Attorney-General slaps Telstra with unnecessary CDMA licence condition

Less than 24 hours after being asked to consider the situation,
Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, yesterday imposed a carrier license
condition that could prevent Telstra from switching off the CDMA mobile
telephone network on 28 January 2008.

If the Attorney-General had taken the time to consider the issue properly he
would have understood that the licence condition is an unnecessary waste of
everyone's time and energy.

Telstra has the Next G handsets and equipment and is confident the network
will have the same or better coverage than the old CDMA network by
mid-October, and remains on track with plans to switch off the CDMA network
on 28 January 2008. Customers are being encouraged not to delay their
migration to Next G to the last minute.

Ahead of a tough election contest, the Government is choosing to put
politics ahead of good policy. Telstra will be looking at its legal options.

Minister Coonan only stepped aside from making this decision for one
reason - it was obvious that she had prejudged the matter and it would never
have stood up in court. Now she has achieved the same outcome through
political games, but in the process left the Attorney-General vulnerable to
potential legal action.

Alan Parkington <aparkington@team.telstra.com> wrote:

> Less than 24 hours after being asked to consider the situation,
> Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, yesterday imposed a carrier license condition that could prevent Telstra from
> switching off the CDMA mobile telephone network on 28 January 2008.

Great, he should have shafted telstra even more comprehensively
by preventing them from shutting down the cdma system at all,
ever, because it makes absolutely no sense that telstra should
be allowed to shut it down while ever some are happy with
their cdma service and forcing them to buy new handsets etc.

> If the Attorney-General had taken the time to consider the issue
> properly he would have understood that the licence condition is an unnecessary waste of everyone's time and energy.

If its actually unnecessary, what are you howling about, fuckwits ?

> Telstra has the Next G handsets and equipment and is confident the network will have the same or better coverage than
> the old CDMA network by mid-October,

If that is so, and you arent lying, what are you howling about, fuckwits ?

> and remains on track with plans to switch off the CDMA network on 28 January 2008.

That track has just been ripped up by the govt, fuckwit.

> Customers are being encouraged not to delay their migration to Next G to the last minute.

And they arent going to buy that mindless bullshit, you watch.

> Ahead of a tough election contest, the Government is choosing to put politics ahead of good policy.

Thats what you get when you try a stoush with
the govt that you cant possibly win, fuckwits.

> Telstra will be looking at its legal options.

We can tell you that now, zero, nada, ziltch, you've got fucking buckleys, fuckwits.

> Minister Coonan only stepped aside from making this decision for one reason - it was obvious that she had prejudged
> the matter and it would never have stood up in court.

Or she has enough of a clue to realise that it makes sense to shaft
you fuckwit clowns very comprehensively indeed and to make sure
that no court can possibly have any grounds to interfere with it, fuckwits.

> Now she has achieved the same outcome through political games, but in the process left the Attorney-General vulnerable
> to potential legal action.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.

What he's done is perfectly legal, as you fuckwits clowns are about to find out.

Alan Parkington wrote:
> Less than 24 hours after being asked to consider the situation,
> Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, yesterday imposed a carrier license
> condition that could prevent Telstra from switching off the CDMA mobile
> telephone network on 28 January 2008.

What amuses me about Telstra's response to this situation is that if it
actually is an unncessary condition because the Next G coverage will
definately match or exceed existing coverage of the CDMA network,
they're arguing a moot point anyway.

The only reason they could possibly want such a carrier restriction
removed is that they themselves don't believe that they'll be able to
match the coverage in time.