Telstra wants fixed phone line obligation reviewed

From
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/con...4/s2218642.htm

Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide a telephone service to every
Australian reviewed.

It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the CDMA mobile
phone network in favour of its new NextG service.

The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural
Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone, even in
remote areas.

Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning
whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone.

"There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation of
providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where that half
billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said.

"Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders, should it sit with Government,
should it sit with industry. Or should the rules be changed?"

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:00:17 +0000, Alan Parkington wrote:

> From
> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/con...4/s2218642.htm
>
> Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide a telephone service to every
> Australian reviewed.
>
> It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the CDMA mobile
> phone network in favour of its new NextG service.
>
> The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural
> Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone, even in
> remote areas.
>
> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning
> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone.
>
> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation of
> providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where that half
> billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said.
>
> "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders,

No.


> should it sit with Government,

In other words, the taxpayers.


> should it sit with industry.

Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers, rather
than just the ones actually receiving remote services.


> Or should the rules be changed?"

As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to remote-area person
who wants the telephone service.

If the remote-area person can't afford it, and there are public policy
reasons for (1) the remote-area person remaining where he is; and (2) the
remote-area person having a telephone service; then Parliament can look at
subsidizing the service with funds from Consolidated Revenue.

"Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fu7b2q$j4r$1@news.datemas.de...
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:00:17 +0000, Alan Parkington wrote:
>
>> From
>> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/con...4/s2218642.htm
>>
>> Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide a telephone service to
>> every
>> Australian reviewed.
>>
>> It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the CDMA
>> mobile
>> phone network in favour of its new NextG service.
>>
>> The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural
>> Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone, even in
>> remote areas.
>>
>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning
>> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone.
>>
>> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation of
>> providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where that
>> half
>> billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said.
>>
>> "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders,
>
> No.
>
>
>> should it sit with Government,
>
> In other words, the taxpayers.
>
>
>> should it sit with industry.
>
> Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers, rather
> than just the ones actually receiving remote services.
>
>
>> Or should the rules be changed?"
>
> As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to remote-area person
> who wants the telephone service.

Taking that to its next logical step, should a metro customer have their
line rent calculated according to their distance from the exchange? Why
should those living next door to the exchange subsidise those on 3km of
copper?

--
Kwyj.

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:55:36 +1000, GB wrote:

>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning
>> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone.
>
> Damn right they should. They got a country-wide telephone network
> completely free-of-charge, now they get to live up to their end of the
> bargain.

Free of charge? You seem to be forgetting the tens of billions of dollars
the Commonwealth raised by selling Telstra shares.


>> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation of
>> providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where that
>> half billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said.
>
> Square in the lap of the shareholders who are busily enjoying the
> free country-wide telephone network that they got completely free-
> of-charge, that's where it sits.

What a moron. The Government gave away all the Telstra shares did it?

In actual fact, the Commonwealth SOLD its "country-wide telephone network"
for tens of billions of dollars.

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:57:23 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:

>
> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fu7b2q$j4r$1@news.datemas.de...
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:00:17 +0000, Alan Parkington wrote:
>>
>>> From
>>> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/con...4/s2218642.htm
>>>
>>> Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide a telephone service to
>>> every
>>> Australian reviewed.
>>>
>>> It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the CDMA
>>> mobile
>>> phone network in favour of its new NextG service.
>>>
>>> The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural
>>> Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone, even in
>>> remote areas.
>>>
>>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning
>>> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone.
>>>
>>> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation of
>>> providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where that
>>> half
>>> billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said.
>>>
>>> "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders,
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>> should it sit with Government,
>>
>> In other words, the taxpayers.
>>
>>
>>> should it sit with industry.
>>
>> Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers, rather
>> than just the ones actually receiving remote services.
>>
>>
>>> Or should the rules be changed?"
>>
>> As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to remote-area person
>> who wants the telephone service.
>
> Taking that to its next logical step, should a metro customer have their
> line rent calculated according to their distance from the exchange?

Yes, if the phone company wants to do it that way.

But what's the amortized cost of 3km of copper?

I'd imagine most companies wouldn't bother to do it, as the cost of
charging that way (complicated billing systems, etc., measurement of
millions of bits of copper) would be more than the cost of the additional
copper.


> Why
> should those living next door to the exchange subsidise those on 3km of
> copper?

They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private
companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Alan Parkington wrote

>> From
>> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/con...4/s2218642.htm

>> Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide
>> a telephone service to every Australian reviewed.

>> It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the
>> CDMA mobile phone network in favour of its new NextG service.

>> The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural
>> Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone,
>> even in remote areas.

>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning
>> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone.

>> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation
>> of providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where
>> that half billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said.

>> "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders,

> No.

Yes. Telstra gets to wear that as a consequence of
not being wholly govt owned which is what they wanted.

>> should it sit with Government,

> In other words, the taxpayers.

>> should it sit with industry.

> Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers,
> rather than just the ones actually receiving remote services.

Just like they are with a whole raft of other services like the post, schools, doctors, cops etc.

>> Or should the rules be changed?"

> As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to
> remote-area person who wants the telephone service.

Why just with a phone service, and not with the post, schools, doctors, cops etc ?

> If the remote-area person can't afford it, and there are public policy
> reasons for (1) the remote-area person remaining where he is; and (2)
> the remote-area person having a telephone service; then Parliament
> can look at subsidizing the service with funds from Consolidated Revenue.

Or it can tell telstra that thats what it gets to like or lump as a consequence
of not being entirely govt owned, which is what it wanted.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:56:46 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>> Alan Parkington wrote
>
>>> From
>>> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/con...4/s2218642.htm
>
>>> Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide
>>> a telephone service to every Australian reviewed.
>
>>> It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the
>>> CDMA mobile phone network in favour of its new NextG service.
>
>>> The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural
>>> Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone,
>>> even in remote areas.
>
>>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning
>>> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone.
>
>>> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation
>>> of providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where
>>> that half billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said.
>
>>> "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders,
>
>> No.
>
> Yes. Telstra gets to wear that as a consequence of
> not being wholly govt owned which is what they wanted.

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Telstra should
wear the cost of a "Universal Service Obligation" because it's not wholly
government-owned? Vodafone and Optus aren't wholly government-owned either.

And who cares what Telstra "wanted"? (I assume the "they" in "which is
what they wanted" refers to Telstra's employees/executives.) It's
irrelevant what a bunch of employees "wanted".

(And the Booth's rhetorical question used the word "should"; not the word "does".)


>>> should it sit with Government,
>
>> In other words, the taxpayers.
>
>>> should it sit with industry.
>
>> Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers,
>> rather than just the ones actually receiving remote services.
>
> Just like they are with a whole raft of other services like the post, schools, doctors, cops etc.

It's not just like that. All those remote services are paid for by the
Government/s out of Consolidated Revenue...

We don't force Fedex/GPS/Healthscope/Chubb to open unprofitable
branches/schools/hospitals/offices in remote locations.


>>> Or should the rules be changed?"
>
>> As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to
>> remote-area person who wants the telephone service.
>
> Why just with a phone service, and not with the post, schools, doctors, cops etc ?

See above.


>> If the remote-area person can't afford it, and there are public policy
>> reasons for (1) the remote-area person remaining where he is; and (2)
>> the remote-area person having a telephone service; then Parliament can
>> look at subsidizing the service with funds from Consolidated Revenue.
>
> Or it can tell telstra that thats what it gets to like or lump as a
> consequence of not being entirely govt owned, which is what it wanted.

Why shouldn't Parliament also tell Fedex/GPS/Healthscope/Chubb to provide
universal service? They're not entirely government-owned (and presumably
they "want" to remain that way).

This sort of legislative "like it or lump it" interference in private
property rights is what you get from the Kremlin/Duma.

If the Commonwealth wanted to retain control of Telstra actions, it
shouldn't have sold it.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:55:25 +0900, Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:56:46 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Alan Parkington wrote
>>
>>>> From
>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/con...4/s2218642.htm
>>
>>>> Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide
>>>> a telephone service to every Australian reviewed.
>>
>>>> It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the
>>>> CDMA mobile phone network in favour of its new NextG service.
>>
>>>> The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural
>>>> Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone,
>>>> even in remote areas.
>>
>>>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is questioning
>>>> whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to have a telephone.
>>
>>>> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation
>>>> of providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where
>>>> that half billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said.
>>
>>>> "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders,
>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Yes. Telstra gets to wear that as a consequence of
>> not being wholly govt owned which is what they wanted.
>
>I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Telstra should
>wear the cost of a "Universal Service Obligation" because it's not wholly
>government-owned? Vodafone and Optus aren't wholly government-owned either.
>
>And who cares what Telstra "wanted"? (I assume the "they" in "which is
>what they wanted" refers to Telstra's employees/executives.) It's
>irrelevant what a bunch of employees "wanted".
>
>(And the Booth's rhetorical question used the word "should"; not the word "does".)
>
>
>>>> should it sit with Government,
>>
>>> In other words, the taxpayers.
>>
>>>> should it sit with industry.
>>
>>> Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers,
>>> rather than just the ones actually receiving remote services.
>>
>> Just like they are with a whole raft of other services like the post, schools, doctors, cops etc.
>
>It's not just like that. All those remote services are paid for by the
>Government/s out of Consolidated Revenue...
>
>We don't force Fedex/GPS/Healthscope/Chubb to open unprofitable
>branches/schools/hospitals/offices in remote locations.
>
>
>>>> Or should the rules be changed?"
>>
>>> As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to
>>> remote-area person who wants the telephone service.
>>
>> Why just with a phone service, and not with the post, schools, doctors, cops etc ?
>
>See above.
>
>
>>> If the remote-area person can't afford it, and there are public policy
>>> reasons for (1) the remote-area person remaining where he is; and (2)
>>> the remote-area person having a telephone service; then Parliament can
>>> look at subsidizing the service with funds from Consolidated Revenue.
>>
>> Or it can tell telstra that thats what it gets to like or lump as a
>> consequence of not being entirely govt owned, which is what it wanted.
>
>Why shouldn't Parliament also tell Fedex/GPS/Healthscope/Chubb to provide
>universal service? They're not entirely government-owned (and presumably
>they "want" to remain that way).
>
>This sort of legislative "like it or lump it" interference in private
>property rights is what you get from the Kremlin/Duma.
>
>If the Commonwealth wanted to retain control of Telstra actions, it
>shouldn't have sold it.
>


I was under the impression that the conditions of the sale of Telstra
and ongoing obligations were well-known to intending investors prior
to the sell-off.
But, I guess, the people complaining about obligations are
disappointed that their licence to print money came with strings.

---------------------------------


Death is Nature's way of telling you you aren't
needed, any more.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Alan Parkington wrote

>>>> From
>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/con...4/s2218642.htm

>>>> Telstra says it wants its obligation to provide
>>>> a telephone service to every Australian reviewed.

>>>> It comes after the company was given permission to turn off the
>>>> CDMA mobile phone network in favour of its new NextG service.

>>>> The Universal Service Obligation means, in particular, that rural
>>>> Australians are guaranteed connection to a fixed line telephone,
>>>> even in remote areas.

>>>> Telstra Countrywide manager Jeff Booth says the company is
>>>> questioning whether its shareholders should pay for everyone to
>>>> have a telephone.

>>>> "There is now the question before the Universal Service Obligation of
>>>> providing the first telephone, there's now a question about where that
>>>> half billion dollar plus burden a year actually sits" he said.

>>>> "Should it sit with the Telstra shareholders,

>>> No.

>> Yes. Telstra gets to wear that as a consequence of
>> not being wholly govt owned which is what they wanted.

> I don't understand what you're saying.

GB said it better. Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free, they
get to wear that legal obligation to provide a phone service to everyone too.

> Are you saying that Telstra should wear the cost of a "Universal
> Service Obligation" because it's not wholly government-owned?

No, that it gets to wear that cost because its the ex monopoly that
got the entire phone infrastructure handed to it when it was privatised.

> Vodafone and Optus aren't wholly government-owned either.

Sure.

> And who cares what Telstra "wanted"?

Anyone who realises they got the privatisation they wanted
and that that has some consequences when they get the
entire phone infrastructure handed to them for free.

> (I assume the "they" in "which is what they wanted"
> refers to Telstra's employees/executives.) It's
> irrelevant what a bunch of employees "wanted".

Nope, not when they get the entire phone infrastructure handed to them for free.

> (And the Booth's rhetorical question used the word "should"; not the word "does".)

Who cares what that fool said ? What matters is what makes sense.

>>>> should it sit with Government,

>>> In other words, the taxpayers.

>>>> should it sit with industry.

>>> Which would cause the costs to be paid for by all consumers,
>>> rather than just the ones actually receiving remote services.

>> Just like they are with a whole raft of other
>> services like the post, schools, doctors, cops etc.

> It's not just like that.

Yes it is.

> All those remote services are paid for by the
> Government/s out of Consolidated Revenue...

The postal service isnt.

> We don't force Fedex/GPS/Healthscope/Chubb to open unprofitable
> branches/schools/hospitals/offices in remote locations.

None of them got their entire infrastructure handed to them for free.

>>>> Or should the rules be changed?"

>>> As a starting point, the costs should be passed on to
>>> remote-area person who wants the telephone service.

>> Why just with a phone service, and not with the post, schools, doctors, cops etc ?

> See above.

See above.

>>> If the remote-area person can't afford it, and there are
>>> public policy reasons for (1) the remote-area person
>>> remaining where he is; and (2) the remote-area person
>>> having a telephone service; then Parliament can look at
>>> subsidizing the service with funds from Consolidated Revenue.

>> Or it can tell telstra that thats what it gets to like or lump as a
>> consequence of not being entirely govt owned, which is what it wanted.

> Why shouldn't Parliament also tell Fedex/GPS/
> Healthscope/Chubb to provide universal service?

Because they werent handed the entire monopoly infrastructure for free.

> They're not entirely government-owned (and presumably they "want" to remain that way).

But they werent handed the entire monopoly infrastructure for free.

> This sort of legislative "like it or lump it" interference in private
> property rights is what you get from the Kremlin/Duma.

Wrong. Its what very single modern first world country
has done when its privatised a govt monopoly telco.

> If the Commonwealth wanted to retain control of Telstra actions, it shouldn't have sold it.

Or they can and did chose to privatise it for the advantages
that privatisation deliver and chose to mandate the USO as well.

And it isnt just telstra that pays for the USO, its funded with a
levy thats based on turnover over all the telcos, not just telstra.

And whatever some academic argument might or might not conclude,
the reality is that labor isnt going to release telstra from what legal
obligation the legislation provides for on the USO anyway.

"GB" <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote in message
news:yMmdnWgNFpHdR5rVnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@internode...
> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:fu8khe$aur$1@news.datemas.de:
>> Vodafone and Optus aren't wholly government-owned either.
>
> Vodafone and Optus shareholders didn't get a country-wide
> telephone network and incumbent status completely free-of-
> charge.

Neither did Telstra shareholders, you silly cunt.
Mindlessly repeating the same idiotic line over and over again doesn't make
it a fact, you useless fuckwit.

--
Kwyj.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66q5lnF2laikcU1@mid.individual.net...
> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,

Lie. Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of
dollars for it.

--
Kwyj.

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,

> Lie.

Fact.

> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of dollars for it.

Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66qjntF2lscdjU1@mid.individual.net...
> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,
>
>> Lie.
>
> Fact.

Wrong.

>
>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of
>> dollars for it.
>
> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid.

Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit.

--
Kwyj.

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,

>>> Lie.

>> Fact.

> Wrong.

Nope.

>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of dollars for it.

>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid.

> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit.

Your mindless pig ignorant shit has always been,
and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

You've never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66qudrF2luet5U1@mid.individual.net...
> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,
>
>>>> Lie.
>
>>> Fact.
>
>> Wrong.
>
> Nope.
>
>>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of
>>>> dollars for it.
>
>>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid.
>
>> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit.
>
> Your mindless pig ignorant shit has always been,
> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift, fuckwit?

> You've never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Unlike you, who was adamant that the government wasn't expecting a return on
their FTTN investment, then went suddenly quiet when you had your nose
rubbed in your stupidity. Good one, Rod, you clueless fuckwit.

--
Kwyj.

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,

>>>>> Lie.

>>>> Fact.

>>> Wrong.

>> Nope.

>>>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of dollars for it.

>>>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid.

>>> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit.

>> Your mindless pig ignorant shit has always been,
>> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

> So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift

They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66r87gF2k4rk3U1@mid.individual.net...
> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,
>
>>>>>> Lie.
>
>>>>> Fact.
>
>>>> Wrong.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>>>>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of
>>>>>> dollars for it.
>
>>>>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid.
>
>>>> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit.
>
>>> Your mindless pig ignorant shit has always been,
>>> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
>
>> So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift
>
> They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit.

They were payment for the phone company which had already paid for and owned
the infrastructure. No one got anything for free, stupid.

--
Kwyj.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:33:34 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,
>
>>>>>> Lie.
>
>>>>> Fact.
>
>>>> Wrong.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>>>>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of dollars for it.
>
>>>>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid.
>
>>>> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit.
>
>>> Your mindless pig ignorant shit has always been,
>>> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
>
>> So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift
>
> They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit.

Then what were they for? The Telstra "brand"?

Check out the prospectuses for the various Telstra floats. The
infrastructure was part of the deal. The PSTN network is listed there in
the financial statements.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:18:41 +1000, GB wrote:

> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:fu7k20$4m6$1@news.datemas.de:
>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private
>> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services.
>
> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network for
> free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that
> telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't.

No-one received a telephone network for free. The Government originally owned
the network through PMG/Telecom/Telstra. The Government then sold Telstra
(for tens upon tens of billions of dollars) through a series of public
share offers. That offer included the PSTN. Read the prospectuses
for the share offers.

In article <Ub6dnXgMHfJbUZrVnZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@internode>, GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote:
>Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in news:fu7k20$4m6$1@news.datemas.de:
>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private
>> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services.
>
> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network for
>free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that
>telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't.

1. Who got "a country-wide telephone network for free"?

2. I don't think the present argument is over bits of the network,
it's rather over bits that *aren't* on the network. (But I admit I
may be wrong there.)

3. I see this was cross-posted to aus.comms.mobile. Does that imply
you think it would be okay to use a mobile-style connection for the
bits not yet on the network?

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> GB wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote

>>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private
>>> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services.

>> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network
>> for free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that
>> telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't.

> No-one received a telephone network for free.

Wrong, telstra did with the landline system.

> The Government originally owned the network through PMG/Telecom/Telstra.

And Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for that.

> The Government then sold Telstra (for tens upon tens of
> billions of dollars) through a series of public share offers.

Thats not the PSTN, that Telstra which was a lot more than just the PSTN.

> That offer included the PSTN.

Yes, but Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for that.

> Read the prospectuses for the share offers.

Dont need to on that.

Phred <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
> GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote

>>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private
>>> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services.

>> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network
>> for free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that
>> telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't.

> 1. Who got "a country-wide telephone network for free"?

Telstra, it was owned by the govt.

> 2. I don't think the present argument is over bits of the
> network, it's rather over bits that *aren't* on the network.

Nope, its whether telstra gets to wear the legal USO obligation as a consequence
of not having to pay the govt for that country wide phone network.

> (But I admit I may be wrong there.)

As always on a friday night.

> 3. I see this was cross-posted to aus.comms.mobile. Does that imply you think it
> would be okay to use a mobile-style connection for the bits not yet on the network?

Nope, thats what the poxington mostly does with most of its telstra lies.

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:66r87gF2k4rk3U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>>>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,
>>
>>>>>>> Lie.
>>
>>>>>> Fact.
>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>> Nope.
>>
>>>>>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government
>>>>>>> billions of dollars for it.
>>
>>>>>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid.
>>
>>>>> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit.
>>
>>>> Your mindless pig ignorant shit has always been,
>>>> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
>>
>>> So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift
>>
>> They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit.

> They were payment for the phone company which had already paid for and owned the infrastructure.

Telstra the privatised company didnt own the infrastructure, the govt owned it.

> No one got anything for free, stupid.

Pig ignorant lie. Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for the landline infrastructure.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,

>>>>>>> Lie.

>>>>>> Fact.

>>>>> Wrong.

>>>> Nope.

>>>>>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government billions of dollars for it.

>>>>>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid.

>>>>> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit.

>>>> Your mindless pig ignorant shit has always been,
>>>> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

>>> So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift

>> They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit.

> Then what were they for?

Shares in telstra.

> The Telstra "brand"?

Nope.

> Check out the prospectuses for the various Telstra floats.

I know what they said thanks.

> The infrastructure was part of the deal.

Irrelevant to whether telstra ever paid the govt a cent for it.

> The PSTN network is listed there in the financial statements.

Irrelevant to whether telstra ever paid the govt a cent for it.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:14:18 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Phred <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
>> GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote
>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that
>>>> private companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable
>>>> services.
>
>>> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network for free do
>>> not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that telephone
>>> network you want to operate and which bits you don't.
>
>> 1. Who got "a country-wide telephone network for free"?
>
> Telstra, it was owned by the govt.

And the Government owned Telstra.

The Government then sold Telstra (including its assets and liabilities,
etc.) to the public.


>> 2. I don't think the present argument is over bits of the network, it's
>> rather over bits that *aren't* on the network.
>
> Nope, its whether telstra gets to wear the legal USO obligation as a
> consequence of not having to pay the govt for that country wide phone
> network.

The Government OWNED Telstra.

The people who bought shares in T1, T2, and T3 paid the Commonwealth money
in exchange for a company which had certain assets, including "that
country wide phone network".

Are you suggesting that the Commonwealth received money for selling
something it didn't own (because it had previously given it away for
free to Telstra)?

Did the Commonwealth rip the public off, or were the prospectuses wrong?

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:15:44 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:66r87gF2k4rk3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since telstra got the australian infrastucture for free,
>>>
>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>
>>>>>>> Fact.
>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Telstra, through their shareholders, paid the government
>>>>>>>> billions of dollars for it.
>>>
>>>>>>> Pity the shareholders aint telstra, stupid.
>>>
>>>>>> Try reading what I wrote, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>>> Your mindless pig ignorant shit has always been,
>>>>> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> So you reckon those billions of dollars were just a gift
>>>
>>> They werent payment for the australian phone infrastructure, fuckwit.
>
>> They were payment for the phone company which had already paid for and owned the infrastructure.
>
> Telstra the privatised company didnt own the infrastructure, the govt owned it.

So at the time of T1 (when Telstra first became partly privatized),
Telstra didn't own the PSTN?? Did the Commonwealth transfer ownership at
some later stage (and get nothing in return -- neither cash, nor an
increased stake in the corporation)?


>> No one got anything for free, stupid.
>
> Pig ignorant lie. Telstra didnt pay the govt a cent for the landline
> infrastructure.

Then what on earth did the public pay the Commonwealth tens of billions of
dollars for? Call centres, white Telstra vans, and "goodwill"?

"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> writes:

>Taking that to its next logical step, should a metro customer have their
>line rent calculated according to their distance from the exchange? Why
>should those living next door to the exchange subsidise those on 3km of
>copper?

Or more - much more - in a lot of cases.

>--
>Kwyj.


--
http://www.technotranceravesex.net/g...?g2_itemId=876 Fuk the Jews
Tell the Lebs that come to Cronulla to Respect the Locals or PISS OFF!
Kaizer Solzay says "Burn the US, UK and Australian flags in protest!"
Bomb US Military installations outside the USA! http://lios.apana.org.au/~oobi

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phred <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> They shouldn't, but that's not my