"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
news:46f68a68$0$21396$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bfsJi.1363$H22.1208@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
>> news:1190524825.231000@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:32:10 GMT Alan Parkington may have written:
>>>> However...the Federal Government has decided to impose a licence
>>>> condition that requires Telstra to do what it has already promised -
>>>> to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
>>>> CDMA."
>>>
>>> Right, so it'll impact you not one single bit then if you keep your
>>> promise. Where's the problem? Coonan's not spending Telstra's
>>> shareholder's money to ensure Telstra have met their promise, is she?
>>>
>>> Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning to
>>> keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before switch-off...
>>
>> Telstra made no such promise.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> Go and read the exact wording
>
> This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out:
> "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA."

Which isnt "matching coverage 100%"

"same or better than coverage that CDMA" implies that the total NextG
coverage is > the total CDMA coverage, not that in Upper East Wonthaggi Joe
Blow Cockie will be able to get NextG if he once got CDMA