Alan Parkington FUCKED it up again

What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be shut
down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
propaganda was wrong again!


--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:13:58 +1100, Simon Templar wrote:

> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be shut
> down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
> propaganda was wrong again!

Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the CDMA
network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG
network, or was it legislatively tacked-on later?

Simon Templar wrote:
> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be shut
> down by the end of this month!

He's incapable of self-thought, read the AP FAQ.
He just CTRL+C CTRL+V Telstra press releases, which of course are
bullshit and lies.

Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote:

> What's happened Parkington?

He's hanging himself as we 'speak'

> You said the CDMA network would be shut down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste propaganda was
> wrong again!

Wota surprise.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Simon Templar wrote

>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be shut
>> down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
>> propaganda was wrong again!

> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the CDMA
> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG network,

There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'

> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?

Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later. That doesnt need to be by legislation.

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:34:45 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>> Simon Templar wrote
>
>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be shut
>>> down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
>>> propaganda was wrong again!
>
>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the CDMA
>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG network,
>
> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'

Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not
NextG?


>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?
>
> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later. That doesnt need to be by legislation.

So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after it had built
its CDMA network?

"Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
newsjlbsl4kjj3x.o4kdmnjd5cp6.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:34:45 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Simon Templar wrote
>>
>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be shut
>>>> down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
>>>> propaganda was wrong again!
>>
>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the
>>> CDMA
>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG
>>> network,
>>
>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'
>
> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not
> NextG?
>

Rod's fucked it all up.
There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system' The change
was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific for CDMA.

http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3

The licensee must continue to maintain the operation of its entire CDMA
network until the Minister notifies the licensee that the Minister is
satisfied that:
(a) the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or better
than the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that was in place
as at 1 June 2007; and

(b) the Alternative Network provides retail services equivalent to or
better than those provided on or in connection with the licensee's CDMA
network as at 1 June 2007.




>
>>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?
>>
>> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later. That
>> doesnt need to be by legislation.
>
> So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after it had
> built
> its CDMA network?

Nope - It was 'thrust' apon Telstra when they said they were shutting down
the CDMA network from Jan 28.

--
Kwyj.

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:40:36 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:

> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> newsjlbsl4kjj3x.o4kdmnjd5cp6.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:34:45 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Simon Templar wrote
>>>
>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be shut
>>>>> down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
>>>>> propaganda was wrong again!
>>>
>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the
>>>> CDMA
>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG
>>>> network,
>>>
>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'
>>
>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not
>> NextG?
>>
>
> Rod's fucked it all up.
> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system' The change
> was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific for CDMA.
>
> http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3
>
> The licensee must continue to maintain the operation of its entire CDMA
> network until the Minister notifies the licensee that the Minister is
> satisfied that:
> (a) the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or better
> than the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that was in place
> as at 1 June 2007; and
>
> (b) the Alternative Network provides retail services equivalent to or
> better than those provided on or in connection with the licensee's CDMA
> network as at 1 June 2007.

That looks pretty specific to CDMA to me?

>>>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?
>>>
>>> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later. That
>>> doesnt need to be by legislation.
>>
>> So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after it had
>> built
>> its CDMA network?
>
> Nope - It was 'thrust' apon Telstra when they said they were shutting down
> the CDMA network from Jan 28.

Which, I would assume, was after they built it?

Hmmm? Pray tell?

The Government seems to be treating Telstra as some sort of
telecommunications welfare agency. That was fine when it was
Government-owned, but now that it's been privatized they're effectively
asking Telstra shareholders to run a loss-making mobile phone network for
regional Australia.

These conditions would have been fine had the Government made them clear
BEFORE the CDMA network was built (or made them a condition for the
building of the Next G network), but it seems they weren't/didn't.

"Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3k8p8faqkn94.12fvexmrqb3e9.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:40:36 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>
>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> newsjlbsl4kjj3x.o4kdmnjd5cp6.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:34:45 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Simon Templar wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be shut
>>>>>> down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
>>>>>> propaganda was wrong again!
>>>>
>>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the
>>>>> CDMA
>>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG
>>>>> network,
>>>>
>>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'
>>>
>>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not
>>> NextG?
>>>
>>
>> Rod's fucked it all up.
>> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system' The
>> change
>> was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific for CDMA.
>>
>> http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3
>>
>> The licensee must continue to maintain the operation of its entire CDMA
>> network until the Minister notifies the licensee that the Minister is
>> satisfied that:
>> (a) the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or
>> better
>> than the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that was in
>> place
>> as at 1 June 2007; and
>>
>> (b) the Alternative Network provides retail services equivalent to
>> or
>> better than those provided on or in connection with the licensee's CDMA
>> network as at 1 June 2007.
>
> That looks pretty specific to CDMA to me?
>

That section is. The overal license isn't.

>>>>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later. That
>>>> doesnt need to be by legislation.
>>>
>>> So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after it had
>>> built
>>> its CDMA network?
>>
>> Nope - It was 'thrust' apon Telstra when they said they were shutting
>> down
>> the CDMA network from Jan 28.
>
> Which, I would assume, was after they built it?
>

Correct.

> Hmmm? Pray tell?
>
> The Government seems to be treating Telstra as some sort of
> telecommunications welfare agency. That was fine when it was
> Government-owned, but now that it's been privatized they're effectively
> asking Telstra shareholders to run a loss-making mobile phone

Who said it was loss making? First I've ever heard of that.

> network for
> regional Australia.

Either that or are simultaneously protecting consumers and Telstra
shareholders.

Telstra claimed that the Next G reception was the same or better than CDMA.
That turned out to be incorrect. If Telstra had gone ahead with the CDMA
shutdown you would have had a large number of very pissed of customers, and
Telstra could have faced massive fines under the TPA.

The new conditions protect consumers as well as Telstra (though Telstra
probably don't see it that way.......)

> These conditions would have been fine had the Government made them clear
> BEFORE the CDMA network was built (or made them a condition for the
> building of the Next G network), but it seems they weren't/didn't.

Which is why the govt needs to get as far away from Telstra ownership as
possible. As a shareholder and regulator of the industry, they have placed
themselves in a no-win situation.

--
Kwyj.

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:24:38 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:

> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3k8p8faqkn94.12fvexmrqb3e9.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:40:36 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>>
>>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> newsjlbsl4kjj3x.o4kdmnjd5cp6.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:34:45 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Simon Templar wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be shut
>>>>>>> down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
>>>>>>> propaganda was wrong again!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the
>>>>>> CDMA
>>>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG
>>>>>> network,
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'
>>>>
>>>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not
>>>> NextG?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rod's fucked it all up.
>>> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system' The
>>> change
>>> was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific for CDMA.
>>>
>>> http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3
>>>
>>> The licensee must continue to maintain the operation of its entire CDMA
>>> network until the Minister notifies the licensee that the Minister is
>>> satisfied that:
>>> (a) the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or
>>> better
>>> than the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that was in
>>> place
>>> as at 1 June 2007; and
>>>
>>> (b) the Alternative Network provides retail services equivalent to
>>> or
>>> better than those provided on or in connection with the licensee's CDMA
>>> network as at 1 June 2007.
>>
>> That looks pretty specific to CDMA to me?
>>
>
> That section is. The overal license isn't.

OK. I thought you meant "the change" wasn't CDMA-specific.


>>>>>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later. That
>>>>> doesnt need to be by legislation.
>>>>
>>>> So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after it had
>>>> built
>>>> its CDMA network?
>>>
>>> Nope - It was 'thrust' apon Telstra when they said they were shutting
>>> down
>>> the CDMA network from Jan 28.
>>
>> Which, I would assume, was after they built it?
>>
>
> Correct.
>
>> Hmmm? Pray tell?
>>
>> The Government seems to be treating Telstra as some sort of
>> telecommunications welfare agency. That was fine when it was
>> Government-owned, but now that it's been privatized they're effectively
>> asking Telstra shareholders to run a loss-making mobile phone
>
> Who said it was loss making? First I've ever heard of that.

It almost certainly would be. There's only a rump of customers left on it.
There'd be more profit in running and maintaining a single NextG network
than both a NextG and CDMA network (even with slightly greater overall
customers).

In any case, were it more profitable for Telstra to keep the CDMA network
running alongside NextG, they wouldn't be wanting to shut it down and rely
solely on NextG.

>> network for
>> regional Australia.
>
> Either that or are simultaneously protecting consumers and Telstra
> shareholders.
>
> Telstra claimed that the Next G reception was the same or better than CDMA.
> That turned out to be incorrect. If Telstra had gone ahead with the CDMA
> shutdown you would have had a large number of very pissed of customers, and
> Telstra could have faced massive fines under the TPA.
>
> The new conditions protect consumers as well as Telstra (though Telstra
> probably don't see it that way.......)

Assuming your scenario panned out, it's unlikely the fines would be
"massive". Telstra would receive a fine (the size of which is limited
under the TPA), be forced to undertake corrective advertising, and have to
offer refunds to the affected NextG customers.

But in any event, it's not the Government's job to "protect" businesses
(and pre-empt the decisions of the courts in imaginary lawsuits) by forcing
them to offer certain products against their will.

And your argument is also circular. The only reason Telstra is making the
claim about NextG-CDMA equality is BECAUSE the Government has attached this
equivalence condition to the licence.


>> These conditions would have been fine had the Government made them clear
>> BEFORE the CDMA network was built (or made them a condition for the
>> building of the Next G network), but it seems they weren't/didn't.
>
> Which is why the govt needs to get as far away from Telstra ownership as
> possible. As a shareholder and regulator of the industry, they have placed
> themselves in a no-win situation.

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that the Government wouldn't have
attached the CDMA-equivalence condition on the licence had it not been a
shareholder?

"Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12jxez978xukf$.h18x1bjz3yq$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:24:38 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>
>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3k8p8faqkn94.12fvexmrqb3e9.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:40:36 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> newsjlbsl4kjj3x.o4kdmnjd5cp6.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:34:45 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Simon Templar wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be
>>>>>>>> shut
>>>>>>>> down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
>>>>>>>> propaganda was wrong again!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> CDMA
>>>>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG
>>>>>>> network,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not
>>>>> NextG?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rod's fucked it all up.
>>>> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system' The
>>>> change
>>>> was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific for
>>>> CDMA.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3
>>>>
>>>> The licensee must continue to maintain the operation of its entire CDMA
>>>> network until the Minister notifies the licensee that the Minister is
>>>> satisfied that:
>>>> (a) the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or
>>>> better
>>>> than the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that was in
>>>> place
>>>> as at 1 June 2007; and
>>>>
>>>> (b) the Alternative Network provides retail services equivalent
>>>> to
>>>> or
>>>> better than those provided on or in connection with the licensee's
>>>> CDMA
>>>> network as at 1 June 2007.
>>>
>>> That looks pretty specific to CDMA to me?
>>>
>>
>> That section is. The overal license isn't.
>
> OK. I thought you meant "the change" wasn't CDMA-specific.

No - The change only specifically mentioned CDMA. It didn't even specify a
replacement technology (Next G, 3G etc.)

>
>>>>>>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later. That
>>>>>> doesnt need to be by legislation.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after it had
>>>>> built
>>>>> its CDMA network?
>>>>
>>>> Nope - It was 'thrust' apon Telstra when they said they were shutting
>>>> down
>>>> the CDMA network from Jan 28.
>>>
>>> Which, I would assume, was after they built it?
>>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> Hmmm? Pray tell?
>>>
>>> The Government seems to be treating Telstra as some sort of
>>> telecommunications welfare agency. That was fine when it was
>>> Government-owned, but now that it's been privatized they're effectively
>>> asking Telstra shareholders to run a loss-making mobile phone
>>
>> Who said it was loss making? First I've ever heard of that.
>
> It almost certainly would be. There's only a rump of customers left on
> it.
> There'd be more profit in running and maintaining a single NextG network
> than both a NextG and CDMA network (even with slightly greater overall
> customers).

Okay. I thought you were saying it was unprofitable *before* they started
'encouraging' people to move to Next G.

>
> In any case, were it more profitable for Telstra to keep the CDMA network
> running alongside NextG, they wouldn't be wanting to shut it down and rely
> solely on NextG.

There's also the little issue of having to wholesale CDMA. No such
requirement exist with Next-G. IMHO, that is the primary driver in shutting
down the CDMA network. Sol is not too keen on having his competitors being
able to hitch a ride on 'his' network.

>>> network for
>>> regional Australia.
>>
>> Either that or are simultaneously protecting consumers and Telstra
>> shareholders.
>>
>> Telstra claimed that the Next G reception was the same or better than
>> CDMA.
>> That turned out to be incorrect. If Telstra had gone ahead with the CDMA
>> shutdown you would have had a large number of very pissed of customers,
>> and
>> Telstra could have faced massive fines under the TPA.
>>
>> The new conditions protect consumers as well as Telstra (though Telstra
>> probably don't see it that way.......)
>
> Assuming your scenario panned out, it's unlikely the fines would be
> "massive". Telstra would receive a fine (the size of which is limited
> under the TPA), be forced to undertake corrective advertising, and have to
> offer refunds to the affected NextG customers.

Could there also be civil claims for loss of business etc.?

> But in any event, it's not the Government's job to "protect" businesses
> (and pre-empt the decisions of the courts in imaginary lawsuits) by
> forcing
> them to offer certain products against their will.

But it is their role, via their agencies, to protect consumers. It is also
their role to protect their own investments.

> And your argument is also circular. The only reason Telstra is making the
> claim about NextG-CDMA equality is BECAUSE the Government has attached
> this
> equivalence condition to the licence.

Not at all. Telstra were making these claims prior to the license change.

>>> These conditions would have been fine had the Government made them clear
>>> BEFORE the CDMA network was built (or made them a condition for the
>>> building of the Next G network), but it seems they weren't/didn't.
>>
>> Which is why the govt needs to get as far away from Telstra ownership as
>> possible. As a shareholder and regulator of the industry, they have
>> placed
>> themselves in a no-win situation.
>
> I don't follow. Are you suggesting that the Government wouldn't have
> attached the CDMA-equivalence condition on the licence had it not been a
> shareholder?

No. I'm making a more general statement about the apparent conflict of
interest that our government has in relation to Telstra.
As a regulator they are supposed to do everything in their power to ensure
fair competition in the market, but as a shareholder they have a vested
interest in seeing Telstra make as much money as possible.

In this case, the government put the condition in place because an election
was looming and they wanted to keep regional Australia on-side. (Fat lot of
good it did them......)

--
Kwyj.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Simon Templar wrote

>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network
>>>> would be shut down by the end of this month! Looks like
>>>> your copy and paste propaganda was wrong again!

>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to
>>> the CDMA network a condition of the original Government licence for
>>> the NextG network,

>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'

> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not NextG?

The NextG system operates under the cdma licence.

>>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?

>> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later.
>> That doesnt need to be by legislation.

> So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after it had built its CDMA network?

Yep. Because telstra unilaterally changed the detail of the network it was running under that licence.

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Simon Templar wrote

>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be
>>>>> shut down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and
>>>>> paste propaganda was wrong again!

>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the CDMA
>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG network,

>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'

>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not NextG?

> Rod's fucked it all up.

We'll see...

> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system' The change
was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific for CDMA.

How odd that the CDMA system is mentioned specificially.

No surprise that it has to run drugs.

http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3

> The licensee must continue to maintain the operation of its entire
> CDMA network until the Minister notifies the licensee that the
> Minister is satisfied that:
> (a) the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or
> better than the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that
> was in place as at 1 June 2007; and
>
> (b) the Alternative Network provides retail services equivalent
> to or better than those provided on or in connection with the
> licensee's CDMA network as at 1 June 2007.

>>>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?

>>> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later.
>>> That doesnt need to be by legislation.

>> So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after it had
>> built its CDMA network?

> Nope - It was 'thrust' apon Telstra when they said they were shutting
> down the CDMA network from Jan 28.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Kwyjibo wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Simon Templar wrote

>>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be
>>>>>> shut down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and
>>>>>> paste propaganda was wrong again!

>>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the CDMA
>>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG network,

>>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'

>>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not NextG?

>> Rod's fucked it all up.
>> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system' The change
>> was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific for CDMA.

http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3

>> The licensee must continue to maintain the operation of its entire
>> CDMA network until the Minister notifies the licensee that the
>> Minister is satisfied that:
>> (a) the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or
>> better than the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network
>> that was in place as at 1 June 2007; and

>> (b) the Alternative Network provides retail services
>> equivalent to or better than those provided on or in connection with
>> the licensee's CDMA network as at 1 June 2007.

> That looks pretty specific to CDMA to me?

Yeah, the clown was clearly completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.

>>>>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?

>>>> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later.
>>>> That doesnt need to be by legislation.

>>> So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after it had built its CDMA network?

>> Nope - It was 'thrust' apon Telstra when they said they
>> were shutting down the CDMA network from Jan 28.

> Which, I would assume, was after they built it?

Yep.

> Hmmm? Pray tell?

I'm more into preying than praying.

> The Government seems to be treating Telstra as
> some sort of telecommunications welfare agency.

Nope, just requiring telstra to deliver on its claim that the NextG system
would have as good or better coverage as the system it was replacing.

> That was fine when it was Government-owned, but now that it's
> been privatized they're effectively asking Telstra shareholders to
> run a loss-making mobile phone network for regional Australia.

Nope, just requiring telstra to deliver on its claim that the NextG system
would have as good or better coverage as the system it was replacing.

And it wouldnt have been loss making if telstra hadnt chosen to replace it with NextG.

> These conditions would have been fine had the Government made them
> clear BEFORE the CDMA network was built (or made them a condition
> for the building of the Next G network), but it seems they weren't/didn't.

The last thing we need is legal parasites nitpicking every govt action.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:24:38 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>
>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3k8p8faqkn94.12fvexmrqb3e9.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:40:36 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> newsjlbsl4kjj3x.o4kdmnjd5cp6.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:34:45 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Simon Templar wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would
>>>>>>>> be shut down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy
>>>>>>>> and paste propaganda was wrong again!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent"
>>>>>>> to the CDMA
>>>>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the
>>>>>>> NextG network,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system,
>>>>> but not NextG?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rod's fucked it all up.
>>>> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system'
>>>> The change
>>>> was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific
>>>> for CDMA.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3
>>>>
>>>> The licensee must continue to maintain the operation of its entire
>>>> CDMA network until the Minister notifies the licensee that the
>>>> Minister is satisfied that:
>>>> (a) the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to
>>>> or better
>>>> than the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that was
>>>> in place
>>>> as at 1 June 2007; and
>>>>
>>>> (b) the Alternative Network provides retail services
>>>> equivalent to or
>>>> better than those provided on or in connection with the
>>>> licensee's CDMA network as at 1 June 2007.
>>>
>>> That looks pretty specific to CDMA to me?
>>>
>>
>> That section is. The overal license isn't.
>
> OK. I thought you meant "the change" wasn't CDMA-specific.
>
>
>>>>>>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed later.
>>>>>> That doesnt need to be by legislation.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after it
>>>>> had built
>>>>> its CDMA network?
>>>>
>>>> Nope - It was 'thrust' apon Telstra when they said they were
>>>> shutting down
>>>> the CDMA network from Jan 28.
>>>
>>> Which, I would assume, was after they built it?
>>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> Hmmm? Pray tell?
>>>
>>> The Government seems to be treating Telstra as some sort of
>>> telecommunications welfare agency. That was fine when it was
>>> Government-owned, but now that it's been privatized they're
>>> effectively asking Telstra shareholders to run a loss-making mobile
>>> phone
>>
>> Who said it was loss making? First I've ever heard of that.
>
> It almost certainly would be. There's only a rump of customers left
> on it. There'd be more profit in running and maintaining a single
> NextG network than both a NextG and CDMA network (even with slightly
> greater overall customers).
>
> In any case, were it more profitable for Telstra to keep the CDMA
> network running alongside NextG, they wouldn't be wanting to shut it
> down and rely solely on NextG.
>
>>> network for
>>> regional Australia.
>>
>> Either that or are simultaneously protecting consumers and Telstra
>> shareholders.
>>
>> Telstra claimed that the Next G reception was the same or better
>> than CDMA. That turned out to be incorrect. If Telstra had gone
>> ahead with the CDMA shutdown you would have had a large number of
>> very pissed of customers, and Telstra could have faced massive fines
>> under the TPA.
>>
>> The new conditions protect consumers as well as Telstra (though
>> Telstra probably don't see it that way.......)
>
> Assuming your scenario panned out, it's unlikely the fines would be
> "massive". Telstra would receive a fine (the size of which is limited
> under the TPA), be forced to undertake corrective advertising, and
> have to offer refunds to the affected NextG customers.

> But in any event, it's not the Government's job to "protect"
> businesses (and pre-empt the decisions of the courts in imaginary
> lawsuits) by forcing them to offer certain products against their will.

Wrong when the govt can change the licence conditions
and prevent telstra from fucking over their cdma users.

The govt should be telling telstra that they cant turn the cdma system
off because none of the cdma customers were told that telstra was
going to turn the cdma system off when it flogged them a cdma service.

> And your argument is also circular.

Nope.

> The only reason Telstra is making the claim about NextG-CDMA equality is
> BECAUSE the Government has attached this equivalence condition to the licence.

Wrong. Telstra made that claim well before the licence conditions
were changed to ensure that telstra was held to that claim.

>>> These conditions would have been fine had the Government made them
>>> clear BEFORE the CDMA network was built (or made them a condition
>>> for the building of the Next G network), but it seems they weren't/didn't.

>> Which is why the govt needs to get as far away from Telstra
>> ownership as possible. As a shareholder and regulator of the
>> industry, they have placed themselves in a no-win situation.

> I don't follow. Are you suggesting that the Government wouldn't have
> attached the CDMA-equivalence condition on the licence had it not
> been a shareholder?

No, he's saying that the govt shouldnt own any of telstra because of the conflict that involves.

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:12jxez978xukf$.h18x1bjz3yq$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:24:38 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>>
>>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3k8p8faqkn94.12fvexmrqb3e9.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:40:36 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> newsjlbsl4kjj3x.o4kdmnjd5cp6.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:34:45 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Simon Templar wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would
>>>>>>>>> be shut
>>>>>>>>> down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
>>>>>>>>> propaganda was wrong again!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made
>>>>>>>> "equivalent" to the
>>>>>>>> CDMA
>>>>>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the
>>>>>>>> NextG network,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system,
>>>>>> but not NextG?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rod's fucked it all up.
>>>>> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system'
>>>>> The change
>>>>> was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific
>>>>> for CDMA.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3
>>>>>
>>>>> The licensee must continue to maintain the operation of its
>>>>> entire CDMA network until the Minister notifies the licensee that
>>>>> the Minister is satisfied that:
>>>>> (a) the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to
>>>>> or better
>>>>> than the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that
>>>>> was in place
>>>>> as at 1 June 2007; and
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) the Alternative Network provides retail services
>>>>> equivalent to
>>>>> or
>>>>> better than those provided on or in connection with the
>>>>> licensee's CDMA
>>>>> network as at 1 June 2007.
>>>>
>>>> That looks pretty specific to CDMA to me?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That section is. The overal license isn't.
>>
>> OK. I thought you meant "the change" wasn't CDMA-specific.
>
> No - The change only specifically mentioned CDMA. It didn't even
> specify a replacement technology (Next G, 3G etc.)
>
>>
>>>>>>>> or was it legislatively tacked-on later?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, the original licence for the cdma system was changed
>>>>>>> later. That doesnt need to be by legislation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this whole thing was unilaterally thrust upon Telstra after
>>>>>> it had built
>>>>>> its CDMA network?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope - It was 'thrust' apon Telstra when they said they were
>>>>> shutting down
>>>>> the CDMA network from Jan 28.
>>>>
>>>> Which, I would assume, was after they built it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>> Hmmm? Pray tell?
>>>>
>>>> The Government seems to be treating Telstra as some sort of
>>>> telecommunications welfare agency. That was fine when it was
>>>> Government-owned, but now that it's been privatized they're
>>>> effectively asking Telstra shareholders to run a loss-making
>>>> mobile phone
>>>
>>> Who said it was loss making? First I've ever heard of that.
>>
>> It almost certainly would be. There's only a rump of customers left
>> on it.
>> There'd be more profit in running and maintaining a single NextG
>> network than both a NextG and CDMA network (even with slightly
>> greater overall customers).
>
> Okay. I thought you were saying it was unprofitable *before* they
> started 'encouraging' people to move to Next G.
>
>>
>> In any case, were it more profitable for Telstra to keep the CDMA
>> network running alongside NextG, they wouldn't be wanting to shut it
>> down and rely solely on NextG.
>
> There's also the little issue of having to wholesale CDMA. No such
> requirement exist with Next-G. IMHO, that is the primary driver in
> shutting down the CDMA network. Sol is not too keen on having his
> competitors being able to hitch a ride on 'his' network.
>
>>>> network for
>>>> regional Australia.
>>>
>>> Either that or are simultaneously protecting consumers and Telstra
>>> shareholders.
>>>
>>> Telstra claimed that the Next G reception was the same or better
>>> than CDMA.
>>> That turned out to be incorrect. If Telstra had gone ahead with the
>>> CDMA shutdown you would have had a large number of very pissed of
>>> customers, and
>>> Telstra could have faced massive fines under the TPA.
>>>
>>> The new conditions protect consumers as well as Telstra (though
>>> Telstra probably don't see it that way.......)
>>
>> Assuming your scenario panned out, it's unlikely the fines would be
>> "massive". Telstra would receive a fine (the size of which is
>> limited under the TPA), be forced to undertake corrective
>> advertising, and have to offer refunds to the affected NextG
>> customers.
>
> Could there also be civil claims for loss of business etc.?
>
>> But in any event, it's not the Government's job to "protect"
>> businesses (and pre-empt the decisions of the courts in imaginary
>> lawsuits) by forcing
>> them to offer certain products against their will.
>
> But it is their role, via their agencies, to protect consumers. It is
> also their role to protect their own investments.
>
>> And your argument is also circular. The only reason Telstra is
>> making the claim about NextG-CDMA equality is BECAUSE the Government
>> has attached this
>> equivalence condition to the licence.
>
> Not at all. Telstra were making these claims prior to the license
> change.
>>>> These conditions would have been fine had the Government made them
>>>> clear BEFORE the CDMA network was built (or made them a condition
>>>> for the building of the Next G network), but it seems they
>>>> weren't/didn't.
>>>
>>> Which is why the govt needs to get as far away from Telstra
>>> ownership as possible. As a shareholder and regulator of the
>>> industry, they have placed
>>> themselves in a no-win situation.
>>
>> I don't follow. Are you suggesting that the Government wouldn't have
>> attached the CDMA-equivalence condition on the licence had it not
>> been a shareholder?
>
> No. I'm making a more general statement about the apparent conflict of
> interest that our government has in relation to Telstra.
> As a regulator they are supposed to do everything in their power to
> ensure fair competition in the market, but as a shareholder they have
> a vested interest in seeing Telstra make as much money as possible.

They clearly arent bothering to do that and there is no legal requirement that they do that either.

> In this case, the government put the condition in place because an
> election was looming and they wanted to keep regional Australia
> on-side. (Fat lot of good it did them......)

But it did work anyway. It put one hell of a bomb under telstra, just what it deserved.

If the legal parasites dont like that, stiff shit for them.

Rod Speed wrote:
> The govt should be telling telstra that they cant turn the cdma system
> off because none of the cdma customers were told that telstra was
> going to turn the cdma system off when it flogged them a cdma service.

I agree totally, but this has come about because the Government fucked
things right up by opening the Telecommunications Industry every fuck
wit that thinks they can run a network. This might work fine in Europe
where the population density is great and you can spit across two or
three borders, but forget it here in Australia.

Our situation is totally FUCKED because there are so many tin pot
networks out there that only want to set up in Capital Cities and don't
give a fuck about the rest of Australia.

The only way this can be rectified in my opinion is having ONE company
responsible infrastructure for Telecommunications, be it mobile,
landline or Broadband Internet. Then that ONE company NOT ever deal with
the public, but only the resellers.

I don't give a FUCK who that company was (or if the Government decided
to take it over again). That would be the only way in my opinion would
be to have effective nation wide coverage and the competition level
shifted to the resellers who would have to pay to maintain the
infrastructure.


--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.

Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> The govt should be telling telstra that they cant turn the cdma system off because none of the cdma customers were
>> told that telstra was going to turn the cdma system off when it flogged them a cdma service.

> I agree totally, but this has come about because the Government fucked things right up by opening the
> Telecommunications Industry every fuck wit that thinks they can run a network.

Nope, even you should have noticed that telstra is the old telecom monopoly.

> This might work fine in Europe where the population density is great and you can spit across two or three borders, but
> forget it here in Australia.

No thanks, its what has produced one of the better mobile systems
here with 4 very decent networks and a few other minor players as well.

> Our situation is totally FUCKED

You wouldnt know what a totally fucked system was if it bit you on your lard arse.

> because there are so many tin pot networks out there that only want to set up in Capital Cities and don't give a fuck
> about the rest of Australia.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use any of those.

If someone is, call the cops.

> The only way this can be rectified in my opinion is having ONE company responsible infrastructure for
> Telecommunications, be it mobile, landline or Broadband Internet.

No thanks, thats what we used to have and the current system leaves it for dead.

And not one country in the entire world is actually stupid enough to do it that way anymore.

The world's moved on, and fools like you get to like it or lump it.

> Then that ONE company NOT ever deal with the public, but only the resellers.

Then there would be no incentive for that operation to keep enhancing
the network, because there is no where else for the resellers to go.

Thats the last thing we need with a fast moving industry like telecoms.

> I don't give a FUCK who that company was (or if the Government decided to take it over again).

Even the stupid labor party aint actually THAT stupid.

> That would be the only way in my opinion would be to have effective nation wide coverage

Wouldnt produce that and we didnt have that when we did have that system.

> and the competition level shifted to the resellers who would have to pay to maintain the infrastructure.

Pity that the operation running that infrastructure would have no incentive to keep
improving the infrastructure when there is nowhere else for the resellers to go.

And there isnt a single country in the entire world actually stupid enough to go that route.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5vf21dF1masroU1@mid.individual.net...
> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Simon Templar wrote
>
>>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be
>>>>>> shut down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and
>>>>>> paste propaganda was wrong again!
>
>>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the
>>>>> CDMA
>>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG
>>>>> network,
>
>>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'
>
>>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not
>>> NextG?
>
>> Rod's fucked it all up.
>
> We'll see...

We certainly will.

>
>> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system' The
>> change
> was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific for CDMA.
>
> How odd that the CDMA system is mentioned specificially.

How odd that the carrier license it amends also mentions other technologies.
i.e. Is not specific to CDMA.

> No surprise that it has to run drugs.

No surprise it has to take drugs.


--
Kwyj.

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Simon Templar wrote

>>>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be shut down by the end of this month! Looks like
>>>>>>> your copy and paste propaganda was wrong again!

>>>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to the CDMA
>>>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG network,

>>>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'

>>>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not NextG?

>>> Rod's fucked it all up.

>> We'll see...

> We certainly will.

Yep, we certainly did, you blow both feet right off, as always.

>>> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system' The change was made to the Carrier License
>>> Conditions and are not specific for CDMA.

>> How odd that the CDMA system is mentioned specificially.

> How odd that the carrier license it amends also mentions other technologies. i.e. Is not specific to CDMA.

Corse the shutdown time of the cdma system was, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

No surprise that it has to run drugs.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5vfns6F1m6eq1U1@mid.individual.net...
> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Simon Templar wrote
>
>>>>>>>> What's happened Parkington? You said the CDMA network would be
>>>>>>>> shut down by the end of this month! Looks like your copy and paste
>>>>>>>> propaganda was wrong again!
>
>>>>>>> Was the requirement that the NextG network be made "equivalent" to
>>>>>>> the CDMA
>>>>>>> network a condition of the original Government licence for the NextG
>>>>>>> network,
>
>>>>>> There was no 'original Government licence for the NextG network'
>
>>>>> Eh? A government licence was required to run the CDMA system, but not
>>>>> NextG?
>
>>>> Rod's fucked it all up.
>
>>> We'll see...
>
>> We certainly will.
>
> Yep, we certainly did, you blow both feet right off, as always.
>
>>>> There was no change to an 'original license for the CDMA system' The
>>>> change was made to the Carrier License Conditions and are not specific
>>>> for CDMA.
>
>>> How odd that the CDMA system is mentioned specificially.
>
>> How odd that the carrier license it amends also mentions other
>> technologies. i.e. Is not specific to CDMA.
>
> Corse the shutdown time of the cdma system was, you pathetic excuse for a
> lying bullshit artist.

And? You were talking about the license as a whole, not the amendment
fuckwit.
Even the amendment mentioned other technologies, so that blows your pathetic
attempt to squirm out of trouble right out of the water.

> No surprise that it has to run drugs.

No surprise it has to take drugs.

--
Kwyj.

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>>> Horry <