Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "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

Wrong, as always.