G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous

Legal battleground
The G9 proposal relies on the Government confiscating Telstra's copper
network, and then forcing Telstra to pay G9 to connect to it.

This ACCC sponsored confiscation of assets on such a scale will inevitably
get bogged down in constitutional litigation for several years including
multi-billion dollar claims for compensation by Telstra on behalf of its 1.6
million shareholders.

Shareholders who had bought shares in T3 will also bring multi-billion
dollar class actions against the Government in relation to the assurances
and representations in the T3 prospectus to the effect that the
telecommunications regulatory regime is considered settled and appropriate
by the Government.

Customers who had chosen Telstra as their network provider are likely to
bring significant compensation claims against G9 and the Government in
relation to the inevitable service disruptions.

G9's proposal also relies on the Government agreeing to provide it with a
legislated monopoly for 20 years - this is a gross distortion of the
National Competition Policy which successive Commonwealth Governments have
supported and pursued for over 15 years.

This Government sponsored confiscation of private assets would also
significantly alter the international investment community's perception of
"sovereign risk" with investments in Australia. Such confiscation would put
Australia into the same risk category as quasi-dictatorships around the
world and would result in the diversion of significant offshore investment
away from Australia. This will detrimentally affect the national economy,
Australian business and all Australians.

The Chairman of the ACCC effectively becomes a shadow director - who
resolves disputes between the network owners and the manager, decides how to
adjust prices, etc if an "Unanticipated Event" occurs. The ACCC also decides
concepts like what is "Commercially Prudent". Clearly this is a conflict of
interest, and unprecedented interference by regulators.

The main players in G9 including SingTel Optus, Primus and financier
Investec are all foreign owned and controlled entities who collectively will
end up with majority ownership and control of Telstra's network. This would
breach current effective foreign ownership limits on such Australian assets
and, given the controlling interest of the Singapore Government in SingTel
Optus, would also pose serious national security concerns for Australia.

G9 would also involve complex legal joint venture structures between an
unmanageable number of parties. Historically, legal structures with this
number of parties either collapse under the weight of infighting or stagnate
in perpetual indecision.

Financially fails to add up
G9's costings are flawed and their prices are simply unbelievable.

Maintenance of the copper network is clearly costed far too low at $50m per
year. How do the G9 plan to refresh and upgrade the network?

No "National asset"
G9 propose a "20 year life of investment" - in 20 years time we would still
be stuck with ADSL2+ speeds of only 12Mbps to 20Mbps. We project speeds
required in 20 years time will be at least five times that: 100Mbps to 1Gbps
per household.

G9's proposal demands a 20 year statutory monopoly to prevent other carriers
from building competing broadband networks, so there's no encouragement for
innovation, competition, or new investment.

Other countries are already deploying fibre networks with speeds of up to
100Mbps. G9's proposal would relegate Australia to a 20Mbps cul-de sac, and
Australia will be left behind as overseas competitors work even smarter and
faster.

G9's proposal spells disaster for rural Australians.

Telstra's metropolitan lines currently cross-subsidise the rural network by
hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
This allows regional and rural people to have access to telecommunications
services on the same terms as city people, despite actual costs being
massively greater.
Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply be
left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?

The Facts: Telstra’s Myths Exposed

Telstra Myth1

The Government is stifling broadband investment. If government and
regulators don't allow the next wave of Internet investment, Australia
will be left behind ... as our global competitors work even smarter and
faster.

The Facts

Government policy is not preventing Telstra from investing. No
government policies prevent Telstra from investing, it has chosen not to
invest because it wants the rules to change. The ACCC believes this is
so it can earn inflated profits2. Telstra continues to keep secret the
price it wants to charge others to use its proposed FTTN network. This
is where it can’t reach agreement with the ACCC. Instead, it talks about
the speeds the network would deliver and the size of the investment, but
nothing about the impact on users. What good is a network that no one
can afford to use?

Nations that are leading the world in broadband have promoted
competition - not subsidised their old telecommunications companies3.
Nowhere else in the world has one telecommunications company been
allowed to retain and exert so much power in so many markets4. Around
the world in the last three years, incumbent telecommunications
companies have separated their network businesses from their retail
businesses – voluntarily or by regulatory order – to prevent these
problems occurring. The trade off for them has been the promise of
reduced regulation if the restructuring works. The UK and Sweden are
examples of this. The idea that giving Telstra yet further advantages
and expecting it to invest in broadband flies in the face of the lessons
from the most successful broadband countries5.

Competition fosters investment, innovation and better prices in
Australia. Many of the innovations in the sector in the last four years
were sparked by competitors6. E.g. competitors introduced dial-up
Internet, 3G mobile services, capped mobile price plans, high-speed
ADSL2+ broadband, and capped broadband plans. Telstra followed, it did
not lead innovation.

Telstra Myth7

Instead of subsidising foreign telcos at Telstra's expense, government
and regulators should give Telstra a fair go so it can invest in the
broadband infrastructure needed to provide high-level services.

The Facts

Foreign companies are not getting a free ride. Competitors pay for
access to Telstra’s networks typically at a cost that is high by global
standards. The cost of access is calculated using a formula that
includes all Telstra legitimate costs – including a contribution toward
overheads such as executive salaries. It is the same formula Telstra
demands applies in New Zealand, where it needs access to the incumbent’s
monopoly network. For example, Telstra recently complained about the
ACCC decision that the fair price for the service called the Line
Sharing Service (LSS) is $2.50 per month, not the $9 Telstra has been
charging. The ACCC found Telstra was charging consumers twice for the
same costs, once in their line rental and again as part of the LSS
rental8. Line rental has increased by 134 per cent from $11.65 to $27.23
since 20009. Currently Telstra charges its competitors more to rent its
lines at wholesale than it sells it to retail consumers. Before
competitors even enter the market, their costs are higher than what
Telstra is charging consumers i.e. an anti-competitive price squeeze.

Other companies invest in Australia’s infrastructure, not just Telstra.
Other carriers have invested in the necessary broadband infrastructure
to deliver up to 20 megabits per second to customers, and have turned on
that equipment. The Group of Nine (G9) carriers have a proposal for a
nation wide network upgrade that would allow even more people to access
these speeds. Telstra has turned down repeated invitations to join these
discussions and exerted its significant power to prevent the investment
going ahead.

The poor state of broadband is not everyone else’s fault. Customers of
other carriers have been able to access speeds of up to 20 megabits per
second since 2004. Telstra has begun offering faster speeds in only the
past four months. But it still only offers those speeds to Australians
living in neighbourhoods where other carriers have already invested in
the equipment to deliver true broadband. It continues to neglect other
Australians. For example, Internode has delivered wireless broadband in
large areas of South Australia when Telstra will only supply a phone
line at best and no service at worst. Internode and iiNet pioneered the
introduction of ADSL2+ and Telstra has only entered markets where there
were competitors present.10

Telstra Myth11

The government and regulators should create a level playing field for
all and get rid of the regulations that only apply to Telstra and stifle
investment in broadband infrastructure.

The Facts

Regulation does not pick on Telstra unfairly the same regulations
(rules) apply to every company. The Parts of the Trade Practices Act
Telstra wants removed apply to all telecommunications carriers. Any
organisation that has a bottleneck or monopoly is subject to these laws.
Mobile carriers such as Hutchison, Optus and Vodafone, for example, have
some mobile access service prices regulated under the same laws. Telstra
is the company most affected because it has market power in more
markets. This is because it was gifted the national telecommunications
network that was built over many decades with the benefit of express
protections from competition. Hypocritically, Telstra (via TelstraClear)
advocates the need for stronger regulation in New Zealand where it seeks
to use Telecom NZ monopoly network elements12. It argues that NZ should
use the same method as Australia does to calculate regulated prices and
that the regulator should choose the lowest prices possible.

Telstra Myth13

The savings of 1.6 million mum and dad Australian shareholders are
subject to unreasonable regulatory risk and shareholder returns are
being siphoned off to foreign-owned companies by the policies and
practices of the Australian regulator.

The Facts

Telstra shareholders are not unfairly disadvantaged. Telstra remains one
of the most profitable telecommunications companies in the developed
world.14 It dominates almost every communications market in which it
operates in Australia and receives annual subsidies from its
competitors, even if those competitors are running at a loss. It has
also received significant subsidies since 1997 and continues to demand
more profit, more subsidies and less regulatory supervision.

The ACCC is not a rogue regulator. The ACCC applies the rules as defined
in the Trade Practices Act. Telstra’s own long-time economics
consultant, Prof. Henry Ergas, has argued in Canada that this is a model
of light handed regulation.15 Telstra has repeatedly been the subject of
anti-competitive conduct action by the ACCC because it has been accused
of overcharging competitors for access to the monopoly elements of its
network. Telstra now wants these powers taken away from the ACCC but
refuses to restructure itself to prevent the unfair conduct.

Telstra Myth16

Only Telstra has the proven size, vision, leadership, commitment and
capability to deliver the next generation of broadband across Australia.
It will cost billions of dollars to build Australia’s national broadband
infrastructure. Only Telstra can make this investment, just as it has
always built the networks Australians rely upon.

The Facts

Telstra is not the only company that can fix broadband in Australia.
Numerous carriers have proven that they can deliver broadband in areas
where Telstra could or would not. With regard to national broadband
Fixed Fibre to the Node (FTTN) Infrastructure, the G9 has put forward
alternative solutions and are not seeking the same dilution of
regulation in return. This group has invited Telstra to participate in a
joint investment with the rest of the industry -TELSTRA HAS REFUSED.


Footnotes

[1]Telstra, Now We Are Talking website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/
[2]Graeme Samuel, ACCC Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Economics,
15 February 2007
[3]Jacob Marsden Assoc, Broadband Adoption and Strategies December 2006
[4]ACCC Emerging Markets in the Communication Sector Report, June 2003
[5]Jacob Marsden Assoc, Broadband Adoption and Strategies December 2006
[6]Backgrounder: Competition Fosters Innovation & better prices
[7]Telstra, Now We Are Talking website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au
[8]ACCC Discussion Papers - TSLRIC
[9]Graeme Samuel, ACCC Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Economics,
15 February 2007
[10]Backgrounder: Competition Fosters Innovation & Better Prices
[11]Telstra, Now We Are Talking website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/
[12]TelstraClear Submission to the New Zealand Competition Commission
May 26, 2005.
[13]Telstra, Now We Are Talking website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/
[14]Company data, Goldman Sachs Research Estimates, GSJBW Research
Estimates, Bloomberg
[15]Henry Ergas & Leonard Waverman, Would Canada Benefit from
Australia-Style Regulations?
[16]Telstra, Now We Are Talking website: http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:28:58 GMT, "James Bell" <jamesbell@telstra.net> wrote:

>Legal battleground
(snip crapola about telstra-instigated trouble and strife if they don't get
their way and aren't allowed to take the ball and go home)

Then the solution is simple - Telstra get off their high horse, stop whining,
and agree with the ACCC on wholesale access to Telstra's proposed network.

"James Bell" <jamesbell@telstra.net> wrote in message
news:K18di.15151$wH4.12780@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Legal battleground
> The G9 proposal relies on the Government confiscating Telstra's copper
> network, and then forcing Telstra to pay G9 to connect to it.
>

Sweet. About time too.

And a reduction in our share price, like what alaways happens when telstra
is in court. You can tell Telstra is run by seppos. "We don't like what our
competition/ACCC is doing. Let's sue 'em". Get fucked James

"James Bell" <jamesbell@telstra.net> wrote in message
news:K18di.15151$wH4.12780@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Legal battleground
> The G9 proposal relies on the Government confiscating Telstra's copper
> network, and then forcing Telstra to pay G9 to connect to it.
>
> This ACCC sponsored confiscation of assets on such a scale will inevitably
> get bogged down in constitutional litigation for several years including
> multi-billion dollar claims for compensation by Telstra on behalf of its
> 1.6 million shareholders.
>
> Shareholders who had bought shares in T3 will also bring multi-billion
> dollar class actions against the Government in relation to the assurances
> and representations in the T3 prospectus to the effect that the
> telecommunications regulatory regime is considered settled and appropriate
> by the Government.
>
> Customers who had chosen Telstra as their network provider are likely to
> bring significant compensation claims against G9 and the Government in
> relation to the inevitable service disruptions.
>
> G9's proposal also relies on the Government agreeing to provide it with a
> legislated monopoly for 20 years - this is a gross distortion of the
> National Competition Policy which successive Commonwealth Governments have
> supported and pursued for over 15 years.
>
> This Government sponsored confiscation of private assets would also
> significantly alter the international investment community's perception of
> "sovereign risk" with investments in Australia. Such confiscation would
> put Australia into the same risk category as quasi-dictatorships around
> the world and would result in the diversion of significant offshore
> investment away from Australia. This will detrimentally affect the
> national economy, Australian business and all Australians.
>
> The Chairman of the ACCC effectively becomes a shadow director - who
> resolves disputes between the network owners and the manager, decides how
> to adjust prices, etc if an "Unanticipated Event" occurs. The ACCC also
> decides concepts like what is "Commercially Prudent". Clearly this is a
> conflict of interest, and unprecedented interference by regulators.
>
> The main players in G9 including SingTel Optus, Primus and financier
> Investec are all foreign owned and controlled entities who collectively
> will end up with majority ownership and control of Telstra's network. This
> would breach current effective foreign ownership limits on such Australian
> assets and, given the controlling interest of the Singapore Government in
> SingTel Optus, would also pose serious national security concerns for
> Australia.
>
> G9 would also involve complex legal joint venture structures between an
> unmanageable number of parties. Historically, legal structures with this
> number of parties either collapse under the weight of infighting or
> stagnate in perpetual indecision.
>
> Financially fails to add up
> G9's costings are flawed and their prices are simply unbelievable.
>
> Maintenance of the copper network is clearly costed far too low at $50m
> per year. How do the G9 plan to refresh and upgrade the network?
>
> No "National asset"
> G9 propose a "20 year life of investment" - in 20 years time we would
> still be stuck with ADSL2+ speeds of only 12Mbps to 20Mbps. We project
> speeds required in 20 years time will be at least five times that: 100Mbps
> to 1Gbps per household.
>
> G9's proposal demands a 20 year statutory monopoly to prevent other
> carriers from building competing broadband networks, so there's no
> encouragement for innovation, competition, or new investment.
>
> Other countries are already deploying fibre networks with speeds of up to
> 100Mbps. G9's proposal would relegate Australia to a 20Mbps cul-de sac,
> and Australia will be left behind as overseas competitors work even
> smarter and faster.
>
> G9's proposal spells disaster for rural Australians.
>
> Telstra's metropolitan lines currently cross-subsidise the rural network
> by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
> This allows regional and rural people to have access to telecommunications
> services on the same terms as city people, despite actual costs being
> massively greater.
> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply be
> left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?
>
>
>

> G9's proposal also relies on the Government agreeing to provide it with a
> legislated monopoly for 20 years - this is a gross distortion of the
> National Competition Policy which successive Commonwealth Governments have
> supported and pursued for over 15 years.

Crap! Telstra/Telecom/PMG had the monopoly since year dot. Now that they
don't, they put up a screaming match.

> This Government sponsored confiscation of private assets would also
> significantly alter the international investment community's perception of
> "sovereign risk" with investments in Australia. Such confiscation would
> put Australia into the same risk category as quasi-dictatorships around
> the world and would result in the diversion of significant offshore
> investment away from Australia. This will detrimentally affect the
> national economy, Australian business and all Australians.

These 'assets' have already been confiscated from the population by the
govmt so they could sell them off. What else is new?

> G9 propose a "20 year life of investment" - in 20 years time we would
> still be stuck with ADSL2+ speeds of only 12Mbps to 20Mbps. We project
> speeds required in 20 years time will be at least five times that: 100Mbps
> to 1Gbps per household.

Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I
remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt
budge from that high speed even though everyone was screaming for better
speeds.

>
> G9's proposal demands a 20 year statutory monopoly to prevent other
> carriers from building competing broadband networks, so there's no
> encouragement for innovation, competition, or new investment.
>
> Other countries are already deploying fibre networks with speeds of up to
> 100Mbps. G9's proposal would relegate Australia to a 20Mbps cul-de sac,
> and Australia will be left behind as overseas competitors work even
> smarter and faster.
>
> G9's proposal spells disaster for rural Australians.
>
> Telstra's metropolitan lines currently cross-subsidise the rural network
> by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
> This allows regional and rural people to have access to telecommunications
> services on the same terms as city people, despite actual costs being
> massively greater.
> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply be
> left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?
>
>
>
>

> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I
> remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt

No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.

>> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply
>> be left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?

Hopefully.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I
>> remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt
>
> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.

I made the claim, which is fact, I was involved in the field at the time.
Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.


>>> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services simply
>>> be left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?
>
> Hopefully.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote
> Michael J <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote

>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they said
>>> that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt

>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.

> I made the claim, which is fact,

That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.

> I was involved in the field at the time.

And even then never had a fucking clue.

> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.

He is right, no such claim was ever made.

>>>> Under G9's proposal, the subsidy disappears. Will rural services
>>>> simply be left to decay? If not, who will pick up the tab?

>> Hopefully.

>
>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I
>>>> remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they
>>>> wouldnt
>
>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.
>
>> I made the claim, which is fact,
>
> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.
>
>> I was involved in the field at the time.
>
> And even then never had a fucking clue.
>
>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.
>
> He is right, no such claim was ever made.

I must be wrong, Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time
and he wasn't.

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote

>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed
>>>>> goes. I remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient,
>>>>> and they wouldnt

>>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.

>>> I made the claim, which is fact,

>> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.

>>> I was involved in the field at the time.

>> And even then never had a fucking clue.

>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.

>> He is right, no such claim was ever made.

> I must be wrong,

As always.

> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time

Pity about your ear to ear dog shit.

> and he wasn't.

Wrong, as always.

>
>>> And even then never had a fucking clue.
>
>>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.
>
>>> He is right, no such claim was ever made.
>
>> I must be wrong,
>
> As always.
>
>> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time
>
> Pity about your ear to ear dog shit.
>
>> and he wasn't.
>
> Wrong, as always.

Oh, where were you sitting that day, I must have missed you.

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they
>>>>>>> said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even
>>>>>>> though everyone was screaming for better speeds.

>>>>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.

>>>>> I made the claim, which is fact,

>>>> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.

>>>>> I was involved in the field at the time.

>>>> And even then never had a fucking clue.

>>>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.

>>>> He is right, no such claim was ever made.

>>> I must be wrong,

>> As always.

>>> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time

>> Pity about your ear to ear dog shit.

>>> and he wasn't.

>> Wrong, as always.

> Oh, where were you sitting that day, I must have missed you.

You wouldnt even know what I look like, fuckwit.

And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.

It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed hallucinations.

>>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed
>>>>>>>> goes. I remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient,
>>>>>>>> and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even though everyone
>>>>>>>> was screaming for better speeds.
>
>>>>>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.
>
>>>>>> I made the claim, which is fact,
>
>>>>> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.
>
>>>>>> I was involved in the field at the time.
>
>>>>> And even then never had a fucking clue.
>
>>>>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.
>
>>>>> He is right, no such claim was ever made.
>
>>>> I must be wrong,
>
>>> As always.
>
>>>> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time
>
>>> Pity about your ear to ear dog shit.
>
>>>> and he wasn't.
>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>> Oh, where were you sitting that day, I must have missed you.
>
> You wouldnt even know what I look like, fuckwit.

So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name?

> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.

False!

> It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed
> hallucinations.
As always, you have that knack of personally endearing yourself to everyone
you come into contact with.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> Thou impertinent putified core. Thou
pimply most poor credulous monster. Ye honked:

> Pity about your ear to ear dog shit.

G'day, Wodleypoo. You gonna come out and play word fights with me yet, you
fucking chicken-shit coward?

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
AUK psychos and felons Lits
#2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

Jij klootzakkende tering sneeuwman-met-je-droge-lever.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e00lbF37711bU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>

Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote

>>>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they
>>>>>>>>> said that 75bpm was quite
>>>>>>>>> sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even
>>>>>>>>> though everyone was screaming for better speeds.

>>>>>>>> No such claim was ever made, just another one of your lies.

>>>>>>> I made the claim, which is fact,

>>>>>> That 75bpm max was never anything like fact.

>>>>>>> I was involved in the field at the time.

>>>>>> And even then never had a fucking clue.

>>>>>>> Maybe get your facts right before you start your stupid accusations.

>>>>>> He is right, no such claim was ever made.

>>>>> I must be wrong,

>>>> As always.

>>>>> Rod just told me I was, even though I was there at the time

>>>> Pity about your ear to ear dog shit.

>>>>> and he wasn't.

>>>> Wrong, as always.

>>> Oh, where were you sitting that day, I must have missed you.

>> You wouldnt even know what I look like, fuckwit.

> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name?

Nope.

>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.

> False!

Name the product. You cant, no such animal.

>> It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed hallucinations.

> As always, you have that knack of personally endearing yourself to everyone you come into contact
> with.

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

thegoons <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Two Blob wrote

>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they said
>>> that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even though
>>> everyone was screaming for better speeds.

>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.

> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.

That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do.

And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway.

That silly old fart has never ever had a fucking clue, and thats obviously
why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door.

"thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:467beaac$0$12513$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e00lbF37711bU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>>
>
> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.

That was 1200/75 UP, you dick
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

>> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name?
>
> Nope.
>
>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>
>> False!
>
> Name the product. You cant, no such animal.

Name the brand and model number of the TV you had 30 odd years ago.


>>> It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed
>>> hallucinations.
>
>> As always, you have that knack of personally endearing yourself to
>> everyone you come into contact with.
>
> Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>

>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I
>>>> remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they
>>>> wouldnt budge from that high speed even though everyone was screaming
>>>> for better speeds.
>
>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>
>> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.

Actually that was 1200/75

> That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do.
Yes with a faster modem it could go a heap faster, but telecom didnt have
the foresight to support the higher speeds.
>
> And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway.
>
> That silly old fart has never ever had a fucking clue, and thats obviously
> why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door.

Other way around, I couldnt get out of there quick enough. I was dying of
bordom and lack of a decent wage. I went to a company who paid 3 times as
much and give you something to do when a contract was filled. In telecom if
we had a 4 month contract and we filled it in 4 weeks we had to sit on our
arse until the 4 months were over.

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>>> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name?

>> Nope.

>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.

>>> False!

>> Name the product. You cant, no such animal.

> Name the brand and model number of the TV you had 30 odd years ago.

Trivial to name the PRODUCT, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Black and White Pal TV.

>>>> It was always just another of your pathetic little drug crazed hallucinations.

>>> As always, you have that knack of personally endearing yourself to everyone you come into
>>> contact with.

>> Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed
>>>>> goes. I remember when they said that 75bpm was quite sufficient,
>>>>> and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even though everyone
>>>>> was screaming for better speeds.

>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.

>>> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.

> Actually that was 1200/75

Nothing like your original pathetic excuse for bullshit and at that time they also
offered faster than that, for a higher prices, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

>> That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do.

> Yes with a faster modem it could go a heap faster, but telecom didnt have the foresight to support
> the higher speeds.

Pig ignorant lie. You were welcome to pay for
a faster service if you wanted one, and we did.

>> And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway.

>> That silly old fart has never ever had a fucking clue, and thats
>> obviously why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door.

> Other way around, I couldnt get out of there quick enough. I was
> dying of bordom and lack of a decent wage. I went to a company who
> paid 3 times as much and give you something to do when a contract was filled. In telecom if we had
> a 4 month contract and we filled it in 4 weeks we had to sit on our arse until the 4 months were
> over.

You were clearly so stupid that you didnt even notice that you could
have faster than 1200/75 if you wanted it, and that that aint 75bpm anyway.

Michael J <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:467beaac$0$12513$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
>>
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5e00lbF37711bU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.
>
> That was 1200/75 UP, you dick

And aint 75bpm either.

"Two Bob" <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:467d0c80$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>>> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>>
>>> False!
>>
>> Name the product. You cant, no such animal.
>
> Name the brand and model number of the TV you had 30 odd years ago.

YOU are making the claim, YOU get to prove it. THATS how it works.

>>>> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>>>
>>>> False!
>>>
>>> Name the product. You cant, no such animal.
>>
>> Name the brand and model number of the TV you had 30 odd years ago.
>
> YOU are making the claim, YOU get to prove it. THATS how it works.

If you used to work where a few ppl say, you will be able to back me up,
instead of critisising. Unlike our mate Rod, I havent worked in every single
field of telecommunications, but this is one I HAVE worked in.

>
>>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>
>>>> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.
>
>> Actually that was 1200/75
>
> Nothing like your original pathetic excuse for bullshit and at that time
> they also
> offered faster than that, for a higher prices, you pathetic excuse for a
> bullshit artist.

As I have said in the past, comprehension is lacking with a few ppl around
here. My above speed comment (1200/75) was in relation to Viatel. My
original claim was nearly 20 years before that, when modems were the size of
suitcases and had half a dozen cards in them. Do you remember those days?? I
do, cause I attended one of the first schools in modems. Oh, thats right,
you were sitting at the back of the class using a false name. After all,
someone said you were with the PMG for 40 years )

>>> That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do.
>
>> Yes with a faster modem it could go a heap faster, but telecom didnt have
>> the foresight to support the higher speeds.
>
> Pig ignorant lie. You were welcome to pay for
> a faster service if you wanted one, and we did.
>
>>> And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway.
>
>>> That silly old fart has never ever had a fucking clue, and thats
>>> obviously why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door.
>
>> Other way around, I couldnt get out of there quick enough. I was
>> dying of bordom and lack of a decent wage. I went to a company who
>> paid 3 times as much and give you something to do when a contract was
>> filled. In telecom if we had a 4 month contract and we filled it in 4
>> weeks we had to sit on our arse until the 4 months were over.
>
> You were clearly so stupid that you didnt even notice that you could
> have faster than 1200/75 if you wanted it, and that that aint 75bpm
> anyway.
>

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> So, you are now saying that Rod Speed isn't your true name?
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> False!
>>>>
>>>> Name the product. You cant, no such animal.
>>>
>>> Name the brand and model number of the TV you had 30 odd years ago.
>>
>> YOU are making the claim, YOU get to prove it. THATS how it works.

> If you used to work where a few ppl say, you will be able to back me up, instead of critisising.
> Unlike our mate Rod, I havent worked in every single field of telecommunications, but this is one
> I HAVE worked in.

Didnt help you to grasp that it wasnt at 75bpm. Just another pig ignorant
clown that never did manage to get even the most basic stuff right.

I had one of you clowns show up to replace a modem leased from Telecom
who proclaimed that the replacement wasnt compatible when he held the
RS232 connector upside down and couldnt plug it into the modem.

Two Bob <dept9@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>>>>>>> Telstra/Telecom has always been the bottleneck as far as speed goes. I remember when they
>>>>>>> said that 75bpm was quite sufficient, and they wouldnt budge from that high speed even
>>>>>>> though everyone was screaming for better speeds.

>>>>>> And Telecom/Telstra never ever offered anything that did
>>>>>> 75bpm so they cant have ever made that claim anyway.

>>>>> Pity about VIATEL / Discovery.

>>> Actually that was 1200/75

>> Nothing like your original pathetic excuse for bullshit and at that time they also
>> offered faster than that, for a higher prices, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> As I have said in the past, comprehension is lacking with a few ppl around here.

You in spades.

> My above speed comment (1200/75) was in relation to Viatel.

Pity that your original stupid claim is just plain wrong with 1200/75
which was ALREADY faster than 75bpm even on the uplink.

AND if you wanted faster than 1200/75 it was available
to anyone prepared to pay for that anyway.

> My original claim was nearly 20 years before that, when modems were the size of suitcases and had
> half a dozen cards in them. Do you remember those days??

Yep, and they were ALREADY faster than 75bpm,
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> I do, cause I attended one of the first schools in modems.

Pity you couldnt even manage to work out what speed
they were running at, or anything else at all, either.

> Oh, thats right, you were sitting at the back of the class using a false name. After all, someone
> said you were with the PMG for 40 years )

Only a fool like you buys the bullshit the stupid kids in here spew.

>>>> That was nothing like the maximum rate it could do.

>>> Yes with a faster modem it could go a heap faster, but telecom
>>> didnt have the foresight to support the higher speeds.

>> Pig ignorant lie. You were welcome to pay for
>> a faster service if you wanted one, and we did.

>>>> And that wasnt even the upstream speed of that anyway.

>>>> That silly old fart has never ever had a fucking clue, and thats
>>>> obviously why even telecom gave it the bums rush, right out the door.

>>> Other way around, I couldnt get out of there quick enough. I was
>>> dying of bordom and lack of a decent wage. I went to a company who
>>> paid 3 times as much and give you something to do when a contract
>>> was filled. In telecom if we had a 4 month contract and we filled
>>> it in 4 weeks we had to sit on our arse until the 4 months were over.

>> You were clearly so stupid that you didnt even notice that you could
>> have faster than 1200/75 if you wanted it, and that that aint 75bpm
>> anyway.