The Telstra Saga (1 Viewer)

[veridis]

Clarify how rural Australia is stopping Telstra from rolling out highspeed internets to metropolitan areas? Because they're spending money to maintain basic, shit services to areas of the country instead of spending it all in Sydney?
I don't think so.
Stephen Conroy is a dicky Labor spokesman. Considering he isnt the Communications minister, I don't give two shits what the man has to say.

wow, in one thread you say people should go get a job instead of being on benefits, then in another you say that you should have your telecommunications subsidised. and you top it off by dismissing an argument simply because it came from a labor source.
"i'm against government handouts, unless they're to me"
"i want facts, unless i disagree with them"

 

[iamsickofyear12]

If Telstra etc. was just allowed to roll out high speed broadband in the metropolitan areas it would have been done by now.

...and it would be ridiculously overpriced and competitors would have no access.

 

[katie_tully]

wow, in one thread you say people should go get a job instead of being on benefits,

Um no, don't misquote, kthx. I said people who have the capacity to work but are too useless to and find it easier to live on welfare should go and work. Get it right, okay?

then in another you say that you should have your telecommunications subsidised.

Did I say subsidised, or did I say if we cannot have close to equal services and yet still pay the same amount for our shit services, we should have our shit services subsidised. Don't misquote, k thx.

And I discredit most Labor sources on the grounds of them being a crock of shit.

 

[Snaykew]

I used to believe Telstra's high prices were forced so that other ISPs would have a chance the i found out their prices were high because they are jerks.

 

[veridis]

Did I say subsidised, or did I say if we cannot have close to equal services and yet still pay the same amount for our shit services, we should have our shit services subsidised. Don't misquote, k thx.

which equates to a desire ro be subsidised. rural telecommunications cost more per customer - fact. you want equal service for equal cost compared to metropolitan customers. thus you want them to subsidise you. dont talk shit, k thx.

 

[kazan]

Are you talking about the cost to telstra or the cost to the customer?

either way

I agree with subsidised rural communications

 

[veridis]

dont get me wrong i agree with it, i just find it amusing that katie thinks it's her unassailable right to have cheap telecommunications subsidised by other users, yet is calling for severe restrictions and cutbacks in disability and unemployment pensions. rather than consistant support for more sociality policies or more libertarian policies she seems to want the libertarian ones where she doesn't need help, and the socialist ones where she does. it's that kind of thinking that i take issue with rather than telstra subsidsing rural users.

 

[kazan]

i never read anywhere about her wanting to take away benifits from people who genuinly deserve them.

 

[veridis]

"genuinely deserve" now care to define that in non-subjective way that can be applied in practice?
of course when it comes to telecommunications it's a bit easier to define "genuinely deserve", it's quite simply those who pay for the cost of providing the service to them. so by that definition rural communities don't "genuinely deserve" quality telecommunications.
either we have a society that values equality and helps people, or we have a libertarian one where everyone has to fend for themselves. you can't pick and choose depending on which suits you best(ok well you can and many people do, it's just a logically incoherant position)

 

[kazan]

ok
people that deserve support benifits imo
people with disabilitys (mental or physical)
people who are unable to find suitable work BUT CONTINUE TO LOOK/ undergo new training

people who have been fired, and are looking for work,
single parents with no childcare facilities available.

actually i cant be fucked naming them all

basically

people who dont do shit all, and sit on there ass allday
dont look for work, waste all there "pay" on things of little to no vaule.
and basically have no reason for getting a job apart from pure laziness, dont deserve benifits.


on the other hand

if someone is willing to pay for a service, they should be granted the same quality as someone else who pays the same amount. the fact that rural services are both more expensive and shitty doesn't seem fair.

imo they should either fix the service, or foot some of the bill

im not asking for both, in a perfect world we would get both, but i altleast think getting one is fair

 

[Azamakumar]

dont get me wrong i agree with it, i just find it amusing that katie thinks it's her unassailable right to have cheap telecommunications subsidised by other users, yet is calling for severe restrictions and cutbacks in disability and unemployment pensions. rather than consistant support for more sociality policies or more libertarian policies she seems to want the libertarian ones where she doesn't need help, and the socialist ones where she does. it's that kind of thinking that i take issue with rather than telstra subsidsing rural users.

If you were literate you'd know that her posts in the other thread are aimed not at preventing disabled persons from obtaining government support, but illustrating the high incidence of freeriders and exploitation of the current system at hand.
She also indicates that although she pays as much as users do in metropolitan areas, she gets a substandard service, pointing out that while Telstra is making billions of charging ridiculously inflated prices for use of their facilities by competitors, there is a severe lack of technology in populated rural areas.

And you all seem to think that the privatisation of telstra is bad, yet complain of the high prices they charge for competitors.
FACT: Deregulation encourages competition through competitiveness. Other companies are creating their own infrastructure, meaning sooner or later we WILL get dirt cheap net.

 

[veridis]

If you were literate you'd know that her posts in the other thread are aimed not at preventing disabled persons from obtaining government support, but illustrating the high incidence of freeriders and exploitation of the current system at hand.
She also indicates that although she pays as much as users do in metropolitan areas, she gets a substandard service, pointing out that while Telstra is making billions of charging ridiculously inflated prices for use of their facilities by competitors, there is a severe lack of technology in populated rural areas.

And you all seem to think that the privatisation of telstra is bad, yet complain of the high prices they charge for competitors.
FACT: Deregulation encourages competition through competitiveness. Other companies are creating their own infrastructure, meaning sooner or later we WILL get dirt cheap net.

do you actually have any statistics about "freeriders" or do you just believe today tonight? all welfare systems make errors, it's inevitable. we can have our system now, where we cover all of the people who need it, but make mistakes every now and then and give benifits to 5% who dont. or we can make the system stricter eliminate that 5%, but our mistakes will now be not giving benefits to 5% of people who do need it. and dont feed me bullshit about we should make our system error free, the current system is already understaffed. if make it error free would cost twice as much as just accepting that we overpay some people with benefits.
people charge as much as she is willing to pay, capitalism baby. i never once mentioned privatisation, but since you seem to love it i dont see how you can argue against telstra charging as much as they want. no other private company wants to try and compete in rural areas, cause it's a massive area of loss. privatisation means looking at the bottom line not at quality of service. while i can see how that could help us massively in metro areas, it's just not economically feasible to run modern telecommunications in rural areas. the only time a private investor has been vaguely interested in rural areas is when the government offered to foot the bill.

 

[Azamakumar]

people charge as much as she is willing to pay, capitalism baby. i never once mentioned privatisation, but since you seem to love it i dont see how you can argue against telstra charging as much as they want. no other private company wants to try and compete in rural areas, cause it's a massive area of loss. privatisation means looking at the bottom line not at quality of service. while i can see how that could help us massively in metro areas, it's just not economically feasible to run modern telecommunications in rural areas. the only time a private investor has been vaguely interested in rural areas is when the government offered to foot the bill.

Replace capitalism with monopoly. The reason there is no incentive is because it is a natural monopoly, the second you buy into it you are going to be overrun with inflated costs of production. This is the same reason that small businesses are unable to compete in metropolitan area's, and there is not infrastructure in rural areas. And if the goverment were to subsidise a succesful venture into rural area's, it would need to be under a privatised telstra, or we'd have the same problem we do in metropolitan areas.

And privatisation was a generalisation, not directed at you, hence my typing since you all.

 

[MaNiElla]

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22369764-15306,00.html

 

[volition]

on the other hand

if someone is willing to pay for a service, they should be granted the same quality as someone else who pays the same amount. the fact that rural services are both more expensive and shitty doesn't seem fair.

imo they should either fix the service, or foot some of the bill

im not asking for both, in a perfect world we would get both, but i altleast think getting one is fair

Just wanted to point something out:
Do you think it's "unfair" that girls have to pay more to get haircuts than guys?
Do you think it's "unfair" that insurance companies charge more to insure younger drivers?
Do you think it's "unfair" to charge more for a service where it costs you more?

Essentially, the reason why there is price discrimination is because it costs them more to provide the service. There is no problem with them charging more where it costs them more.