John Linton
.......and we must all be very grateful to Telstra who, seemingly, spend an awful lot of their own money to ensure that as little misleading as possible takes place. It is very reassuring to know that SOMEONE (or properly speaking - some organisation) truly cares about the great Australian public to the extent that they spend what appears to be a great deal of real money vigilantly scrutinising, what I can only assume is, every written word and every spoken or televised word relating to communications services on every web page, pamphlet, brochure, TV and radio ad, newspaper and magazine ad and press article that exists in Australia on every day of every week.
I will be the very first to admit that I'm right up there contending for the title of "very worst proof reader in Australia". I therefore find it comforting to think that Telstra employs people (I assume it isn't one person given the amount of material that has to be scrutinised each day) to diligently read Exetel's web site because I have written every word of the many tens of thousands of words that appear on those pages and am always grateful for being advised of errors.
While I am absolutely 'no angel' when it comes to writing generally (this blog for example) I am old enough and wise enough to understand that telling 'porkies' via words written on a public web site, especially words written to describe aspects of services you are offering that require being paid for is an absolute 'no no'. Therefore I have always thought that in doing such writing I have always been especially careful about making any claims that are not strictly true and, I had previously thought, I always erred on the conservative side in making such statements.
So you can imagine my absolute amazement, if I was given to hyperbole I might almost say "absolute horror", to be advised by Telstra that I had made a statement on the Exetel web site that was:
"patently false and untrue"
Good grief, I said to myself, (or words to that effect) whatever have I done! What horrendous illegal acts of gross deception have I perpetrated that has caused so much damage to the Australian buying public???? I was so shaken up by this catastrophic offence that I had committed that, search as I might, I couldn't find the offending words (I was so shaken by the charge of gross written impropriety that I failed to notice the url reference at the bottom of the first page of the two page letter) so after a few minutes I called for help to find the criminally worded allurement. So a much calmer person pointed out the url to me....
....but to my complete mystification I still couldn't see the offending words after scanning the page several times. So the kind, calm person came to my screen and pointed them out to me. Wow, I thought (or words to that effect).....that wording is a problem? The wording was on this url:
http://www.exetel.com.au/business_hspa.php
What was the wording that Telstra was demanding be removed (and, of course, was immediately removed) from the third section of this page?:
"is usable pretty much anywhere in Australia"
which has now been replaced with:
"is usable throughout the Optus HSPA coverage areas. Telstra’s General Counsel – Telstra Consumer, insists that to avoid mis-leading any reader that it must also be pointed out that within any Optus coverage area there will be black spots which she says includes, but presumably are not limited to, those caused by elevators (lifts for Australian readers), high rise buildings, the device used and (although we don’t understand what this means) the use of an external antenna)."
It took a few seconds to change the wording and doubtless it makes it clear that the coverage is limited to the areas noted on the Optus coverage maps. Of course an intelligent person (scanning the Exetel web site for information) would have, presumably, noted that Exetel had already, very conservatively made reference to the coverage being circumscribed by the referenced coverage maps and all other references including on the HSPA order form should someone actually proceed to order a service.....and this is on a business page that presumably is read (if in fact anyone has ever read it) by business people.
Now, and I could be completely wrong, I would, personally, have thought that a business person would understand "pretty much everywhere" written on that particular page after the very specific previous disclaimers wouldn't apply to the 'empty' areas of Australia that, apart from being almost largely unreachable by 'business people', a possible business reader would understand that no mobile service was being claimed to exist either there or anywhere outside the specifically referenced coverage maps and the very specific order form cautions. However Telstra seemed to think "pretty much everywhere" implied the totality of the Australian continent. Perhaps it does/did? I, personally, cant see how any rational reader could possibly make such an assumption.
So it took a few seconds to replace the offending words so, thank goodness, there will now never be an instance of some businessman dying in the middle of the Simpson Desert because he was unable to call for help on his Exetel HSPA service - as Forrest would say - "that's one thing less to worry about".
I wonder whether Telstra will now insist that we contact the 3,000 or so customers who have bought the Exetel version of the Optus HSPA service to specifically remind them that they shouldn't attempt to try and make use of their HSPA service while trekking through the Bungle Bungles?
I sometimes wonder if the writer of such letters as the one we received yesterday visualised themselves wasting their own and everyone else's time writing such dross when they were slogging through their law degree? I would have hoped that, apart from thinking about the money they planned to earn, they would have had some expectation ("dream" perhaps shouldn't be used in this context) of doing something useful for themselves and for their country and their fellow countrymen?
Nevertheless we should all be grateful that Telstra is so diligently mindful of the ongoing need to protect the Australian public from the predatory behaviour of unscrupulous communicaton companies.....(there's something wrong with that sentence but I'm not sure what it is).