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
> 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, fuckwits.
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, fuckwits.
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 fucking 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, fuckwits.
> 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 fuck are you whining about, fuckwits ?
> 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, fuckwits.
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.
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...
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
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.
Bullshit.
> 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."
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.
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 fuckwit
dunnycleaning child with no idea other than how to move a stubborn shit
stain. Even then he has to asks the TLS Call Center facilities manager.
Just look at the shit he posts on Whirlpool. It gets comprehensively
fucking raped, as always.
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 fuckwit
dunnycleaning child with no idea other than how to remove a stubborn
shit stain. Even then he has to asks the TLS Call Center facilities manager.
Just look at the shit he posts on Whirlpool. It gets comprehensively
fucking raped, as always.
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.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> 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
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 fuckwit
> dunnycleaning child with no idea other than how to remove a stubborn shit
> stain. Even then he has to asks the TLS Call Center facilities manager.
>
> Just look at the shit he posts on Whirlpool. It gets comprehensively
> fucking raped, as always.
>
> Eg (one of many):
> http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum...2000#r13052000
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.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> 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
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.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> 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".
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".
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!
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.
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.
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$cum
should be a little bit more careful about what they say then, does there?
Re: Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order
"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gumNi.5330$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
Telstra defiant in face of 'keep CDMA going' order 
Linear Mode
