Telstra defends rural coverage
Posted
Review ... Telstra says only 10 of the recommendations are worthwhile (ABC: Jonathan Beal)
Telstra has criticised many of the findings of an independent review of regional telecommunications.
The independent review, led by Dr Bill Glasson, has found Australia's rural telecommunications are totally inadequate.
It found poor internet and mobile phone services are damaging the mining and agriculture industries, both of which are critical to the economy.
The review panel has recommended the Federal Government consider breaking up Telstra's network and retail arms.
It also says the Government should examine whether it may be in the public interest to force telecommunications companies to divest parts of their businesses.
But Telstra Country Wide's group managing director, Geoff Booth, says some of the recommendations could be disastrous for investment in regional areas.
"There were elements of the report that we acknowledge were sensible and good but there were other parts of the report that really flew in the face of investment in regional Australia," he said.
"Of the 43 recommendations that were made in the executive summary we would judge that 10 of them were pretty positive for regional Australia but the rest were really just extra rules and regulations."
Mr Booth says divesting parts of the business would discourage investment such as that made to roll out the Next G network.
Several of Telstra's competitors have complained to the Government that Telstra has too much market power.
Review
Dr Glasson says the report recommends a new way of guaranteeing services to rural Australia.
He says the old Universal Services Agreement has broken down and should be replaced by a new Communication Services Standard which actually guarantees a level of mobile phone, fixed landline and broadband internet services which would keep rural industries competitive with their city and international counterparts.
Dr Glasson says its hard to tell how much it would cost, but a better minimum service level must be guaranteed.
"Within that area the economic basis of this country exists," he said.
"In other words, that's our mining towns, our mining communities. It's our agricultural towns, which produce a vast amount of our gross domestic product.
"And I think that we owe it to that 3 per cent or that 70 per cent of our landmass that we put in appropriate telecommunications services so that we can support them in the industries that they exist in."
Dr Glasson says the review found there is only 15 per cent of mobile coverage across the country, or 25 per cent if users have a car kit antenna, and he says that is not acceptable.
He says the Government has not only an economic imperative to help private companies and communities provide better services in rural areas, but a moral obligation to rural people, and particularly people in very remote areas and Indigenous communities who are greatly disadvantaged by poor telecommunications.
Search for news
Comments (96)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Outrage:
16 Oct 2008 9:38:22am
How on Earth can this company appear still on public media and tout it's overpriced rotten services ? Only a monopoly can!
The failure to supply cheap workable broadband enforces the rural population to pollute a hell of lot of CO2, because physical transport is required, whereas everywhere else in the first world you would have a cheap reliable internet service to do at least 75 % of these activities. It also keeps people incredibly STUPID - remember the internet doesn't wait for Australians...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
twobob:
16 Oct 2008 10:02:07am
If it were still government owned and a monopoly these outrageous outcomes could be dealt with. By allowing privatisation what we have effectively achieved is a privatisation of profit and a publicisation of debt. Sound familiar?
Money gleaned from hugely profitable services like mobile texting should be diverted to provide broadband infrastructure for the entire country. But honest john changed all that and now it all goes into the pockets of already wealthy greedy individuals. Thank john howard for bastardising what was once the most equitable communications systems on the planet. But country Australians still prefer the coalition over Labor (who did at least oppose this bill) - the gullible fools that they are. The only pollie who stood up for the country was Barnaby Joyce who in the end voted for the sale of Telstra anyway (I wonder what he was promised (or threatened) with to sell us all out.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
malleesurfer:
16 Oct 2008 10:29:47am
so true, also, what happened to the millions of $ earned from the privitisation that was dedicated to saving our ailing murray - darling basin. maybe went to painting the gutters at Kirribilli??
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Remark:
16 Oct 2008 11:00:04am
John Howard had no right to sell to ~some~ Australians that which had been built up and owned by ~all~ Australians.
Infrastructure essential to our economy and security should always be in the ownership of the people, controlled by our elected representatives.
The government of tiny Singapore didn't go down that path, and look at their situation. Optus (owned by the Singapore government) is just about out-competing Telstra, in our own nation. Imagine the profits constantly flowing out of Oz back to Singapore for their people's benefit.
Meanwhile our people have been left with no common-wealth asset, just a grasping, greedy corporation run that treats Aussie workers with contempt while paying mega salaries to an import manager from America and his amigos.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JC:
16 Oct 2008 11:10:24am
Maybe you can ask that question of good 'ol John Brumby! We know what he well and truly thinks of rural Victoria and the MDB.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
steve of Perth:
16 Oct 2008 10:47:03am
Don't blame John Howard for the sell off of Telstra. It was Kim Beazley that put the works in motion to sell of Telstra when he was communications minister.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
hugh jampton:
16 Oct 2008 11:15:46am
So what you're saying is that the Libs were actually being run by Beazley? Pull the other one - once in government they were able to change anything that the previuos Govt did. They just chose to say 'me too' to the Labor policy
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kocsonya:
16 Oct 2008 12:26:32pm
It's not either-or. The Liberals sold everything they could. However, Keating started to sell of a handful of things. If I remeber correctly, that included CBA and Quantas.
It's not the party, it's the Friedman/Hayek model where private is good economics, public is bad economics, regulation bad, uncontrolled good, the free market is our saviour, all hail the free market.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Dane:
16 Oct 2008 11:06:20am
"By allowing privatisation what we have effectively achieved is a privatisation of profit and a publicisation of debt. Sound familiar?"
Yeah its called facism, nothing new, both Liberal and Labor has adopted this right wing authoritarian to the point people who care about the good parts of socialism going with the bad points, and those who care about individual freedom are basically silenced without their interests heard.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
llanfair:
16 Oct 2008 11:10:25am
So if it was Government owned there wouldn't be a problem?
Just like their Universal Health Obligation (how many business days or is its months do they get to deliver?), and their Universal Education Obligations (and what exactly is their penalty for producing illiterate students?).
There are a number of major problems with the Australian Telecommunications Industry, which is in many respects dysfunctional; but this is due to industry and not ownership structure.
Dr Glasson's report highlights a number of issues affecting regional Australia, across the areas of health, education, emergency services and so forth, but in many of these the cost and availability of telecommunications are only a secondary factor. e-Health for example could deliver substantial benefits to all Australians, but is being delayed while each state creates their interpretation of available International Standards. Online education content is restricted by the lack of a national curriculum to create scale economies. No one is going to invest in broadband, if the applications are 5-10 years away.
As a result the value proposition of most telecommunication technologies is not there - unless you feel spending $24 per month for the latest screen savers is a must have.
Re-engineering public service delivery, would deliver annual savings more than sufficient to fund a world class network, but these improvements would remove the need for the mutitude of government departments just pushing paper.
Until Government leverages the inherent value of an online world, and facilitates the development of a critical mass of content and services from others, telecommunications is going to continue to be a discretionary expenditure.
Telecommunications is relatively expensive and in some areas is unavailable, but clearly the bottom line is that it is not seen to add value. If the Mining companies thought it was they would lay their own fibre links along with the roads, rail, and ports they build as part of their investment.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
twobob:
16 Oct 2008 11:45:14am
No llanfair I did not say that if it was all government owned there would not be a problem.
Those are your words not mine mate.
What I said is that if it were all government owned the profits could be used to support equitable communication services for country Australians.
What I also said was that those profits now go to already wealthy greedy individuals and that it is a form of socialising debt and privatising profit. A point that I am certain any fair minded individual would find utterly contemptuous.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
wmc:
16 Oct 2008 11:21:56am
Thank goodness Telstra was privatised. As a tax-payer, I was a part owner of an enterprise in which I wanted no ownership stake. Not only that, but taxpayer funds were tied up when they should've been deployed elsewhere, like the Future Fund. Thanks to privatisation, Telstra is slowly being deunionised and is shedding public sector work practices. Well done John Howard.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
twobob:
16 Oct 2008 11:59:08am
Yes well done mr howard
you sold something that Australian tax payers had already paid for, to foreign interests like the Suharto family and sold out country Australians to boot.
And havent we all been the winners with Australian currency now going to already wealthy greedy individuals in foreign countries
and telecommunications prices escalating while services decline and call centre jobs are given over to foreign countries.
well done? I think its treasonous actuallyAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Billy Bob Hall:
16 Oct 2008 9:40:58am
Telstra might, but I won't. The state of telecommunications in this great nation of ours is a pathetic joke compared to ANYWHERE in SE Asia. (Except PNG).
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Roland:
16 Oct 2008 12:24:46pm
All too right there!!
You get more of a reliable communications in PNG with two cans and a string!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
chuck:
16 Oct 2008 9:43:04am
Telstra has failed rural areas for too long!
break it up i say, and allow more competition.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
twobob:
16 Oct 2008 10:45:05am
Good thinking chuck
I can see telco companies fighting over the right to loose money in country Australia. The problem mate is a distance/population thing. High population in a small distance = massive profit. Low population in a large area = massive losses. When they are kept together profits and loss can be equalled out and everyone can have good communications. When they are broken up I doubt very much that companies will have much interest in loosing money in country Australia.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
16 Oct 2008 11:16:41am
That's why the profit motive needs to be taken out of infrastructure. Divide it up, put mandatory levels of service in place.
Telstra after all wants a government subsidy to build its over-hyped broadband network. Why not build it as a government owned asset that is leased to each of the retail telcos?
Alternatively give the subsidy in exchange for equity ownership in the totality of the infrastructure. A slow and steady buy back if you will.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
16 Oct 2008 11:56:12am
Telecommunications infrastructure should be a national public asset, just like roads and railways. The infrastructure should be nationalised and retailers can compete to use it.
Agree about the broadband network. That should be owned by the govenment, preferably at arm's length through a government business enterprise, and telcos can buy bandwidth from it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Somewhat Perplexed:
16 Oct 2008 11:29:49am
Exactly the argument when I was working for Telecom years ago.
City people subsidised country people.
You do need to consider our values are different now though. As a society, we were once were concerned about our fellow (wo)man and were prepared to share for the comment good. Now days it is more about the individual.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
llanfair:
16 Oct 2008 11:36:34am
Keeping the assets together does not result in improved outcomes for everyone as Telcos will make each investment decision in isolation.
Many parts of Australia without adequate services may be within a kilometre of an inter-capital fibre link, but to access it a loop needs to run into their town. The Telco's will assess this cost based on the expected revenue from this town and proceed with a link if it meets a set hurdle rate - usually and 18-24 month return on a 25-year asset - and surprise! surprise! it won't stack up. That is why most inter-capital links are running at 1-2% utilisation. A lot of it was laid, but as switching technology outstrips demand the multitude of cables laid are not required.
Meanwhile, another bunch of new entrants bought up all the spectrum along these links to run microwave based backhaul transmission. The result is many communities can't access the fibre beneath them or the airwaves above them.
The recent report identifies a lot of these issues and does rightly recommend approaches such as use it or lose it and separation of network elements.
The Australian taxpayer doesn't need to build a new network, when it makes more sense to divest parts of the existing network that are dysfuntional. A National Backbone Authority could make the incremental long-term investment required to extend the current network capacity to at least 90% of the population, and introduce a standard backbone cost that in combination with a range of last-mile services would give Australia the equitable network it aspires to. This could be supplemented by other initiatives to address the remaining 10% - something that could be funded by the savings on the Government's (Federal and State) current telecommunications expenditure.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Brad:
16 Oct 2008 11:38:05am
Nationalise the actual network and let Telstra be just another retailer in competition with others.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Alan:
16 Oct 2008 9:44:16am
I live 80 km from Melbourne and commute daily to the inner suburbs. Dial up is the only Internet access available to me. The broadband problem is not confined to remotes areas. With Mobile coverage Optus covers my area so I am happy to use their service. I don't need competition I just need access to so form of broadband!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
PH:
16 Oct 2008 10:39:04am
If what you claim is true you should be very elligible for subsidised stellite delivery, we have it here, the feds paid, it's great!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tim:
16 Oct 2008 11:46:27am
Alan,
I agree wholly with you. I live approximately 50kms North East from the Melbourne CBD and the mobile coverage I have is poor at the very least. Telstra claim that we should have full GSM coverage but this does not occur.
I have made repeated calls to Telstra regarding this and they have advised I requre a "blue tick" phone.
My in-laws live the Greensborough and the location they live in have NO Telstra coverage. Vodafone and Optus operate approximately 75% - Telstra still wont provide answers to this one.
Regardless of whoever owns Telstra, something needs to be done to make them more accountable! The lies need to stop.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Phil:
16 Oct 2008 9:48:19am
As much as I hate to say it, why has Telstra got an obligation to provide services to regional Australia? I live in a regional area and I loath Telstra, but the government sold it off in such a way to make the highest price and now expects them to provide services that give little to no return to a public company. The government can't really have it both ways. It is either government owned and the government call the shots, or the shareholders own it and the board of directors call the shots.
The government was wrong to sell it.Agree (3) Alert moderator
-
tonyg:
16 Oct 2008 10:06:37am
Phil,
PMG was a government instrumentality which provided communication to as much of Australia as it could. When it was privatised, it was done on the condition that services to all of Australia would not suffer.
This is what happens when essential services move into the hands of the vultures.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
16 Oct 2008 11:18:23am
The problem, of course, is that communications standards have improved considerably since Telstra was privatised. More mobile towers. Broadband internet.
The government put the wrong mandate on Telstra when it required it to "maintain" standards. Now we are paying for that basic error and lack of vision.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Somewaht Perplexed:
16 Oct 2008 10:45:08am
Telstra absolutely has an obligation to provide services everywhere.
It was part of the initial deal.
It is why they(we) paid several billion for a company that had 50 billion worth of copper cabling in the street.
It is an obligation when you take on a company that has taken 50 years to build on the behalf of the public.
I do agree with your last point. The government had absolutely no right to sell it. It was not operating in the best interests of the public.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
shayne:
16 Oct 2008 9:49:27am
all very well to defend their lack of coverage, but we all know the NextG service is not up to the coverage of CDMA, regardless of the fact it provides more services (ie. internet).
if telstra were fair-dinkum about providing coverage they would provide rural dwellers (like me) NextG handsets and land-based antenna's along with cut-rate prices for internet over the NextG spectrum.
compared to the cost of providing ADSL (estimated at $10-20k per property in my area) or the gov't subsidising two-way satellite this would seem the most logical approach for both telstra and govt.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
malleesurfer:
16 Oct 2008 9:52:06am
what $ to cover the "70%" landmass with service equal to urban areas?
Satellite is available for comms but understandably expensive for internt systems.
where will it end?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Andy:
16 Oct 2008 9:54:45am
Too right! About time Telstra got a kick up the pants. Our local exchange is so old and never upgraded, that has not the capacity to handle ADSL. We are forced to be on dialup for Gods sake! We tried Telstra's wireless internet but it doesn't reach our farm - although Telstra insisted it has our whole area covered. Boo hoo.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Telstra Employee:
16 Oct 2008 9:55:59am
You cant compare our internet to that of SE Asia, Australia is huge, they can afford to run cable across the nation, our next g network is in its early stages of work and is getting better by the day! Quit your whinging and just be patient!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
wmc:
16 Oct 2008 10:07:35am
Well said, good on you for sticking up for your company. Once Telstra's Next IP network is in place, Telstra will be transformed and able to offer services that will be the envy of telcos the world over.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
rob:
16 Oct 2008 10:26:31am
In truly remote areas you can understand the difficulties in providing an affordable service.
However as other posters have pointed out poor service and network access black spots are occurring within 100 Km of the Melbourne CBD, where Telstra is headquartered.
Maybe Telstra employee's and management should stop complaining about customers complaining and spend the their money on fixing the real network problems, rather than wasting hundreds of millions trying to whitewash the problems with expensive advertising campaignsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
rob:
16 Oct 2008 10:31:08am
I should add, the nextG network does not even offer continuous service without dropouts on the train from Melbourne to Ballarat or Melbourne to Geelong.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
malleesurfer:
16 Oct 2008 10:40:39am
ey comrade, tis funny how people expect to be in contact with the world 100% of their time. Telstra isn't "International Rescue". Any device relying on radio signals isn't fool-proof & to give 100% coverage of the nation doesn't happen overnight. There will always be blackspots & the sooner people realise this, & the fact Telstra is closing in on this, the better the network will become. Now, if only IR existed.......
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
rob:
16 Oct 2008 11:04:16am
I do have some ideas about radio transmission theory and I am certainly not your comrade.
What I object to is that there are black spots on major transport corridors close to Melbourne, and these black spots have been in existence for years and Telstra has done nothing to fix them.
If I am traveling in truelly remote areas then I use HF radio or satellite which is appropriate for for those areas. However I do not expect to have to resort to that technology on the train from Melbourne to Geelong.
These black spots have a direct adverse impact on my ability to do business and Telstra has a history of doing nothing about them.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
ex Telstra Customer:
16 Oct 2008 11:50:19am
Telstra Employee - either you are a liar or (like us) are being lied too.
Our patience was lost with all the deceptions and lies regarding the ceaseation of the CDMA network and introduction of Next G - and we all know how that one panned out!!!
If it wasnt right at the start, then it should not have been introduced.
Wake up champ!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Mick:
16 Oct 2008 9:56:03am
take back the infrastructure from Telstra, they won't invest in lines and sub-stations etc, so of course we're left with 1980's technology in the ground and up poles, let them be their own company without any govt funding, time to get with the times, they won't build on their existing infrastructure when competitors can use it, leave telstra with their over-priced, under-serviced product and watch Sol run back to the states with his tail between his legs, mind you with millions of our $$$$....
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rob:
16 Oct 2008 9:56:44am
I have friends that live within 100 Km of Melbourne that have no mobile coverage and only dialup internet available. And this is an area not far from Kyneton, not a remote area by a long shot.
Telstra should spend far less on marketing and sales and invest in actually providing an affordable service to Australia. Watching the Telstra advertising is nauseating when you realise how limited and expensive their service really is outside the major metro areas.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
geturfactsstr8:
16 Oct 2008 11:35:04am
where are telstras prices different in the bush? a landline costs the same , a broadband connection, mobile phone, and wireless broadband cost the same regardless of were you are.
considering telstra IS a private company that DOESNT get government handouts (except to maintain largely unused payphones) how can you possibly expect it to provide coverage everywhere? perhaps you should be asking where the coverage is of other phone providers? Oh thats right they only service customers in major metro and regional area's because that way they can maintain low prices, at the expense of the rest of the country. TELSTRA is more expensive because it provides services for the same price to everyone, it doesnt just pick and choose to suit its bottom line.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
michael (SE Qld):
16 Oct 2008 9:57:45am
One of the biggest mistakes the Howard Government made was to sell off Telstra as a single entity. The wholesale network should have been retained under national ownership and the retail arm spun off to face real competition, then we could invest the funds required to provide a world class, high-speed national network of FTTN or better still FTTH ...
Agree (3) Alert moderator
-
Phil:
16 Oct 2008 10:13:38am
This was the superior option. But it would have sold for far less money, which is what's important (unlike services).
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ADES:
16 Oct 2008 10:35:40am
Spot on! National, or State, assets should never be privately owned. The people should own the infrastructure. If the private sector wants to run it, well & good but, let them rent it at a fair price.
Telstra telemarketers never seem to have a problem geting hold of me but, I've had a lot of problems getting hold of Telstra, in the past. Thank you satellite broadband. If you could just overcome the 3 second delay, you'd have my home phone as well.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
16 Oct 2008 11:45:55am
Agree 110%. The network infrastructure and wholesale business should be nationalised. Essential services like 000 should also be taken away from Telstra. There will always be community service obligations for some service but the retail telcos can compete for the subsidy.
I hope this government does not make the same mistake with the national broadband network. The network itself and the wholesale business should be owned by the government and all telco operators can compete on a level playing field to use it. The Australian Rail Track Corporation, a government-owned corporation, is a useful model.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
tassie :
16 Oct 2008 9:59:28am
Here in Tasmania we are use to having 3rd rate communications and transport ( but don' get me started on that one).We have two fiber optic cables running across Bass straight. One is owned by Telstra and the other was sold to a private company by the state government. This second privately owned cable is hardly used if at all. and yet the state government pays 2m dollars per year to have it sitting there.The back haul rate to Tassie is 3 times the rate from mainland Australia to America. We Don"t have any competitors apart from Telstra that will provide ADSL2 because of the cost. If this second cable was up and running it would at least give Telsta some competition.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ram:
16 Oct 2008 9:59:46am
When Telstra shut off the AMPS network they effectively shutdown the rural network services. This severely hurt the mining industry (particularly mineral explorationists) and much of the agricultural sector. Telstra should be renationalized and operated in the nation's interest - not the interest of foreign bankers.
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
tonyg:
16 Oct 2008 10:02:54am
While Telstra has many failings (broadband coverage especially), they are not the worst.
My mobile service is with an opposition carrier and driving from Darwin to Broome I get coverage for about 300km of the 2000km journey.
A network of common towers along the major highways would be wonderful from a safety perspective.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ADES:
16 Oct 2008 11:57:16am
Don't think it's your carrier. Recent trip up the Stuart Hwy, to Darwin &, down throu NW Qld. Two different phones, with two major carriers, one Telstra. We got zilch! Most of the way. Then, in one area, a guy, not 3 feet away, wouldn't shut up! Should have found out phone type,& carrier. Go figure. No! He wasn't using a car kit.
For you youngsters. 3 feet is just a schmick under a metre.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
JC:
16 Oct 2008 10:06:38am
I live within 50klms of the Melbourne CBD on a rural property. Mobile dropouts are the order of the day. There are only a couple of spots on my acreage where I get coverage. Too bad if I'm involved in an accident out in a paddock somewhere! Yes, and I'm on their wonderful 3G "service."
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ad602000:
16 Oct 2008 10:14:25am
there is no point in taking the infrastructure from telstra and making it seperate. That was tried in NSW with the railways and look how well that worked. We would end up with the situation of everybody blaming everyone else and no outcomes. dont forget, you would still have the same infrastructure to start with and who would manage it a private or public entity
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Aaron:
16 Oct 2008 12:18:58pm
The difference is that we, the taxpayers and voters would have a say about the networks management (election time!). Not just greedy tel$tra execs or their shareholders who will agree to anything that Sol has to sell them.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
16 Oct 2008 12:21:33pm
The problem with NSW railways was that the infrastructure division was made to behave like a business too, so it reduced expenditure (on maintenance) to make some profit. Try looking outside Greater Sydney where the rail infrastructure is owned by the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which in turn is owned by the federal government wich funds infrastructure upgrades.
The national communications network should be like the national road network with no profit motive. The Hume Highway never makes any profit.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
SK:
16 Oct 2008 10:18:43am
Again, it becomes rather tiresome reading comments that are informed neither by technical knowledge of global IT & T, or commercial reality. The answer to this is in the coming NBN - with wireless for the last mile. With our miniscule population (in a comparitive sense), and massive landmass, to rollout fixed broadband to every pocket of population is a recipe for bankruptcy. In a technical sense the 850 Next G network is superior to older CDMA, and as with any new technology there will undoubtably be blackspots etc in the short term that will be corrected. The govt sold telstra - and it's assets. It is a non-govt enterprise now people, albeit more tightly regulated than just about any other non-govt enterprise.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
16 Oct 2008 11:48:08am
The NBN will be just as bad if Telstra has its way. Telstra should NOT be allowed to get its grubby hands on broadband long haul and wholesale. This should be a national public asset and Telstra should be made to compete on a level playing field with other retailers.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
cltc:
16 Oct 2008 10:24:30am
I have just been through 4 months of hell with telstra over my home phone line, i live in bush and my phone was not working at all or when it was working was'nt worth using, this is our only means of communication where i live as there is NO mobile reception at all, including the sat phone they offered me which didnt work.After 4 months and calling at least everyday(which i had to travel 30km to do it was fixed for now.My point is they do NOT care about people in the bush i can currently only get dial up as sat net doesnt even work at my home.Telstra is a joke and if thre were any other options people would use them.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Paulp:
16 Oct 2008 10:24:52am
At last. A review that paints Telstra for what it is. A BIG profit, poorly performing entity that does not have anybodies interest but its own (shareholders), at heart (that's what happens when the taxpayer sells a core piece of national infrastructure).
It is very obvious that the only way country people are going to be in receipt of "city telecommunications services" is if its taxpayer funded. Private enterprise does not want the "non profitable bits" and the ability to cross subsidise is now gone.
Governments privatising core national infrastructure is proving not to be such "good economic sense" after all. Looks like the taxpayer will have to either buy some of it back, or build anew.
The answer is to break up Telstra. The tax payer will have to "re purchase" the communications infrastructure and let a "retail Telstra" takes it chances with everybody else. A test of the willingness to make the "hard political decisions" is looming.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Andrew:
16 Oct 2008 10:25:26am
Ok, so an australian "OWNED" company gets the beating once again, arent we all meant to be supporting our Australian owned companys. I can assure you telstra's coverage to rural areas is alot better then rival companies, optus and vodafone so why cant i hear people complaning about them. Yes cdma may have been better for coverage but windows xp was also more stable then windows vista. Every company is going to want to go bigger and better and these things take time to get up and running.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Dale:
16 Oct 2008 10:25:33am
In all fairness to telstra they are a publicly listed company and as such will only do what will bring a return to the company. Lets face it if rural areas are ever going to be supplied with internet it will have to be government funded. With that said, why pay telstra to do it, why not tender the work like most other infrastructure projects, and based on prior history award the work to another company. The problem here is Telstra is no longer owned by the government BUT i dont think the government realises that yet.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
16 Oct 2008 11:22:09am
Yes, the duty to shareholders is simple and paramount. Yet another illustration of the folly of putting corporations in a position where they dominate the government.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
16 Oct 2008 12:09:53pm
The current economic situation also shows the folly of corporations law. Company Directors have a legal obligation to be greedy and make the maximum amount of profit for shareholders. Directors can be fined or go to jail if they do not put the interests of shareholders above all other considerations.
This leads to companies pursuing growth for the sake of growth alone and growth becomes an end in itself. There is something else that grows simply for the sake of growing when everything else around it is healthy - it's called a cancer.
Corporations should have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of shareholders, the environment and society equally.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Aaron:
16 Oct 2008 12:26:16pm
The government should be paying consortiums to build any new national communications infrastructure. BUT the government should OWN and new infrastructure and wholesale it. This avoids the Testra issue where its only motivation is profit AND it will pave way for competition in on-selling services. This way consumers and competitive corporates win. More people will be happy this way.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Paolo-Andrea:
16 Oct 2008 10:30:57am
Telstra has a lot to answer for. We live on the Sunshine Coast and can't receive mobile coverage and ADSL2 as Telestra refuses to 'invest' in the upgrading of copper wiring from the Palmwoods Telephone Exchange. In NZ both mobile and internet coverage is second to none in the world and NZ is covered in hills, mountains and dales. Telstra need to be broken up just like Telecom NZ was. Telstra grabs the money and provides inadequate services across the country. But one thing that they are extremely good at is getting their PR firms to blind the public and customer with Telecommunication Science.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Aaron:
16 Oct 2008 12:30:24pm
And with the stock market crash, now is the time for the government to buy!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
chrispy:
16 Oct 2008 10:34:51am
First up, I'm a Telstra shareholder.
If providing a quality phone service to rural areas is profitable then sure I am happy for Telstra to do it. If it isn't profitable then I would obviously prefer someone else takes care of it. If the government want's to force Telstra to provide the service then I wan't a tax deduction because Telstra would then be a charity.
In fact much of the rural service Telstra provides does not pay for itself but is only in place so that salespeople can say to city users "you can drive from sydney to melbourne without loosing signal". If it wasn't for that sales incentive then the rural coverage would be alot worse.
It would make sense to break up telstra into retail/wholesale parts and frankly that is what the government should have done before privatising it in the first place. It would have improved competition, reduced prices and probably improved overall coverage. Unfortunately you still have the rural profitability problem.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ADES:
16 Oct 2008 11:22:18am
I seem to remember, not that long ago, the board ignored the shareholders, just like the customers, & employees.
Maybe, some of Sol's multi-million bonus could alleviate some unprofitability.
"Australian owned"? American CEO. 3rd world service. Only Australian thing about it is Australian money!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jimbo Jim:
16 Oct 2008 11:30:49am
"If the government want's to force Telstra to provide the service then I wan't a tax deduction because Telstra would then be a charity."
The government already pays Telstra quite a bit (above the equipment rental and call charges the customer pays) to build and maintain rural services. In fact the government pays Telstra so much money ($600 million / year IIRC) that when other Telcos (including Optus) said "We are quite happy to take over the USO" Telstra effectively said "No way".
If the USO is costing Telstra money one would think they'd be keen to off load the responsiblity.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
PH:
16 Oct 2008 10:36:55am
Telstra do a great job, its a huge country, a tiny proportion of the customer base lives in the bush, the infrastructure and logistics involved in service delivery to a few punters is formidible. Who is really complaining anyway, sure the cockys moan, but they moan about rain AND drought. Its a political stunt, relax, you will always be able to call your mum. It's a beatifull, quiet morning in the bush (Nth NSW), lots of birds and a little light rain, I hope the bloody phone doesn't ring.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Roger:
16 Oct 2008 10:38:28am
Get over it, Telstra is a public company with obligations to share holders as its first priority, customers come a distant second. It was sold, we took the money, spent it and now have to live with the consequences.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
SK:
16 Oct 2008 10:38:37am
... and while we're at it, why has this 'independant' review of 'telecommunications' been conducted by Dr Glasson (an opthamologist), and his team which include lawyers and local govt politicians? No disrespect whatsoever to the medical and legal professions, but this doesn't quite seem to be their area of expertise. Maybe I'm wrong?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
IntheDark:
16 Oct 2008 11:13:40am
Perhaps an opthamologist is just we need to investigate this - someone with vision.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
SK:
16 Oct 2008 11:52:22am
.. good idea, i will push for my podiatrist to oversee a new raft of regulation in the finance sector :)
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
ant:
16 Oct 2008 10:45:52am
I see people talking about living 100km out of Melbourne and not having service, or 80 km and not having service, we live less than 25 km outside Canberra, our nation's capital and we have only just been able to change from ISDN to ADSL. And there are people who live closer to Canberra than we do who can not get anything other than dialup. And don't talk to me about mobile coverage. Get some real competition in the market, split the infrastructure arm off. Even New Zealand has better services than we do!!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
16 Oct 2008 11:49:38am
There are parts of Canberra itself with nothing more than dialup.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
J C Denton:
16 Oct 2008 10:46:03am
funny how people here say break up Telstra or someting.. Telstsa is the only telco who makes half a effort to provide services to rural australia, 3g piggy back off thier network and optus couldnt give a toss about ya. be happy with what ya got it could be alot worse
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JC:
16 Oct 2008 11:15:43am
Yep it could be worse - you could be in the middle of a paddock hit by a snake, in a machinery accident and laying there fighting for your life. You reach for your mobile and, guess what, no signal!! What next, smoke signals? Pidgeons?
Or maybe you or your partner breaks down in the middle of nowhere. You go to call RACV, RACQ etc but alas, no signal. Hope you enjoy walking!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
PH:
16 Oct 2008 11:52:48am
what if? what if the sky is falling ? advertising sure is persuasive..................................
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Doh:
16 Oct 2008 11:23:49am
Telstra only do so because they have an obligation to do so. They constantly moan and whinge and seek handouts to perform this service.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
SK:
16 Oct 2008 10:49:46am
... and surely it is just a coincidence that this report - drafted by a team that was hand picked by the decidedly anti telstra howard govt, has handed down decidedly anti - telstra findings... wake up people
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
whitelephant:
16 Oct 2008 10:59:20am
Telstra-and the rest of them-represent that greedy self serving part of monopoly capitalism that has got us into the strife we are in today.
Bring back the lash-and the rack-and the thumbscrews I say.
In all seriousness they MUST be curbed.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
SK:
16 Oct 2008 11:20:02am
you are advocating overturning the entire system. There is no part of capitalism that isn't latently self-serving. With each year the distribution of wealth has become less equal, with the minority at the top becoming increasingly wealthy. This is a product of fractional reserve banking, among other things, generating interest not linked to tangible assets. Maybe a new economic system is a good idea - a resource rather than financially based model.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
PH:
16 Oct 2008 11:50:45am
how about a new system period ! Privatising profit and socialising loss has never stood the test of time, people get sick of it !
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Rob:
16 Oct 2008 11:05:19am
Interesting as I went to one of the meetings involved and glad to see results come to light.
If Telstra didn't have a monopoly on the Next G network in our area I would drop the mongrels like a hot scone and would be happy never to deal with them again. Why are Telstra allowed to have a monopoly when there is legislation prohibiting it in all other sectors?
How can the ACCC find Telstra guilty of blatantly misrepresenting their coverage and then not fine them?? What is the point of the ACCC under those circumstances?
How can other Telcos compete when Telstra own the infrastructure?
Send those money hungry Yanks home and put the company back in public hands....never should have privatised our counties primary Telco!!
This is an example of the worst excesses of greed as we are witnessing in the financial sector, but don't complain if you own Telstra shares as you are part of the problem! Sell them and buy something that benefits this country, and that aint TelstraAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
SK:
16 Oct 2008 11:27:22am
this has nothing to do with the current financial crisis - a debt bubble created by low interest rates and predatory lending practices, and fueled by greedy packaging and circulation of collateralised debt obligations throughout the financial system. Nothing to do with it. And telstra doesn't have a monopoly. Foreign entities such as optus (singapore govt) have been getting a free ride on their fixed assets for years, and the Next G network was funded by telstra shareholders - so why in the hell would they open it up to their competitors?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
16 Oct 2008 12:29:11pm
Optus is another problem. When the Hawke government privatised Aussat Pty Ltd (which became Optus), there was legislation that guaranteed Optus would always be majority Australian owned. Guess which government removed the foreign ownership restrictions. As a result, Telstra's main competitor is owned by the Singapore government.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-