Telstra and the Country (1 Viewer)

[Raiks]

Well it's quite clear that none of you have a scintilla of knowledge about economics, telstra and privatisation. Yawn.....

I actually have quite a bit to be honest... *yawn*

And I totally agree with Christine, they should be IQ tested, because then we'd get rid of at least half of the Non-School Forum for starters.

 

[heybraham]

People in the country should not get access to the same communication channels as people in the city. They chose to live in the country and there are certain advantages and disadvantages associated with that.

you're only saying that coz u don't know just how bad the services can be.

 

[heybraham]

Well it's quite clear that none of you have a scintilla of knowledge about economics, telstra and privatisation. Yawn.....

our economy is heavily supported by the agriculture and mining industries.

 

[walrusbear]

Considering that Telstra is in part funded by equity, you'd wanna keep your shareholders wouldn't you?

i'm not arguing that the shareholders are worthless but isn't it problematic if a government owned (mostly, for the time being) company that attends to its shareholders benefit more than its actual service?

 

[j_hakka_v2]

People in the bush need services, it is for the greater good of the country. If rural and regional businesses don't have adequate communications then they may go under. That means communities lose jobs.... more centrelink payments are required... rural and regional communities will continue to lose population if the communications issue isn't addressed. We need people to live outside of the cities, and anyone who can't understand that is crazy. There are a whole host of economic and infrastructure related reasons why we all can't live in the city... plus who would get our food? Grow our cows (lol poor phrasing)? Milk the cows? Isn't beef a major export for Australia? We all like milk on our breakfast cereal, well what if all the farmers all say "fuck you all I'm moving to the city where I can actually check my email more than once a month and where my children won't die if they have an asthma attack because Telstra hasn't come to fix the phone".

People who live in rural and regional areas aren't just bums who do nothing for the country. They are very important, pay their taxes like everyone else, and get a raw deal on most things. Communications services shouldn't be yet another thing to add to the list of stuff the bush misses out on... things like health/doctors, funding for cultural events, roads and infrastructure, public transport of any kind, lack of funding for universities and schools.... blah blah blah.

See it's this nationalistic nonsense that pervades this forum which is shrouding the true nature of the situation. Yes, the bush does deserve basic services and Telstra should be held liable for their provision, however, at the same time, it cannot be expected that companies provide state-of-the-art internet and what not to the country where a) there is little demand and b) little profit is to be made. Country citizens, unfortunately, have to come to terms with the fact that the same level of technology in the city is simply unviable in the regional areas. Even now, when Telstra is still part-owned by the Government, if it wasn't for the HiBIS scheme Telstra would still be avoiding the provision of country internet services.

And also, be quiet with all these lame arguments about how we need cows and beef and so on to survive. Have you all forgotten imports? Even if we have to resort to importing and thus increase our CAD, the fact remains that we won't all be suddenly suffering from calcium or protein deprivation in the event that we don't produce beef or dairy products.

 

[ogmzergrush]

If that's all you're saying j_hakka_v2, I'm not sure why there is argument. As far as I've seen nobody else in the thread has said that they expect state-of-the-art technology in rural areas, just things like a reliable POTS, Internet access, etc that can be counted on.

 

[withoutaface]

yeah it's more important people make money off their shares than country people have essential communication services

Since when is ADSL a neccessity?

 

[j_hakka_v2]

If that's all you're saying j_hakka_v2, I'm not sure why there is argument. As far as I've seen nobody else in the thread has said that they expect state-of-the-art technology in rural areas, just things like a reliable POTS, Internet access, etc that can be counted on.

Have you forgotten to read my post? I actually said they do deserve basic services as you listed and Telstra should be held liable to provide those services. However, I would contend that internet access really isn't a necessity in the scheme of things.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Since when is ADSL a neccessity?

From memory Telstra are required to provide a minimum of 19.2 kbits for any line. It's been a while since I've used a connection that slow, but I sure don't want to go back I guess there's a tendency to confuse neccessities with wants, but given the quality (Or lack thereof) of dialup access in rural areas, I can't really blame people for wanting something a bit better. The dialup situation is a bit more reasonable these days though, with the use of national call numbers for ISPs. Having to call long-distance to Sydney or wherever to use the Internet just blows.

Then again, on the other hand schools, businesses and other places like that which utilise networks in rural areas would have a pretty shithouse time sharing a 19.2 connection, so some form of broadband is highly desirable and probably as close to a need as you can get with Internet access for them. Maybe not ADSL, but some form of reasonably cost-effective broadband.

Short response: Maybe not need, but exceptionally desirable

 

[ogmzergrush]

Have you forgotten to read my post? I actually said they do deserve basic services as you listed and Telstra should be held liable to provide those services. However, I would contend that internet access really isn't a necessity in the scheme of things.

Speaking of reading the post, give it a bash.

I'll try again "Given that everyone else says they need basic services, and you also say they need basic services, I'm not sure why there is a need for disagreement."

Re: your contention that Internet access isn't a necessity, make up your mind. Initially you said state-of-the-art, now just Internet access in general?

If you actually mean state of the art, see above. If you mean in general, I'm not really sure how the provision of Internet access burdens Telstra that much anyway, given the aforementioned 19.2 minimum which should be possible on any reasonably maintained plain copper line. It's not like the USO requires them to provide ADSL at rural exchanges, so I don't see why this is an issue.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

People need a decent internet connection as well as phone lines, this is particularly important for businesses in rural areas. It's bloody hard to operate a business these days without having access to the internet, particularly if you are isolated. I'm not saying it needs to be state of the art, but it needs to be reliable and of a decent speed.

 

[j_hakka_v2]

People need a decent internet connection as well as phone lines, this is particularly important for businesses in rural areas. It's bloody hard to operate a business these days without having access to the internet, particularly if you are isolated. I'm not saying it needs to be state of the art, but it needs to be reliable and of a decent speed.

No-one is arguing against that.

 

[ogmzergrush]

No-one is arguing against that.

Which begs the question, what the fuck is there to argue about? :>

 

[katie_tully]

Have you forgotten to read my post? I actually said they do deserve basic services as you listed and Telstra should be held liable to provide those services. However, I would contend that internet access really isn't a necessity in the scheme of things.

Oh you're right. Because nobody in the country goes to school, university or owns a business, thus not requiring internet access.

 

[UGFighter]

i'm not arguing that the shareholders are worthless but isn't it problematic if a government owned (mostly, for the time being) company that attends to its shareholders benefit more than its actual service?

Seen the recent dump in share price by Telstra?

TLS is in BIG trouble! I suspect we haven't seen the end of this decrease in share price yet either..

The government want to sell their 50.1% stake in Telstra, is that so they don't face the burden & cost of providing communication services to the country? The government wanted $5.25 per share.. pft, good luck! I think they will have trouble selling what they have even at current prices.

T3 is floating...

I do agree that city people and country folks should have access to reliable communication services, but with the Govt. looking to sell their stake, I fear this is going to become a matter for the public to deal with rather than the Govt.

 

[Raiks]

Oh you're right. Because nobody in the country goes to school, university or owns a business, thus not requiring internet access.

At least somebody has got it right. The last time I heard, country people only grow vegetables and when did lettuce need ADSL?

 

[pete_mate]

Why on earth would the Australian Government make the same mistake again with rural, regional and remote people by giving them telecommunications, because if the government did that, then all they'd be doing is giving another part of Australia the ability to be heard.

they already have communications you raving lefty nut, you only ocassionally hear some old man in the middle of the desert raving on a current affair about how he doesnt get mobile reception.

no shit sherlock! are we going to build a grid of towers in the countryfor the 2 people per 10 square kilometres that live there?

 

[pete_mate]

lol..

Telstra as a company is in financial disaster if you ask me. It's having, yet, it's THIRD float... what the hell does that signal?!

its not a goddamned float, its a privatisation. The government owns the shares and sells them. No new shares are created, only existing ones are sold, all that oil crap is therefore irrelivant

 

[mr_brightside]

its simple
it costs money for telstra to provide these "services"
therefore they suck/dont exist

 

[UGFighter]

its not a goddamned float, its a privatisation. The government owns the shares and sells them. No new shares are created, only existing ones are sold, all that oil crap is therefore irrelivant

Yeah, my bad.. got my wires crossed, haven't followed Telstra for a long time.