Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > Cellular Communications > Australian Networks > aus.comms.mobile
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-22-2007, 03:32 PM
Alan Parkington
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

From
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14544/127/

Telstra has come out fighting in response to the Government-imposed
requirement to keep its CDMA network operating until the Government is
satisfied that the Next G network provides equivalent coverage.

Telstra has produced a three page brochure headed "Say goodbye to CDMA. Say
hello to Next G wireless broadband" in which it says the requirement, in
the form of a licence condition, is "another example of the Government
showing disregard for sound, pro-consumer and pro-investment public policy"
and promising to "explore legal options to reduce these new
Government-imposed burdens on consumers and Telstra shareholders."

Telstra says its commitment to the same or better guaranteed coverage by the
scheduled closure date of 28 January 2008 "is a firm commitment that has
been accepted on face value by more than one million consumers who are
already Next G network users. However...the Federal Government has decided
to impose a licence condition that requires Telstra to do what it has
already promised - to guarantee that consumers have the same or better
coverage than CDMA."

Because she is involved in a court case with Telstra, communications
minister Helen Coonan last week delegated responsibility for imposing the
licence condition to Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, who took just 24
hours to do so



Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-22-2007, 07:56 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

Alan Parkington <parkingtona@team.telstra.com> wrote

> From
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14544/127/


> Telstra has come out fighting


Wrong, its come out wanking, as always.

> in response to the Government-imposed requirement to keep its CDMA network operating until the Government is satisfied
> that the Next G network provides equivalent coverage.


All just piss and wind, as always from telstra.

> Telstra has produced a three page brochure headed "Say goodbye to CDMA. Say hello to Next G wireless broadband" in
> which it says the requirement, in the form of a licence condition, is "another example
> of the Government showing disregard for sound, pro-consumer and
> pro-investment public policy"


Like it or lump it, ****wits.

And you're lying anyway, there isnt any problem with
the investment by others in mobile systems here.

> and promising to "explore legal options to reduce these new Government-imposed burdens on consumers and Telstra
> shareholders."


Explore all you like, ****wits.

And when all the govt is actually doing is holding you clowns to your
committment to not turn off the cdma system until it provides as good
or better service as the NextG system, you've got ****ing buckleys of
ever convincing any court to do a damned thing about it.

> Telstra says its commitment to the same or better guaranteed coverage by the scheduled closure date of 28 January 2008
> "is a firm commitment that has been accepted on face value by more than one million consumers who are already Next G
> network users.


The govt obviously isnt prepared to accept you clown's word on that, ****wits.

> However...the Federal Government has decided to impose a licence condition that requires Telstra to do what it has
> already promised - to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA."


Then what the **** are you whining about, ****wits ?

> Because she is involved in a court case with Telstra, communications
> minister Helen Coonan last week delegated responsibility for imposing
> the licence condition to Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, who took
> just 24 hours to do so


Like that or lump that, ****wits.

Thats what you get when you are actually stupid enough to get into a
stoush with the govt that you cant possibly win. This latest tantrum in spades.



Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2007, 06:20 AM
Paul Day
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:32:10 GMT Alan Parkington may have written:
> However...the Federal Government has decided to impose a licence
> condition that requires Telstra to do what it has already promised -
> to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
> CDMA."


Right, so it'll impact you not one single bit then if you keep your
promise. Where's the problem? Coonan's not spending Telstra's
shareholder's money to ensure Telstra have met their promise, is she?

Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning to
keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before switch-off...

PD

--
Paul Day

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2007, 12:38 PM
Michael
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order


"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1190524825.231000@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:32:10 GMT Alan Parkington may have written:
>> However...the Federal Government has decided to impose a licence
>> condition that requires Telstra to do what it has already promised -
>> to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
>> CDMA."

>
> Right, so it'll impact you not one single bit then if you keep your
> promise. Where's the problem? Coonan's not spending Telstra's
> shareholder's money to ensure Telstra have met their promise, is she?
>
> Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning to
> keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before switch-off...


Telstra made no such promise. Go and read the exact wording
>
> PD
>
> --
> Paul Day




Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-23-2007, 04:46 PM
Kwyjibo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order


"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bfsJi.1363$H22.1208@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1190524825.231000@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:32:10 GMT Alan Parkington may have written:
>>> However...the Federal Government has decided to impose a licence
>>> condition that requires Telstra to do what it has already promised -
>>> to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
>>> CDMA."

>>
>> Right, so it'll impact you not one single bit then if you keep your
>> promise. Where's the problem? Coonan's not spending Telstra's
>> shareholder's money to ensure Telstra have met their promise, is she?
>>
>> Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning to
>> keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before switch-off...

>
> Telstra made no such promise.


********.

> Go and read the exact wording


This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out:
"to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA."

--
Kwyj.



Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-24-2007, 01:18 AM
Paul Day
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:38:47 GMT Michael may have written:
> > Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning to
> > keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before switch-off...

>
> Telstra made no such promise. Go and read the exact wording


Michael, I've already proved you're a liar on this one. You also failed
to contradict said proof in your follow-up posts. Go read your
aus.comms.mobile history.

PD

--
Paul Day

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2007, 09:58 AM
James Bell
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

Paul Day wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:38:47 GMT Michael may have written:
>>> Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning to
>>> keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before switch-off...

>> Telstra made no such promise. Go and read the exact wording

>
> Michael, I've already proved you're a liar on this one. You also failed
> to contradict said proof in your follow-up posts. Go read your
> aus.comms.mobile history.


Michael makes quick dismissal posts as if he's in a position of
authority and knowledge, but the reality is he's a clueless ****wit
dunnycleaning child with no idea other than how to move a stubborn ****
stain. Even then he has to asks the TLS Call Center facilities manager.

Just look at the **** he posts on Whirlpool. It gets comprehensively
****ing raped, as always.

Eg (one of many):
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum...2000#r13052000



Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2007, 09:59 AM
James Bell
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

Paul Day wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:38:47 GMT Michael may have written:
>>> Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning to
>>> keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before switch-off...

>> Telstra made no such promise. Go and read the exact wording

>
> Michael, I've already proved you're a liar on this one. You also failed
> to contradict said proof in your follow-up posts. Go read your
> aus.comms.mobile history.


Michael makes quick dismissal posts as if he's in a position of
authority and knowledge, but the reality is he's a clueless ****wit
dunnycleaning child with no idea other than how to remove a stubborn
**** stain. Even then he has to asks the TLS Call Center facilities manager.

Just look at the **** he posts on Whirlpool. It gets comprehensively
****ing raped, as always.

Eg (one of many):
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum...2000#r13052000


Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2007, 01:13 PM
Michael
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order


"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
news:46f68a68$0$21396$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bfsJi.1363$H22.1208@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
>> news:1190524825.231000@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:32:10 GMT Alan Parkington may have written:
>>>> However...the Federal Government has decided to impose a licence
>>>> condition that requires Telstra to do what it has already promised -
>>>> to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
>>>> CDMA."
>>>
>>> Right, so it'll impact you not one single bit then if you keep your
>>> promise. Where's the problem? Coonan's not spending Telstra's
>>> shareholder's money to ensure Telstra have met their promise, is she?
>>>
>>> Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning to
>>> keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before switch-off...

>>
>> Telstra made no such promise.

>
> ********.
>
>> Go and read the exact wording

>
> This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out:
> "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA."


Which isnt "matching coverage 100%"

"same or better than coverage that CDMA" implies that the total NextG
coverage is > the total CDMA coverage, not that in Upper East Wonthaggi Joe
Blow Cockie will be able to get NextG if he once got CDMA



Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2007, 01:14 PM
Michael
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order


"James Bell" <jamesbell@tellthetruthtelstra.com.au> wrote in message
news:46f8cc66$0$4564$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Paul Day wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:38:47 GMT Michael may have written:
>>>> Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning to
>>>> keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before switch-off...
>>> Telstra made no such promise. Go and read the exact wording

>>
>> Michael, I've already proved you're a liar on this one. You also failed
>> to contradict said proof in your follow-up posts. Go read your
>> aus.comms.mobile history.

>
> Michael makes quick dismissal posts as if he's in a position of
> authority and knowledge, but the reality is he's a clueless ****wit
> dunnycleaning child with no idea other than how to remove a stubborn ****
> stain. Even then he has to asks the TLS Call Center facilities manager.
>
> Just look at the **** he posts on Whirlpool. It gets comprehensively
> ****ing raped, as always.
>
> Eg (one of many):
> http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum...2000#r13052000


Troll. Youll have to do better than that



Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2007, 09:28 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
> news:46f68a68$0$21396$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:bfsJi.1363$H22.1208@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
>>> news:1190524825.231000@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:32:10 GMT Alan Parkington may have written:
>>>>> However...the Federal Government has decided to impose a licence
>>>>> condition that requires Telstra to do what it has already
>>>>> promised - to guarantee that consumers have the same or better
>>>>> coverage than CDMA."
>>>>
>>>> Right, so it'll impact you not one single bit then if you keep your
>>>> promise. Where's the problem? Coonan's not spending Telstra's
>>>> shareholder's money to ensure Telstra have met their promise, is
>>>> she? Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning
>>>> to keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before
>>>> switch-off...
>>>
>>> Telstra made no such promise.

>>
>> ********.
>>
>>> Go and read the exact wording

>>
>> This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out:
>> "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
>> CDMA."

>
> Which isnt "matching coverage 100%"
>
> "same or better than coverage that CDMA" implies that the total NextG
> coverage is > the total CDMA coverage, not that in Upper East Wonthaggi Joe Blow Cockie will be able to get NextG if
> he once got CDMA


Wrong, as always.



Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2007, 10:38 PM
Will Kemp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:13:52 +0000, Michael wrote:

> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
> news:46f68a68$0$21396$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:bfsJi.1363$H22.1208@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
>>> news:1190524825.231000@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:32:10 GMT Alan Parkington may have written:
>>>>> However...the Federal Government has decided to impose a licence
>>>>> condition that requires Telstra to do what it has already promised -
>>>>> to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
>>>>> CDMA."
>>>>
>>>> Right, so it'll impact you not one single bit then if you keep your
>>>> promise. Where's the problem? Coonan's not spending Telstra's
>>>> shareholder's money to ensure Telstra have met their promise, is she?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone'd think with all this whining that Telstra weren't planning to
>>>> keep their promise of matching coverage 100% before switch-off...
>>>
>>> Telstra made no such promise.

>>
>> ********.
>>
>>> Go and read the exact wording

>>
>> This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out: "to
>> guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA."

>
> Which isnt "matching coverage 100%"
>
> "same or better than coverage that CDMA" implies that the total NextG
> coverage is > the total CDMA coverage, not that in Upper East Wonthaggi
> Joe Blow Cockie will be able to get NextG if he once got CDMA


No it doesn't, drongo. "same as" implies "same as" - i.e., "identical
with". "Same as" means that if you can use your CDMA phone in one spot,
you'll be able to use your NextG phone. That's the same. If you have to
go somewhere else to use it, it's only "similar".

If it meant what you claim it means, it would say "total area of coverage
of NextG [is] the same as of better than the total area of coverage of
CDMA".

Didn't they teach English at your school?

Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 10-02-2007, 12:04 AM
Paul Day
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:13:52 GMT Michael may have written:
> > This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out:
> > "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
> > CDMA."

>
> Which isnt "matching coverage 100%"
>
> "same or better than coverage that CDMA" implies that the total NextG
> coverage is > the total CDMA coverage, not that in Upper East
> Wonthaggi Joe Blow Cockie will be able to get NextG if he once got
> CDMA


I'd like to see Telstra try and get away with that straw-clutching
interpretation of "have the same or better coverage".

PD

--
Paul Day

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:38 AM
Will Kemp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:04:09 +0000, Paul Day wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:13:52 GMT Michael may have written:
>> > This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out:
>> > "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
>> > CDMA."

>>
>> Which isnt "matching coverage 100%"
>>
>> "same or better than coverage that CDMA" implies that the total NextG
>> coverage is > the total CDMA coverage, not that in Upper East Wonthaggi
>> Joe Blow Cockie will be able to get NextG if he once got CDMA

>
> I'd like to see Telstra try and get away with that straw-clutching
> interpretation of "have the same or better coverage".


Don't worry, they'd try - that's why the government's had to step in and
prevent it!

Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2007, 09:21 AM
Michael
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

>>> This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out: "to
>>> guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA."

>>
>> Which isnt "matching coverage 100%"
>>
>> "same or better than coverage that CDMA" implies that the total NextG
>> coverage is > the total CDMA coverage, not that in Upper East Wonthaggi
>> Joe Blow Cockie will be able to get NextG if he once got CDMA

>
> No it doesn't, drongo. "same as" implies "same as" - i.e., "identical
> with". "Same as" means that if you can use your CDMA phone in one spot,


No, it doesnt

> you'll be able to use your NextG phone. That's the same. If you have to
> go somewhere else to use it, it's only "similar".
>
> If it meant what you claim it means, it would say "total area of coverage
> of NextG [is] the same as of better than the total area of coverage of
> CDMA".


Thats the point. The original statement was fluff. The Govt has now taken a
piece of fluff and told Telstra they must enforce it.



Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2007, 11:08 AM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out:
>>>> "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
>>>> CDMA."
>>>
>>> Which isnt "matching coverage 100%"
>>>
>>> "same or better than coverage that CDMA" implies that the total
>>> NextG coverage is > the total CDMA coverage, not that in Upper East
>>> Wonthaggi Joe Blow Cockie will be able to get NextG if he once got
>>> CDMA

>>
>> No it doesn't, drongo. "same as" implies "same as" - i.e., "identical
>> with". "Same as" means that if you can use your CDMA phone in one
>> spot,


> No, it doesnt


Yes it does.

>> you'll be able to use your NextG phone. That's the same. If you have
>> to go somewhere else to use it, it's only "similar".
>>
>> If it meant what you claim it means, it would say "total area of
>> coverage of NextG [is] the same as of better than the total area of
>> coverage of CDMA".


> Thats the point.


Nope.

> The original statement was fluff.


A bare faced lie, actually.

> The Govt has now taken a piece of fluff and told Telstra they must enforce it.


The govt has told telstra that they will be held to their original claim.

Telstra gets to like that or lump it.



Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2007, 12:30 PM
Will Kemp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:21:32 +0000, Michael wrote:

>>>> This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out:
>>>> "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than
>>>> CDMA."
>>>
>>> Which isnt "matching coverage 100%"
>>>
>>> "same or better than coverage that CDMA" implies that the total NextG
>>> coverage is > the total CDMA coverage, not that in Upper East
>>> Wonthaggi Joe Blow Cockie will be able to get NextG if he once got
>>> CDMA

>>
>> No it doesn't, drongo. "same as" implies "same as" - i.e., "identical
>> with". "Same as" means that if you can use your CDMA phone in one spot,

>
> No, it doesnt
>
>> you'll be able to use your NextG phone. That's the same. If you have to
>> go somewhere else to use it, it's only "similar".
>>
>> If it meant what you claim it means, it would say "total area of
>> coverage of NextG [is] the same as of better than the total area of
>> coverage of CDMA".

>
> Thats the point. The original statement was fluff. The Govt has now
> taken a piece of fluff and told Telstra they must enforce it.


Well, given that the moron with the big mouth who's running the company,
there doesn't really seem a lot of point in me replying that tel$cum
should be a little bit more careful about what they say then, does there?

Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 10-06-2007, 01:32 AM
Kwyjibo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order


"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gumNi.5330$H22.2258@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> This is the exact wording from the brochure that Telstra sent out: "to
>>>> guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA."
>>>
>>> Which isnt "matching coverage 100%"
>>>
>>> "same or better than coverage that CDMA" implies that the total NextG
>>> coverage is > the total CDMA coverage, not that in Upper East Wonthaggi
>>> Joe Blow Cockie will be able to get NextG if he once got CDMA

>>
>> No it doesn't, drongo. "same as" implies "same as" - i.e., "identical
>> with". "Same as" means that if you can use your CDMA phone in one spot,

>
> No, it doesnt


Micheal's spin-doctoring = Mindless, inaccurate ********.

--
Kwyj.



Reply With Quote
Reply


« Telstra on line again in network discussions | nokia 6230i »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Attorney-General slaps Telstra with unnecessary CDMA licence condition Alan Parkington aus.comms.mobile 2 09-18-2007 10:00 AM
CDMA Pre-Paid Telstra customers- Optus offers ME to keep MY existing mobile number if I move to Optus Net? gnh888@gmail.com aus.comms.mobile 3 08-30-2007 03:05 PM
G9 Proposal - why it is outrageous James Bell aus.comms.mobile 33 06-25-2007 10:06 PM
180$ Telstra mobile closing my CDMA account,Telstranot prepared to give me back the $180? gnh888@gmail.com aus.comms.mobile 11 05-03-2007 12:30 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:43 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45