTED IS SAD. Sydney Lawrence -- 19/07/09

RS your zeal to destroy a great Australian company, Telstra, is amazing.

Never in the history of business records has a case of such intense hatred and jealously been recorded as the hostility that you display against Telstra.

As I have said before I understand the desperation in your attempts to gain advantage for Telstra opponents by defiling Telstra but you must understand that the Australian consumer will decide and at the moment they choose Telstra.

You also, seem to be unusually concerned with what little investment I may have in Telstra which is surprising as I would think you would have similar investments and I wish you every good luck with them.

It is my sincere hope that Senator Conroy will find a way to encourage companies to invest and allow competition to decide who succeeds and do away with the unfair regulation placed on Telstra to assist weaker opponents.

Sad indeed, bye ..... for now! RS -- 19/07/09 (in reply to #320154218)

Mr. Lawrence. This will be my last correspondence with you "on this thread", as it is obvious, if Telstra tell you the sky is yellow with pink polka dots, you will swear it so.

Whilst your willingness to support Telstra is commendable.Your unwillingness to accept reality (refer courts/ACCC) and to accept others opinions is actually very sad.

To accuse anyone, like me who has no associations or stakes/shares in any comms company, of trying to destroy Telstra (the company I am actually a customer of) just becasue I don't have the same greedy twisted, share driven thoughts as you, shows with respect, you may need professional help Mr. Lawrence.

I'm not saying this to insult you, but more as a friendly suggestion.

I wish you all the best Mr. Lawrence, but just realise, your sugary always Telstra bullsh!t is turning people (even customers like me) away from Telstra not towards them.

It was the ridiculous shareytales of you, Vasso, Fernando and the other greedy shareholders over at nowwearetalking whos disgraceful selfishness prompted me (and probably others) to comment in the first place!!!!

Keep up the good work, because while you may not be switched on enough to realise it, I'm sure Optus and the rest love you for it!

re bitter and twisted Anonymous -- 19/07/09 (in reply to #320154218)

sydney your zeal to destroy great australian companies, internode and iinet, is amazing.

never in the history of business records has a case of such intense hatred and jealously been recorded as the hostility that you display against internode and iinet.

as I have said before I understand the desperation in your attempts to gain advantage for telstra by defiling telstra's opponents but you must understand that the australian consumer will decide and at the moment more and more are choosing to desert telstra.

you also, seem to be unusually concerned in hiding what little investment you have in telstra, which is surprising as it is obvious you have telstra investments and I wish you every good luck with them.

it is my sincere hope that senator conroy will find a way to encourage telstra to understand their regulatory obligations, instead of them sobbing, continually losing in court and their gifted monopoly headstart deciding who succeeds. also for fair regulations placed on telstra to assist those weaker opponents at the gorilla's monopolistic mercy, reaffirmed.

Whom they fear they hate. Sydney Lawrence -- 20/07/09 (in reply to #320155650)

Anonymous, imitation is the truest form of flattery.

ha Anonymous -- 20/07/09 (in reply to #320157688)

yeeeees flattery, that's what it must have been, ha.

re bitter and twisted Anonymous -- 21/07/09 (in reply to #320155650)

How original. You must really be pumped and proud of such an intelligent contribution.

@re Anonymous -- 21/07/09 (in reply to #320159339)

wow, you must be too shareholder, moron!

utter drivel Simon -- 20/07/09 (in reply to #320154218)

"Never in the history of business records has a case of such intense hatred and jealously been recorded " must be the stupidest comment ever made on ZDnet!

Sydney, his point was that the govt set the rules and created ACCC, before selling off Tesltra. Telstra has not played by these rules and continues to cause harm to it's Australian customers.

Customers who have been harmed by Telstra no longer support this organisation. Is this so very hard to understand?

There's "no devious" or "cunning" plots, just Australians pissed off at Telstra for letting them down (ie lying, cheating, delaying) Another High Court decision in support of the maligned customers, how much more evidence of recalcitrance do you need?

Moderated Renai LeMay -- 24/07/09

hi there,

victimisation of ZDNet.com.au readers, for example the talkback targeting Sydney Mike, will not be tolerated and will be moderated.

I have removed a number of posts from this thread.

Cheers,

Renai LeMay
News Editor
ZDNet.com.au

renbai, sols brother Anonymous -- 24/07/09 (in reply to #320162775)

oh so you'll let he who cannot be mentioned, dish it out but not take it renai.

you sure you aren't related to sol

Retarded chimpanzee could do better. Sydney Lawrence -- 26/07/09 (in reply to #320162808)

Renai, your detractor clearly demonstrates the debating capabilities of the Anti Telstra Circus.

Why would he (or she) include Sol? When we speak of their IQ we do not talk big numbers.

yes the chimp could Anonymous -- 26/07/09 (in reply to #320164656)

we agree at last sydney.

a retarded chimp could do better than sol! so perhaps you ought to give it a shot?

do you think you have the credantials? personally i think you fall well short!

re yes the chimp could Anonymous -- 26/07/09 (in reply to #320164679)

You really are a nasty piece of work. At least Sydney never stoops to your low level vitriolic and unfunny comments. But what goes around comes around, and you'll get your comeuppance eventually.

look around Anonymous -- 29/07/09 (in reply to #320164695)

why didn't you say sydney was a nasty piece of work? he was the first to describe people as retarded chimps.

as usual you only see what you want to see hey mike!

Clear as ABC. Sydney Lawrence -- 30/07/09 (in reply to #320166144)

See Anonymous this is how you either manipulate the truth or do not understand English.

At no point did I describe people as retarded chimps. Read my Post over and over until it becomes clear to you.

clear now Anonymous -- 30/07/09 (in reply to #320167578)

no you said a retarded chimp could *do better*. so you were actually being even more derogatory.

don't play games fess up to your cheap shots.

re clear now Anonymous -- 04/08/09 (in reply to #320167621)

Cannot understand for a minute, why you think you have all the answers, or that any one really cares what you think.