On Tue, 13 May 2008, Alan Parkington <brownnose@isuckseppos.com> wrote:

> From
>
> http://www.nowwearetalkingcrap.com.a...-phile/nz-and-
britains-broadband-disgrace

Why would anyone but a fool expect anyone to take any notice of what "now
we are talking crap" says about anything?

> New global broadband rankings (www.viewswire.com) released this week
> show the UK is paying the price for its failed experiment in trying to
> break up the incumbent telco BT.

Bollocks it is. Breaking up BT has dramatically improved the performance
of the constituent parts of those companies. BT broadband is still as
lumbering and piss-taking as tel$cum's is though. But O2, the ex BT
mobile arm is shitloads better than tel$cum's pathetic excuse for a
"service".

> The now not-so-great Britain has slipped behind Australia on the
> internet superhighway.

No figures or any information at all to back that up then??? It's
complete bollocks, of course. Broadband in the UK is cheaper and faster
than in Australia - and, importantly, the international net
infrastructure is orders of magnitude better than Australia's. Of course
that isn't surprising, given the population of Europe and the proximity
of countries to each other, and the relative closeness of the US.

> It really is a disgrace when you consider the
> country of 50 million plus people live in in an area smaller than our
> state of Victoria.

What point are you trying to make, exactly?

> The only country that's tried importing the bureaucratic UK model, New
> Zealand, has gone even further backwards. Soon we'll be sending food
> parcels across the Tasman.

Is that right? And what are you basing that bizarre theory on?

> As Telstra and other major telcos in the developed world prepare to
> build next generation fibre networks, the UK and NZ telcos are focussing
> their efforts on satisfying regulators with more important tasks like
> making sure their wholesale staff don't share the same toilets as the
> rest of the company.

Oh, i see. This "article" is nothing to do with reality at all, it's just
some badly written and meaninglessly drivelling puff for tel$cum. Fancy
that. I really can't be bothered reading any more of this nonsense..

> It's easy to see why Telstra's competitors would like to see the same
> happen here in Australia. They know it would weaken Telstra and delay
> investment in FTTN for a couple more years. Meanwhile they can keep
> raking in the profits thanks to the cheap prices they pay to access the
> old copper network courtesy of the ACCC.
>
> It was amusing this week to see one of those piggy backers crying poor
> while announcing his decision to turn his back on the people of Tasmania
> (www.news.com.au).
>
> Simon Hackett is the 100 percent private owner of Internode, one of the
> most successful ISPs in Australia, making him one of the wealthiest men
> in South Australia.
>
> But Mr Hackett has decided the profits are not rich enough in Tasmania
> and so he'd rather not do business there. Rather than just admit he
> wants to keep his roots firmly planted in home-town Adelaide, Hackett
> had the hide to blame Telstra for his business decision!
>
> Worse still, many people in Tassie fell for Hackett's propaganda. Even
> the Premier cried foul (www.news.com.au), saying "Tasmanian business
> pays far too much for telecommunications access --- principally the
> blame for that lies at the feet of Telstra." Mr Lennon overlooked the
> fact that Telstra has invested more in Tassie than almost any other
> company and charges the same telecommunications prices across Australia,
> whether you're in Hobart or downtown Sydney.
>
> If Mr Lennon wants more competition and choice to the people of
> Tasmania, all he need do ask Mr Hackett to open up his wallet and
> actually invest some of his vast wealth in the necessary infrastructure.
>
> The reality is that Tasmania is one of the most difficult and high-cost
> parts of Australia to serve. It just doesn't fit in with the big city
> business models of most of Telstra's competitors, while the ACCC's
> insane model of regulation actually encourages Telstra's competitors to
> avoid regional areas.
>
> It's no surprise these companies sit on their cheque books and paint
> Telstra as the evil culprit. Business, after all, was never meant to be
> a picnic. It's embarrassing though when journalists and politicians fall
> for the propaganda and oafishly overlook where the real problem lies.
>
> Finally though some very welcome news from the company that pioneered
> the 'blame Telstra" model - Optus this week revealing it would divert
> some profits away from its Singapore owners and begin to extend its slow
> and miniscule mobile network to regional Australia.
>
> This of course is SingTel's 'Plan C', coming after the failure of 'Plan
> A' - asking the ACCC for piggyback rights on Telstra's Next GT network -
> and the subsequent failure of Plan B - the billion dollar Coonan OPEL
> debacle.
>
> It's good to see SingTel step up to the mark, but shameful to see the
> company claim its investment will see it "come close to matching"
> (www.itwire.com) Telstra's Next GT network.
>
> Should Plan C be successful, (and we'll wait a couple more years to find
> out), SingTel's network will still only be half the size and half the
> speed of Telstra's.