Wota ****ing ******...
Alan Poxington wrote
> From
> http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8833
> Instead of lamenting the combativeness of Telstra Chairman Donald
> McGauchie and outgoing CEO Sol Trujillo we should be congratulating
> them for trying to elevate the policy debate in this country.
Wota terminal ****wit.
> Telstra is the only corporate willing to rail against our cultural sensibility of "don't rock the boat, government
> knows best" by aggressively confronting Australia's growing obsession with regulation.
That is a bare faced lie.
And all that got Telstra was that it got shafted on the NBN, ****wit.
> Most corporations conveniently conclude it is pointless and expensive to contest the efficacy of regulation,
Corse it is, no govt is gunna cave in on stuff like that just because
some arsehole like McGauchie or the ****wit wog doesnt like it.
> especially when the bulk of the costs can be easily passed onto consumers.
What Telstra doesnt like is that the ACCC gets to determine what it charges, ****wit.
> Those questioning its divine status risk being politically marginalised with a fervour akin to the Spanish
> Inquisition's.
Wota terminal ****wit...
> Hugh Morgan hit on the dark psychology when he was president of the Business Council of Australia:
> "When we suggest, in the most deferential language,
You never ever did anything like that, ****wit.
> that we do not like what is being done [in terms of increased regulation], and that we will campaign against it, the
> amused response is: Make my day!"
And rightly so. Telstra always did object to the increased regulation that
was designed to stop it stamping any competition into the ground using
its immense market power that was the result of being the previous
monopoly, and no govt ever gave a flying red **** whether Telstra
liked those regulations or not, because they were obviously essential.
> The strategy employed by Telstra in recent years has been brave and correct.
Nope, terminally stupid when there was no chance that it would ever
get the govt to cave in on what it objected to and was absolutely
guaranteed to get it completely offside with the govt, which it depends
on policy wise for its future. Thats why it got ****ed over so very
comprehensively on the Opel contract and why its about to be broken up.
> It complained, argued, pleaded and got nowhere.
And that was absolutely guaranteed.
> When things got uncomfortable because it upped the ante, it was then branded bellicose and self-serving.
And that is precisely what it was.
AND it aint as if Telstra initially attempted to do what the law
required, right from the start it attempted to flout the govt regulation
when Keating had enough of a clue to introduce real competition.
Telstra doesnt get to decide govt policy, the govt does, ****wit.
In spades when it was the govt monopoly telco.
> So, does Canberra believe it's possible to regulate our way to an efficient economy? If yes, then surely it makes
> sense to control everything and do away with the market? If no, when are we to move on?
There aint just those two alternatives, ****wit.
One obvious approach is to move away from a govt monopoly
telco to real competition and to have regulations in place that
prevent the old monopoly player from stamping any competition
into the ground using its immense dominance of the market.
Telstra doesnt like that change in govt policy ?
Stiff ****. It gets to like it or lump it.
> This Socratic method, provided your audience is openly engaged, may well win an admission that, yes, regulation is not
> the answer.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
Major govt policy change doesnt work like that.
> If this is given, however, it's immediately followed by a shrill proviso
> believed to somehow cancel out the truth of what was just agreed.
> Regulation, you see, is mandatory because business cannot be trusted.
And clearly Telstra could not be trusted to not stamp
any competition into the ground using its immense market
power that was the result of it being the old monopoly player.
> OK, assuming for a moment this is correct,
Stupid assumption.
> how does this alter the earlier acknowledgement that regulation is not the solution and intervention, regardless of
> its justification, contradicts free market principles?
There is no such animal as 'free market principles'
ALL markets are in fact regulated, even if thats just to proscribe
the worst excesses like slavery and trafficking in humans etc.
And thats all that was done with the telco regulations in this country,
ban the worst excesses like making it illegal for Telstra to stamp
any new competition in to the ground using its immense market
power thats the result of it being the previous monopoly player.
And that means that someone has to set the prices that Telstra
can charge its competitors when its forced to resell what it only
got infrastructure wise because it was the previous govt monopoly.
There can never be any viable 'free market' in that situation, stupid.
> Sensing the truth to be a trap of some kind, the debate is rudely shut down and logic suspended, while the bureaucrats
> resume shelter amidst the cynicism that originally brought them and their policies into existence.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
> (Or, if you're Kevin Rudd, you draft a rambling essay aimed at drumming up sufficient fear to ensure the laissez faire
> philosophy that delivered Australia its prosperity is now perceived as naïve and uncaring.)
We never ever had anything even remotely resembling anything
like a laissez faire philosophy with telcos in this country, ****wit.
> At this point, as Morgan also observed,
And no one actually takes any notice of that fool anyway.
He even got the bums rush from EVERY operation he has
ever been involved in, because he's a terminal ****wit.
> further arguments designed to shake the resolve of governments and their advisors to rethink their re-regulatory
> ambitions always fail to achieve traction.
Corse they do, because they decided to do policy they way they decided to do it for a reason.
> Emotion condemns us to an ill-reasoned loop: regulation exists because business cannot be trusted
And we have the evidence that Telstra can not in fact be trusted to even abide by the regulations.
> ergo any suggestion by Telstra or others that regulation must be wound back is evidence to support its retention -
> indeed, it's likely a sign it should be ramped up!
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
> Telstra's recent regulatory rampage is a consequence of it choosing to resist following the other bunnies down this
> rabbit-hole.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
> It would be a shame if McGauchie and the new CEO go soft like the rest, effectively conceding the continued poor
> outcomes for
> telecommunications are about Telstra rather Canberra's unwillingness
> to be honest about the fundamental short-comings of its regulation.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
Go Telstra, defender of free markets 
Linear Mode
