As a person involved with a company that spends almost 50% of the money it receives in revenue with Telstra (some $1,500,00 each month and continually increasing) I would really like, if not a 'friendly' relationship with such a supplier, then at least a 'neutral' one. I understood from the comment by Mr Trujillo within days of his arrival in Australia that:
"wholesale customers are parasites"
that any chances of even a 'neutral' relationship were unlikely to be possible so I'm not making an issue out of something that Telstra has made abundantly clear.
I had a particularly bad day yesterday (everything I touched went wrong) so I held off commenting on this press release from Telstra until a new day dawned and with the dawn springs eternal hope:
Of course this is just marketing spin with heavy legal vetting but it is a strange and, I suppose in some ways, an ominous set of words as it seems to clearly indicate that Telstra is unable to accept the first principles of operating in some sort of democracy which are - obey the laws of the society in which you live.
""Today's decision shows how the law is being used by a rogue government agency, the ACCC, to arbitrarily redistribute the investments of more than one million Australians.
"In some cases this redistribution of wealth means the savings of Australian investors have been handed over to highly-profitable foreign corporations that have no right to be subsidized, least of all by Australian investors," Dr Burgess said."
So, Dr Burgess, an American being paid a great deal of money, after a High Court ruling insists that the High Court is wrong and that the Federal Government is acting illegally.
What other connotation can be put on his statement? Especially in the context of this statement by Telstra's chief legal 'gun slinger':
"A victory today would have meant more investment, more infrastructure and more competition for Australia, all of which would have been good for Australian consumers and businesses," Telstra's Group General Counsel, Mr Will Irving, said today.
"We accept the decision, but we are disappointed because it means Australians lose an opportunity for more investment, more competition, more innovation and more choices in broadband......"
What else can be made of this than this senior Telstra spokesperson is threatening to take his bat and ball home and find more ways to 'punish' the recalcitrant Australians who actually have given his company the full ranges of due legal process right up to constitutional challenge to make their case?
The Federal Government authority (ACCC) and every level court process in Australia gives Telstra the opportunity of making its case for the pricing it believes should be charged and, every single level of court due process, doesn't accept what Telstra claims....and now there are no more levels of court available to, yet again, appeal the decision Telstra's first public statement is to threaten all and sundry with 'withdrawing investment in maintaining the network'?
As this is the 'authorised' Telstra position, obviously completely vetted by their lawyers (given that the two people 'quoted' are both lawyers) I can only speculate that the upper echelons are a seething mass of resentment and, like all bullies who get their first punch in the nose in the playground, are almost certainly involved in "we're gonna getcha for this" group gabfests.
Personally....I think that Telstra should be nationalised by the Australian government (I never believed it should have ever have been privatised but then one insignificant person's views are always irrelevant) who should get rid of the imported 'rogue' management and have it run for the Australian people and the best interests of the Australian people.
If communications capabilities are important to the future of Australians then the current situation with Telstra has to be addressed as it is simply ensuring that progress in offering better services at reasonable costs will continue to be glacial.
« previous page
(Page 1 of 1, totaling 1 entries)
next page » Frontpage