John Linton ....but still complete failure to execute.
Although there was a flurry of media announcements and reporting on the 'NBN2'/Telstra 'deal' yesterday no-one seemed to read the actual document and notice, let alone comment on some of the weirder clauses. While any, even cursory, skimming of the document would reveal that the two years of "negotiations" must have been very, very one sided (with Telstra 'winning' on every single point) there were a few real 'doozies' that are hard to understand. I have no interest in the 'deal' as such and would always have assumed that Telstra would win everything it wanted and then some - because the federal government had no negotiating position at all - despite any bluster it attempted it just had to get access to Telstra's infrastructure and it had to get Telstra not to compete with it.
So why did Telstra agree to not offer a broadband wireless service for twenty years in competition to the 'NBN2'?
I thought all of the "experts" including the CEO of the 'NBN2' have vociferously and continuously stated that wireless broadband is absolutely no threat to the 'NBN2' and could NEVER affect a fibre roll out in any way? While total idiots, like me since day one of Krudd's lying announcement, have averred that the ONLY cost effective way of offering broadband to remote and rural areas and many regional areas would be via wireless the sensible gubmant spokes people (and the general fools with no knowledge in the media and who vote Labor as an article of being) have continually parroted the line that, because of their personal experiences to date, wireless can never be used as a mainstream internet service. If that is the case then why tie Telstra down to not providing wireless broadband in 'opposition' to the 'NBN2"? Wasn't forcing Telstra to rip up the PSTN enough guarantee that every user will be forced to use the 'NBN2' because there was no alternative?
So, it appears, that Labor's lying manipulation is now exposed as restricting not only commercial choice (and therefore ensuring the highest possible price is paid by all communications users) but it is trying to restrict/kill off technology choice and cripple Australia's communications future vis a vis the rest of the world. What other interpretation could be put on such a restriction? Never mind - perhaps it isn't true at all and I have been misinformed.
I only reference that piece of nonsense because it still seems very difficult for Exetel to make any headway in growing our wireless broadband business at even a minimal rate and certainly light years away from the overall market take up around Australia. We have not made any progress towards understanding how we can increase wireless broadband sales in the coming year which is very disappointing and seems to show a monumental lack of 'creativity' on our part and especially from me who has been a very strong wireless broadband advocate for a very long time. Despite all of our efforts over many years now we have totally failed on making any progress into this rapidly growing set of market places.
Copyright © Exetel Pty Ltd 2011
ABN 350 979 865 46
33 - a long forgotten number of rpm that was required to have music in your home.