![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As Wikipedia:Talk pages states:
"Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
Please keep this in mind when posting here (Or anywhere else for that matter).
Also please make sure that you sign your posts! cheese-cube 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Can the person that is removing the external link to 1300Australia that is located in the Telstra page please stop. 1300Australia is a Telstra majority-owned business and is therefore a relevant link on this page. Thanks FM, Melbourne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.194.94 ( talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Telstra a descendant of a Telecom-OTC merger? That doesnt square with my memory. As I recall it, when Optus was first set up on Oz, it was part of a complicated plan to do something about the massive debts of Aussat. (Which was itself a grandiose and impractical plan to put up satellites, for which there was little commercial demand, but which governments of both political flavours supported. )
As I remember it, the government of the day (Hawke? Fraser?) couldn't sell Aussat as, despite substantial investment, it had a negative nett value, so they merged it with the highly profitable OTC and sold the combination to Optus.
But I'm only going on memory.
What is it about this company? Almost all of the Nigerian scam emails I get come from Telstra addresses. And when I email their abuse box, they never respond. Rick K 04:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Surely there needs to be a section in here on the disastrous history of broadband in Australia and Telstra's role in it? From the early days of Telstra cable 200meg limits to dodgy ADSL networks to unfair monopoly practices in dealing with other ISP's. Perhaps a Whirlpool veteran can revise.
Telstra happens to give the best premium Broadband service in Australia, there is no disputing that point. the fact that your asking someone else to make a section on this is appaling! (even after your pathetic remarks)
Telstra does not "charge" for uploads, and as for quoting Whirlpool (netter known in the industry as Whingepool) it has a major bias against Telstra. :: They do actually "charge" for uploads. If you are on a plan with a megabyte cap (not "unlimited" or "liberty") you will be charged if you upload data once you are past your limit.
It certainly is, just look at the bias against telstra, with all the anti Telstra trolls allowed to continually allowed to troll and whine about Telstra/Bigpond, the fact that Telstra reps do not have the same access as other reps and threads bashing/whing about telstra in direct contravention of their rules are allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.77.170 ( talk) 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is so much defense of telstra's plans here, but just to make sure my opinion wasn't biased, i went and looked up their plans and heres a comparison with internode. in every case internode offers considerably better plans:
Theres more to it than a flat data comparison. Besides, if you were watching today tonight apparently they reckon that bigpond and telstra have comparatively brilliant customer service. Comradeash ( talk) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC) can you inform the rest of us what that 'more' is please? Teal Thanatos ( talk) 00:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
ADSL Unlimited (Shaped to 64k after reaching 10GB):
Bigpond advertises these plans as Unlimited because once you reach the 10GB and gets shaped, you can contiune to download/upload at no extra charge where as those other plans (200-500MB plans) incur a 15c per MB extra (which is $150 per GB). So there is nothing wrong with it. Unlimited as in free unlimited downloads/uploads, not speed. Winxptwker 22:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You have no clue what "unlimited" in this case I mean. UNLIMITED DATA. With those low plans, it's 15c per MB over, but on the 10GB, free data after over 10GB. That's what they define it as unlimited data. Winxptwker 23:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
PaulWay 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Foxtel is distributed over Telstra's rapidly decaying cable lines. These lines are in terrible condition, those in Adelaide are currently tipped to only last another three years.
This doesn't seem right. How could all of the thousands of kilometers of cable lines be 'rapidly decaying' and 'in terrible condition'? This sounds like it's come from a frustrated Telstra customer in Adelaide who's having problems with cable internet. -- Scott Nash 10:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Could someone outline the arguments for Telstra's privatisation for me? Thanks
OK, by reducing government control Telstra will be able to reduce services in regional areas. Who cares if someone living twenty minutes from a capital city has third-world internet access? I know, the executives will get another undeserved payrise; it's not as if the savings would be passed on to consumers or the people who are actually entitled to a greater share of profits. Feldmarschall 15:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Another argument for privatisation is quite simple, how can you have a competitive efficient market when the Government is both the regulator and the owner of the biggest operator in that market. If you truly think that Government's have to own a phone company to ensure it does the right thing, why are mobile phones so popular. That market is dominated by non-goverment owned entities. And the customers seem happy given they are moving away from fixed line phones in droves
This is just my personal opinion, not Wikipedia content. Quite rightly, this should not be made part of the article. I'm actually a shareholder too, so you can consider this the official opinion of one of the company's owners. I may be a capitalist pig, but at least I have some social conscience, unlike the Board and the Commonwealth Government. Feldmarschall 17:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Being an economically right-wing party, they might justify it under minimal government in the economy. It is true that the sale will raise a lot of capital for the government, but with the money the government makes from share dividends, they'll soon be running at a loss. Feldmarschall 06:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
The Telstra sale will retire Commonwealth debt, and after the sale Australia and Singpore will be the only two countries with zero federal debt. The company is being sold, not given away.
In the USA governments does not own telecoms companies. Telstra is given subsides for the universal service obligations, and the USOs have nothing to do with who owns Telstra. Gtoomey 08:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to expand on WHY companies in competition to Telstra often complain to the ACCC about access to Telstra's network? The issue is that Telstra was not always privatised and as such the majority of its infrustructure was paid for by tax payers to provide a service in the tax payers best interest. Often to parts of the country where it is non-profitable to provide these services. To then privatise the company, its goal immediatly changes to make profits for share holders. It's only fair that other competing for-profit organisations gain access to the infrustructure to promote competition and a fairer deal to australian tax payers. ~ ML
Gtoomy, just to let you know, The Australian Government hides it's debt and losses in Government departments and then pins the debt on them. Most recently the Federal Government pinched $500m AU from the RBA in a legal money transfer and then used this money in its budget, whilst the RBA "lost" $200m. Without debt indeed! - Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.73.246 ( talk) 14:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Telstra mobile happens to be this biggest and of course the best mobile provider in the nation of Australia, it happens to be the only network in australia to cover outer regional areas with its technology called CDMA, other areas such as meto areas are covered by the digital signal called GSM\GPRS.
Is this sort of comment appropriate for Wikipedia? -- bacco007 07:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Yup. Optus, Vodafone & Hutchison are generally considered far better networks in metropolitan areas. POV? Nope, go check out the coverage maps at gsmworld.com - it's bleedingly obvious!
I agree, this page reads like a Telstra advertisement. The recent ACCC business with anti-competitive network wholesaling to other Telco’s should help balance this out.
The outsourcing of labour to foreign workers and the continual resistance to pro-competitive legislation (in spite of the fact that their networks were largely laid out with taxpayer money) shows that Telstra is not in the least concerned with the needs of Australian consumers.
Limiting ADSL speeds to 1.5 Mb and charging a premium price is a joke too! That’s crawling by international standards. Thank goodness other providers are putting in their own 24 Mb infrastructure.
I’d like to see some more on how backward this company truly is!
As one who worked for Telstra and other companies, let me tell you that Telstra did not decide to limit ADSL speed. It was a function of the cable characteristics and the equipment already at the exchanges. Cables might be from the 1940's and were never designed to carry the service anyway. Telstra may be slow in upgrading general speeds, but that does not make it a disaster! 202.12.144.21 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
They didn't pay my father his wage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serenacw ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I know a lot of Australians have an axe to grind with Telstra, but this article is ridiculous! Its so full of weasel words and exceptions that you can tell its been thoroughly doctored by people with an axe to grind such as the privatisation section and bits about wireless broadband. I'm certainly not suggesting it should be a puff piece, but a bit of fairness? Don't take my word for it; compare this article to one for Optus. The writing and POV should be consistent. I'll have a crack at fixing it some time, but this being Wikipedia I don't expect it to stay that way for long...
In addition, the section on international expansion is out of date, it does not include the SouFun acquisition or the merger of Hong Kong CSL with another carrier.. Amargosa 06:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No 'Amargosa', you are wrong. The definition of 'biased' is one-sided debate. Unbiased information presents both sides of the story, and you are trying to scandalize this truth. Stop vandalising this website, you are in violation of the public's interest.--
Apmab1 (
talk)
02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Has the logo really changed as of this month. The website still prominently displays the 'old' logo, I have only seen the 'new' logo used in regard to the Next G network - but I feel I am not up with the latest so am hesitent to revert. orizon 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this part should be in the article. It is clearly corporate Public Relations. Many of the numbers could be interpreted differently. For instance the fact that their revenues are growing quicker than the GDP means that Australians have to pay a higher percentage of their wages. The same goes for how many people they support. The government is also supporting alot of people, but that doesn't mean we should call for a bigger government. Effective and efficient is what a company should be. Raindeer 20:00 (CET), 15 November 2006
I'd second that: reading the Telstra page clearly gives the indication that this is doctored Corporate PR. Comparing this page with Optus and Internode Systems shows that it's clearly not written by neutral outsiders. I'd also add that the IP address 58.162.22.241, who has posted frequently on this talk page speaking out on behalf of Telstra, is from an IP address inside Telstra's corporate network (telstra.net). PaulWay 10:18am (AEDST) 18th November 2006.
For your information Raindeer and Paul, the information was not placed there by any Corporate PR officer. It was placed by me as a factual information section on the performance of the company, and was based, as the article itself says, on a speech by Phil Burgess given to a Victorian Business community in Australia. I was informed by Wikipedia that the article or information must be previously published and factual. I researched the article, which was written primarily for a journalism paper. The inclusion was of my own choice, not the company. Management and Public Relations never requested, ordered or asked for it. Greg Jones. Husky05 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove it. The factual information in it is represented in an opinionated way. Like the point I earlier point out, there is nothing good about the amount of money Telstra is reaping from the Australian Public. Large percentage points of GDP sounds cool, but its bad. Raindeer 20:00 (CET), 15 November 2006
Raindeer you have removed the body of the article. Please advise under what part of the rules or regulations for Wikipedia you are operating under, because the contact I have had with Wikipedia does not seem to concur with your view. i.e. How is it opinionated? Could you assist by explaining your point of view, thanks. Have also referred to another wikipedia editor for clarification of this matter. Husky05 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Shyam for explaining in detail your opinion. Happy with that :) Greg. 202.12.144.21 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Greg, don't know who Shyam is or if he explained the matter to you. The Telstra statement is in my eyes corporate spin. It is representing facts in such a way that they look positive on the organisation doing the spinning. These facts however do not carry that positive connotation by themselves. It is a glass half full/empty problem. So Telstra saying they represent X of GDP and this grows quicker than GDP can be the result of business accumen of Telstra or of leveraging its monopoly power and generating monopoly rents from the network. To show how this works with taxes look at this statement: The government has had a good year this year. Its income as measured of GDP is 60% higher compared to the amount it received last year relative to GDP compare this to the same fact: GDP rose by x. The government raised taxes by an even higher amount, thereby taking more cents for every dollar from peoples pay checks. Same fact, different spin. With regards to wikipedia rules... not too good with them, but I do seem to have read that it should be unbiased. Raindeer 1435 CET, 8 december 2006
Raindeer, thanks for the reply. No point discussing further. You removed it. PS: you forgot to remove the title mate. Husky05 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand, Next G is not a 3G network device - why does it link to 3G?
Shouldn't there be a separate Next G article? Mattabat 08:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually Next G IS a 3G network, works under the 850 MHz band, and in time will reach speeds of 14.4 Mbps.
Actually, I think you'll find its actually been classified as a HSDPA.
Can a page specifically on NextG be created with someone with more Wikiskills than myself? It would be of specific interest information about the band it uses, how it is different to other networks, why the simcards are not compatible with other networks and how it is the old analogue network being reused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.92.157 ( talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
someone has done a real once over on this entire article, 2 things i noticed at first glance citation 9 points to an opinion page, and also the part stating that "telstra are the only company to provide EDGE" its citation #12 the page clearly states that other companies provide EDGE but not country wide. this is clearly someone pro telstra trying to hype up telstras image as being the "only" choice. 203.144.5.39 ( talk) 06:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added the POV since there is a few Telstra pages have been used as cites but would hit POV as it's not from a third party site. Bidgee ( talk) 08:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Telsra is actually the only carrier running EDGE in Australia. Optus and Vodafone have not enabled it although both have the ability to if they chose - they only run GPRS Wildrider99 ( talk) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
NextG is HSDPA, 3 (Hutchisson) rather misleadingly only run 2.5g.
Comradeash (
talk)
19:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Geez, there's a lot of misinformation here, allow me to correct it:
The poor quality level of Telstra and Bigpond's customer service is widely acknowledged among the Australian public. In 2006 Telstra won a "Worst Tech Company" Award from iTnews ( http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=42919). Unfortunately, as with customers of the British teleco BT, the Australian public does not have a sufficient number of same-cost competitors to choose from, which gives Telstra no incentive to imrove its service and also results in a begrudging acceptance among the public of the standards offered. You gets what you pays for, as the saying goes.
In its role as an ISP, some recent research has shown Telstra's customer service to be less satisfying than Westnet, Chariot, and Optus ( http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2007/625/), but more satysfying than, say, Dodo.
Anecdotal evidence from journalists' blogs in Australia tell of a reactionary press office that rarely sends out press releases and fails to return journalists' phone calls. Classic organisational behaviour for a media and PR department on the defensive.
What's the issue people have with the section about Telstra's privisation? James Pinnell 15:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a crack at removing some of the bias against Telstra from the article, and moved a lot of the comments on privatisation into past tense (since its a done deal).
Also established two new headings, "Fibre To The Node" and "Advocacy" to cover Telstra' activities in these areas. At present they are not well referenced. I will get around to it eventually unless someone beats me to it. Amargosa 11:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Has telstra been editing this page? I am, of course, referring to the "Advocacy" section added by 155.143.225.149 on 11:13, 4 April 2007. He also changed massive amounts of text that changed the nature of the information on this page much more favourable in Telstras direction. His very first post was deleting some fan fluff from Boston Legal and two other edits about an Australian Footballer, adding that he is a drug addict. That is merely three edits before his Telstra edit extravaganza, and after the Telstra edits he wasn't seen from again. This "advocacy" part seems really suss, you hear a lot of criticism about Telstra in the media, from independant regulators and from people in general, so it seems absolutely insane the the only peice of "reception" here is in favor of Telstras aim for monopoly. There is so much backlash and information about Telstra wanting more freedom and more control, so the only thing I can think of about this user is that he must work for Telstra JayKeaton 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"Testra currently has developed a serious additude problem and in recent years has antagonised the government, the ACCC and large parts of the Australian community, to the point that now nearly everyone is offside with them. Testra has been ruthless in attacking the ACCC, government policy and anyone else that gets in it's way. The long term aim of this policy is to intimidate policy makers so than Telstra can set prices and control competion and charge whatever it likes for its services. Indeed already in the present regulated environment, when compared to almost every other country in the world (including Afganistan)Testra is exhorbitantly expensive and provides and appalling customer service (with arrogance thrown in for free), and these two trends will only accelerate if Tesltra were to get its way."
There are nice flag icons on the Telstra page, the Vodafone page, etc. What about the Optus page? how about we put them on there also? please do so. Tri400 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Telstra Bigpond.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Where's the new logo? — mattrobs 11:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just about every page on Wikipedia has a controversy page, except this one. I find this extremely unusual. Considering there have been a number of cases of employee exploitation at Telstra Corporation reported in the mainstream media-- for example, recently in Melbourne a call center worker committed suicide due to extreme work expectations, constant threats of job loss, and corporate bullying, and this is just one incidence, I can think of about five others. This instance occured on April 04, 2007 [15]. I suggest this website is under corporate control, and it needs to be locked down with a submissions system to remain neutral and incorporate a two-sided debate, it is ridiculously biased. It is also untrue that statements on the talk page need to be referenced, this page is for discussion of the validity and content of the page-topic, and the rules are lax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apmab1 ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also the issue of childlike addiction to North American infant's programs and infant's picture books which seems characteristic of this Corporation- does anybody have any information about sexual regression and psychosis- I beleive there is some psychoanalytic literature out there on this phenomenon, although it may relate to class-based aesthetic inheritance. It seems to involve a combination a specific habitus (sociology) that predisposes a particular form of Regression (psychology), although this may be induced by a third agent. Additional information welcomed. -- Apmab1 ( talk) 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
infant's programs and picture books?? wtf is that all about?? 202.12.233.23 ( talk) 08:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC) -Obviously for Apmab1 to do this work himself would be too hard... Amargosa ( talk) 09:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
might be an idea to list that telstra are the 1st people to answer a 000 emergency call, and redireting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.225.134 ( talk) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It should also be mentioned then that the answering of the 000 call is a part of the their telecommunications license as the incumbent carrier and that area would be paid for by government funding. Regardless hopefully this will change in the future and the emergency service number will be managed separately by a government department with lines incoming from all the Australian telcos to save against any possible interconnection issues with Telstra stopping an emergency call from coming through. 122.109.127.34 ( talk) 01:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It has been said by numerous people including the current Labor government that Telstra may/will be structurally seperated, that being mainly Telstra and BigPond seperated but also Sensis ect. Does anyone know of any official sources about any plans of this and if so I think it should be added to the page 60.230.216.163 ( talk) 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the current Labor government said whilst in opposition that Telstra will NOT be structurally seperated, as it would be too expensive and tied up in court too long with lawsuits Dsmart ( talk) 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It isn't really their prerogative now though, is it? Though the government used to be the majority shareholders of Telstra, they sold their stake off and aren't any more. As we all should know the primary responsibility of a company is towards its shareholders, so Telstra is quite free to (and most likely will) be looking to tell the government to piss off. That said, they probably won't see a business case for it either. At least that's my understanding of the situation, somebody confirm or correct it. Comradeash ( talk) 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no clear of fleshed out criticism section. And it's not for lack of material, there are a lot of well sourced criticism of Telstra, from leading publications, consumer groups, the ACCC and even from the government itself. I can't imagine that this hasn't been added in the past, and I can't imagine anyone but Telstra themselves wanting to remove this information. JayKeaton ( talk) 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A new part added today has only one figure for one site and doesn't back-up the other sites and comments made. Bidgee ( talk) 13:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Bidgee, on your insistence, i will reference about 50 other websites that clearly show the decline of Yellow Pages... some are from interviews with Sensis bosses, so try and mark UNRELIABLE SOURCE? on that one! -- Hollowpointr ( talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- - Since the arrival of CEO Sol Trujillo, Telstra has become very politically active. Managing Director of Public Policy, Phil Burgess, has publicly decried the condition of government regulation in Australia, claiming it stifles technical innovation. Burgess famously remarked that he "wouldn't recommend Telstra shares to his mother".
- - Burgess led the development of NowWeAreTalking, a web site where Telstra provides its own views on regulation. This in turn led a group of Telstra's competitors calling themselves T4 to set up a web site in response, known as Tell The Truth Telstra. [1]
- - In February 2007, Telstra launched the Broadband Australia Campaign. This campaign is intended to increase public awareness in broadband, and again set forth Telstra's views on regulation.
- - On May 17, 2007, the then Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, said that he has never seen a company in Australia attack the independent ACCC in the way that Telstra has done. [16]
No NPOV and citations do not support the comments made in full. Query purpose of inclusion in article. -- Pamnardalez ( talk) 06:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarnya_Dunning
I'm Tarnya Dunning and I work in Telstra's public affairs office. I'll be contributing information and citations that will improve the quality of Telstra-related pages.
I am aware of and will abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
My contributions will be posted on the talk pages for Wikipedians' considerations. I will not edit any Telstra-related pages directly.
If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, or e-mail me at t.dunning@team.telstra.com Tarnya Dunning ( talk) 00:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The Telstra Mobile section is missing a number of citations. I propose the following for consideration:
1. “Telstra Mobile is Australia's largest mobile telephone service provider in terms of both subscriptions and coverage.” – The Australian, ‘Mobile broadband takes off’, 1 April 2008 2. "holding a 50% stake in the 3GIS Ltd 3G network infrastructure, shared with Hutchison (Three)" - Hutchison Telecommunications (Australia) Ltd, Half Year Report 2007
3. "The NextG network operating on the 850MHz band was built to replace Telstra's CDMA network which operated from 1999 until April 28th 2008" - CRN, ‘Telstra closes its CDMA network today’, 28 April 2008
4. "The 850 MHz band was chosen over the more common 2100 MHz band as it can cover much greater geographic distances for a lower overall investment" – Ericsson, ‘Bringing the Telecom Revolution to the masses’, 18 March 2005
5. "This network was implemented under contract by Ericsson as part of a project internally dubbed "Jersey" and launched on 6 October 2006" - Mobilised, ‘Telstra to deploy new 3G GSM network’, 15 November 2005 and http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_211.php4| GSA, ‘Telstra Mobile Broadband Launch is More Evidence HSDPA is Mainstream’, 6 October 2006
6. "Telstra was the first company in Australia to provide mobile telephony services" - Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association (AMTA), ‘Ten Years of GSM in Australia’, n.d.
- Tarnya Dunning ( talk) 10:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
According to the Telstra web site, as of 30 June 2008, Telstra is no longer taking new customers for Austar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.62.217.11 ( talk) 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 06:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The article has very little information and no sources and would be best to be located within a section in the Telstra article then having it's own article. Bidgee ( talk) 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain why there is only one paragraph on the privatisation of Telstra. It seems odd that something so significant politically and financially in this company's history merits only a couple of sentences. The Hack 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to add more which is referenced, by all means do so. I added the majority of the sentences some 18 months ago but was limited in doing so due to the lack of references, but particulary information on the privatisation. And looking at how it is now, it probably is enough. 121.45.225.44 ( talk) 14:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a small point. Reference to Telstra's initial foray into GSM digital mobile phones refers to their branding as Telstra MobileNet. It was infact still Telecom MobileNet when GSM was launched, the Telstra brandname didn't come in to effect until it was adopted across the entire corporation. I worked in the Electronics and Mobile Communications industry at the time and remember the branding process quite well. 138.130.130.119 ( talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Andrew Lark, 15 Oct 2009.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As Wikipedia:Talk pages states:
"Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
Please keep this in mind when posting here (Or anywhere else for that matter).
Also please make sure that you sign your posts! cheese-cube 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Can the person that is removing the external link to 1300Australia that is located in the Telstra page please stop. 1300Australia is a Telstra majority-owned business and is therefore a relevant link on this page. Thanks FM, Melbourne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.194.94 ( talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Telstra a descendant of a Telecom-OTC merger? That doesnt square with my memory. As I recall it, when Optus was first set up on Oz, it was part of a complicated plan to do something about the massive debts of Aussat. (Which was itself a grandiose and impractical plan to put up satellites, for which there was little commercial demand, but which governments of both political flavours supported. )
As I remember it, the government of the day (Hawke? Fraser?) couldn't sell Aussat as, despite substantial investment, it had a negative nett value, so they merged it with the highly profitable OTC and sold the combination to Optus.
But I'm only going on memory.
What is it about this company? Almost all of the Nigerian scam emails I get come from Telstra addresses. And when I email their abuse box, they never respond. Rick K 04:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Surely there needs to be a section in here on the disastrous history of broadband in Australia and Telstra's role in it? From the early days of Telstra cable 200meg limits to dodgy ADSL networks to unfair monopoly practices in dealing with other ISP's. Perhaps a Whirlpool veteran can revise.
Telstra happens to give the best premium Broadband service in Australia, there is no disputing that point. the fact that your asking someone else to make a section on this is appaling! (even after your pathetic remarks)
Telstra does not "charge" for uploads, and as for quoting Whirlpool (netter known in the industry as Whingepool) it has a major bias against Telstra. :: They do actually "charge" for uploads. If you are on a plan with a megabyte cap (not "unlimited" or "liberty") you will be charged if you upload data once you are past your limit.
It certainly is, just look at the bias against telstra, with all the anti Telstra trolls allowed to continually allowed to troll and whine about Telstra/Bigpond, the fact that Telstra reps do not have the same access as other reps and threads bashing/whing about telstra in direct contravention of their rules are allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.77.170 ( talk) 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is so much defense of telstra's plans here, but just to make sure my opinion wasn't biased, i went and looked up their plans and heres a comparison with internode. in every case internode offers considerably better plans:
Theres more to it than a flat data comparison. Besides, if you were watching today tonight apparently they reckon that bigpond and telstra have comparatively brilliant customer service. Comradeash ( talk) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC) can you inform the rest of us what that 'more' is please? Teal Thanatos ( talk) 00:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
ADSL Unlimited (Shaped to 64k after reaching 10GB):
Bigpond advertises these plans as Unlimited because once you reach the 10GB and gets shaped, you can contiune to download/upload at no extra charge where as those other plans (200-500MB plans) incur a 15c per MB extra (which is $150 per GB). So there is nothing wrong with it. Unlimited as in free unlimited downloads/uploads, not speed. Winxptwker 22:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You have no clue what "unlimited" in this case I mean. UNLIMITED DATA. With those low plans, it's 15c per MB over, but on the 10GB, free data after over 10GB. That's what they define it as unlimited data. Winxptwker 23:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
PaulWay 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Foxtel is distributed over Telstra's rapidly decaying cable lines. These lines are in terrible condition, those in Adelaide are currently tipped to only last another three years.
This doesn't seem right. How could all of the thousands of kilometers of cable lines be 'rapidly decaying' and 'in terrible condition'? This sounds like it's come from a frustrated Telstra customer in Adelaide who's having problems with cable internet. -- Scott Nash 10:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Could someone outline the arguments for Telstra's privatisation for me? Thanks
OK, by reducing government control Telstra will be able to reduce services in regional areas. Who cares if someone living twenty minutes from a capital city has third-world internet access? I know, the executives will get another undeserved payrise; it's not as if the savings would be passed on to consumers or the people who are actually entitled to a greater share of profits. Feldmarschall 15:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Another argument for privatisation is quite simple, how can you have a competitive efficient market when the Government is both the regulator and the owner of the biggest operator in that market. If you truly think that Government's have to own a phone company to ensure it does the right thing, why are mobile phones so popular. That market is dominated by non-goverment owned entities. And the customers seem happy given they are moving away from fixed line phones in droves
This is just my personal opinion, not Wikipedia content. Quite rightly, this should not be made part of the article. I'm actually a shareholder too, so you can consider this the official opinion of one of the company's owners. I may be a capitalist pig, but at least I have some social conscience, unlike the Board and the Commonwealth Government. Feldmarschall 17:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Being an economically right-wing party, they might justify it under minimal government in the economy. It is true that the sale will raise a lot of capital for the government, but with the money the government makes from share dividends, they'll soon be running at a loss. Feldmarschall 06:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
The Telstra sale will retire Commonwealth debt, and after the sale Australia and Singpore will be the only two countries with zero federal debt. The company is being sold, not given away.
In the USA governments does not own telecoms companies. Telstra is given subsides for the universal service obligations, and the USOs have nothing to do with who owns Telstra. Gtoomey 08:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to expand on WHY companies in competition to Telstra often complain to the ACCC about access to Telstra's network? The issue is that Telstra was not always privatised and as such the majority of its infrustructure was paid for by tax payers to provide a service in the tax payers best interest. Often to parts of the country where it is non-profitable to provide these services. To then privatise the company, its goal immediatly changes to make profits for share holders. It's only fair that other competing for-profit organisations gain access to the infrustructure to promote competition and a fairer deal to australian tax payers. ~ ML
Gtoomy, just to let you know, The Australian Government hides it's debt and losses in Government departments and then pins the debt on them. Most recently the Federal Government pinched $500m AU from the RBA in a legal money transfer and then used this money in its budget, whilst the RBA "lost" $200m. Without debt indeed! - Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.73.246 ( talk) 14:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Telstra mobile happens to be this biggest and of course the best mobile provider in the nation of Australia, it happens to be the only network in australia to cover outer regional areas with its technology called CDMA, other areas such as meto areas are covered by the digital signal called GSM\GPRS.
Is this sort of comment appropriate for Wikipedia? -- bacco007 07:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Yup. Optus, Vodafone & Hutchison are generally considered far better networks in metropolitan areas. POV? Nope, go check out the coverage maps at gsmworld.com - it's bleedingly obvious!
I agree, this page reads like a Telstra advertisement. The recent ACCC business with anti-competitive network wholesaling to other Telco’s should help balance this out.
The outsourcing of labour to foreign workers and the continual resistance to pro-competitive legislation (in spite of the fact that their networks were largely laid out with taxpayer money) shows that Telstra is not in the least concerned with the needs of Australian consumers.
Limiting ADSL speeds to 1.5 Mb and charging a premium price is a joke too! That’s crawling by international standards. Thank goodness other providers are putting in their own 24 Mb infrastructure.
I’d like to see some more on how backward this company truly is!
As one who worked for Telstra and other companies, let me tell you that Telstra did not decide to limit ADSL speed. It was a function of the cable characteristics and the equipment already at the exchanges. Cables might be from the 1940's and were never designed to carry the service anyway. Telstra may be slow in upgrading general speeds, but that does not make it a disaster! 202.12.144.21 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
They didn't pay my father his wage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serenacw ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I know a lot of Australians have an axe to grind with Telstra, but this article is ridiculous! Its so full of weasel words and exceptions that you can tell its been thoroughly doctored by people with an axe to grind such as the privatisation section and bits about wireless broadband. I'm certainly not suggesting it should be a puff piece, but a bit of fairness? Don't take my word for it; compare this article to one for Optus. The writing and POV should be consistent. I'll have a crack at fixing it some time, but this being Wikipedia I don't expect it to stay that way for long...
In addition, the section on international expansion is out of date, it does not include the SouFun acquisition or the merger of Hong Kong CSL with another carrier.. Amargosa 06:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No 'Amargosa', you are wrong. The definition of 'biased' is one-sided debate. Unbiased information presents both sides of the story, and you are trying to scandalize this truth. Stop vandalising this website, you are in violation of the public's interest.--
Apmab1 (
talk)
02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Has the logo really changed as of this month. The website still prominently displays the 'old' logo, I have only seen the 'new' logo used in regard to the Next G network - but I feel I am not up with the latest so am hesitent to revert. orizon 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this part should be in the article. It is clearly corporate Public Relations. Many of the numbers could be interpreted differently. For instance the fact that their revenues are growing quicker than the GDP means that Australians have to pay a higher percentage of their wages. The same goes for how many people they support. The government is also supporting alot of people, but that doesn't mean we should call for a bigger government. Effective and efficient is what a company should be. Raindeer 20:00 (CET), 15 November 2006
I'd second that: reading the Telstra page clearly gives the indication that this is doctored Corporate PR. Comparing this page with Optus and Internode Systems shows that it's clearly not written by neutral outsiders. I'd also add that the IP address 58.162.22.241, who has posted frequently on this talk page speaking out on behalf of Telstra, is from an IP address inside Telstra's corporate network (telstra.net). PaulWay 10:18am (AEDST) 18th November 2006.
For your information Raindeer and Paul, the information was not placed there by any Corporate PR officer. It was placed by me as a factual information section on the performance of the company, and was based, as the article itself says, on a speech by Phil Burgess given to a Victorian Business community in Australia. I was informed by Wikipedia that the article or information must be previously published and factual. I researched the article, which was written primarily for a journalism paper. The inclusion was of my own choice, not the company. Management and Public Relations never requested, ordered or asked for it. Greg Jones. Husky05 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove it. The factual information in it is represented in an opinionated way. Like the point I earlier point out, there is nothing good about the amount of money Telstra is reaping from the Australian Public. Large percentage points of GDP sounds cool, but its bad. Raindeer 20:00 (CET), 15 November 2006
Raindeer you have removed the body of the article. Please advise under what part of the rules or regulations for Wikipedia you are operating under, because the contact I have had with Wikipedia does not seem to concur with your view. i.e. How is it opinionated? Could you assist by explaining your point of view, thanks. Have also referred to another wikipedia editor for clarification of this matter. Husky05 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Shyam for explaining in detail your opinion. Happy with that :) Greg. 202.12.144.21 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Greg, don't know who Shyam is or if he explained the matter to you. The Telstra statement is in my eyes corporate spin. It is representing facts in such a way that they look positive on the organisation doing the spinning. These facts however do not carry that positive connotation by themselves. It is a glass half full/empty problem. So Telstra saying they represent X of GDP and this grows quicker than GDP can be the result of business accumen of Telstra or of leveraging its monopoly power and generating monopoly rents from the network. To show how this works with taxes look at this statement: The government has had a good year this year. Its income as measured of GDP is 60% higher compared to the amount it received last year relative to GDP compare this to the same fact: GDP rose by x. The government raised taxes by an even higher amount, thereby taking more cents for every dollar from peoples pay checks. Same fact, different spin. With regards to wikipedia rules... not too good with them, but I do seem to have read that it should be unbiased. Raindeer 1435 CET, 8 december 2006
Raindeer, thanks for the reply. No point discussing further. You removed it. PS: you forgot to remove the title mate. Husky05 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand, Next G is not a 3G network device - why does it link to 3G?
Shouldn't there be a separate Next G article? Mattabat 08:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually Next G IS a 3G network, works under the 850 MHz band, and in time will reach speeds of 14.4 Mbps.
Actually, I think you'll find its actually been classified as a HSDPA.
Can a page specifically on NextG be created with someone with more Wikiskills than myself? It would be of specific interest information about the band it uses, how it is different to other networks, why the simcards are not compatible with other networks and how it is the old analogue network being reused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.92.157 ( talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
someone has done a real once over on this entire article, 2 things i noticed at first glance citation 9 points to an opinion page, and also the part stating that "telstra are the only company to provide EDGE" its citation #12 the page clearly states that other companies provide EDGE but not country wide. this is clearly someone pro telstra trying to hype up telstras image as being the "only" choice. 203.144.5.39 ( talk) 06:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added the POV since there is a few Telstra pages have been used as cites but would hit POV as it's not from a third party site. Bidgee ( talk) 08:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Telsra is actually the only carrier running EDGE in Australia. Optus and Vodafone have not enabled it although both have the ability to if they chose - they only run GPRS Wildrider99 ( talk) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
NextG is HSDPA, 3 (Hutchisson) rather misleadingly only run 2.5g.
Comradeash (
talk)
19:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Geez, there's a lot of misinformation here, allow me to correct it:
The poor quality level of Telstra and Bigpond's customer service is widely acknowledged among the Australian public. In 2006 Telstra won a "Worst Tech Company" Award from iTnews ( http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=42919). Unfortunately, as with customers of the British teleco BT, the Australian public does not have a sufficient number of same-cost competitors to choose from, which gives Telstra no incentive to imrove its service and also results in a begrudging acceptance among the public of the standards offered. You gets what you pays for, as the saying goes.
In its role as an ISP, some recent research has shown Telstra's customer service to be less satisfying than Westnet, Chariot, and Optus ( http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2007/625/), but more satysfying than, say, Dodo.
Anecdotal evidence from journalists' blogs in Australia tell of a reactionary press office that rarely sends out press releases and fails to return journalists' phone calls. Classic organisational behaviour for a media and PR department on the defensive.
What's the issue people have with the section about Telstra's privisation? James Pinnell 15:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a crack at removing some of the bias against Telstra from the article, and moved a lot of the comments on privatisation into past tense (since its a done deal).
Also established two new headings, "Fibre To The Node" and "Advocacy" to cover Telstra' activities in these areas. At present they are not well referenced. I will get around to it eventually unless someone beats me to it. Amargosa 11:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Has telstra been editing this page? I am, of course, referring to the "Advocacy" section added by 155.143.225.149 on 11:13, 4 April 2007. He also changed massive amounts of text that changed the nature of the information on this page much more favourable in Telstras direction. His very first post was deleting some fan fluff from Boston Legal and two other edits about an Australian Footballer, adding that he is a drug addict. That is merely three edits before his Telstra edit extravaganza, and after the Telstra edits he wasn't seen from again. This "advocacy" part seems really suss, you hear a lot of criticism about Telstra in the media, from independant regulators and from people in general, so it seems absolutely insane the the only peice of "reception" here is in favor of Telstras aim for monopoly. There is so much backlash and information about Telstra wanting more freedom and more control, so the only thing I can think of about this user is that he must work for Telstra JayKeaton 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"Testra currently has developed a serious additude problem and in recent years has antagonised the government, the ACCC and large parts of the Australian community, to the point that now nearly everyone is offside with them. Testra has been ruthless in attacking the ACCC, government policy and anyone else that gets in it's way. The long term aim of this policy is to intimidate policy makers so than Telstra can set prices and control competion and charge whatever it likes for its services. Indeed already in the present regulated environment, when compared to almost every other country in the world (including Afganistan)Testra is exhorbitantly expensive and provides and appalling customer service (with arrogance thrown in for free), and these two trends will only accelerate if Tesltra were to get its way."
There are nice flag icons on the Telstra page, the Vodafone page, etc. What about the Optus page? how about we put them on there also? please do so. Tri400 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Telstra Bigpond.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Where's the new logo? — mattrobs 11:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just about every page on Wikipedia has a controversy page, except this one. I find this extremely unusual. Considering there have been a number of cases of employee exploitation at Telstra Corporation reported in the mainstream media-- for example, recently in Melbourne a call center worker committed suicide due to extreme work expectations, constant threats of job loss, and corporate bullying, and this is just one incidence, I can think of about five others. This instance occured on April 04, 2007 [15]. I suggest this website is under corporate control, and it needs to be locked down with a submissions system to remain neutral and incorporate a two-sided debate, it is ridiculously biased. It is also untrue that statements on the talk page need to be referenced, this page is for discussion of the validity and content of the page-topic, and the rules are lax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apmab1 ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also the issue of childlike addiction to North American infant's programs and infant's picture books which seems characteristic of this Corporation- does anybody have any information about sexual regression and psychosis- I beleive there is some psychoanalytic literature out there on this phenomenon, although it may relate to class-based aesthetic inheritance. It seems to involve a combination a specific habitus (sociology) that predisposes a particular form of Regression (psychology), although this may be induced by a third agent. Additional information welcomed. -- Apmab1 ( talk) 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
infant's programs and picture books?? wtf is that all about?? 202.12.233.23 ( talk) 08:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC) -Obviously for Apmab1 to do this work himself would be too hard... Amargosa ( talk) 09:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
might be an idea to list that telstra are the 1st people to answer a 000 emergency call, and redireting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.225.134 ( talk) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It should also be mentioned then that the answering of the 000 call is a part of the their telecommunications license as the incumbent carrier and that area would be paid for by government funding. Regardless hopefully this will change in the future and the emergency service number will be managed separately by a government department with lines incoming from all the Australian telcos to save against any possible interconnection issues with Telstra stopping an emergency call from coming through. 122.109.127.34 ( talk) 01:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It has been said by numerous people including the current Labor government that Telstra may/will be structurally seperated, that being mainly Telstra and BigPond seperated but also Sensis ect. Does anyone know of any official sources about any plans of this and if so I think it should be added to the page 60.230.216.163 ( talk) 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the current Labor government said whilst in opposition that Telstra will NOT be structurally seperated, as it would be too expensive and tied up in court too long with lawsuits Dsmart ( talk) 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It isn't really their prerogative now though, is it? Though the government used to be the majority shareholders of Telstra, they sold their stake off and aren't any more. As we all should know the primary responsibility of a company is towards its shareholders, so Telstra is quite free to (and most likely will) be looking to tell the government to piss off. That said, they probably won't see a business case for it either. At least that's my understanding of the situation, somebody confirm or correct it. Comradeash ( talk) 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no clear of fleshed out criticism section. And it's not for lack of material, there are a lot of well sourced criticism of Telstra, from leading publications, consumer groups, the ACCC and even from the government itself. I can't imagine that this hasn't been added in the past, and I can't imagine anyone but Telstra themselves wanting to remove this information. JayKeaton ( talk) 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A new part added today has only one figure for one site and doesn't back-up the other sites and comments made. Bidgee ( talk) 13:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Bidgee, on your insistence, i will reference about 50 other websites that clearly show the decline of Yellow Pages... some are from interviews with Sensis bosses, so try and mark UNRELIABLE SOURCE? on that one! -- Hollowpointr ( talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- - Since the arrival of CEO Sol Trujillo, Telstra has become very politically active. Managing Director of Public Policy, Phil Burgess, has publicly decried the condition of government regulation in Australia, claiming it stifles technical innovation. Burgess famously remarked that he "wouldn't recommend Telstra shares to his mother".
- - Burgess led the development of NowWeAreTalking, a web site where Telstra provides its own views on regulation. This in turn led a group of Telstra's competitors calling themselves T4 to set up a web site in response, known as Tell The Truth Telstra. [1]
- - In February 2007, Telstra launched the Broadband Australia Campaign. This campaign is intended to increase public awareness in broadband, and again set forth Telstra's views on regulation.
- - On May 17, 2007, the then Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, said that he has never seen a company in Australia attack the independent ACCC in the way that Telstra has done. [16]
No NPOV and citations do not support the comments made in full. Query purpose of inclusion in article. -- Pamnardalez ( talk) 06:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarnya_Dunning
I'm Tarnya Dunning and I work in Telstra's public affairs office. I'll be contributing information and citations that will improve the quality of Telstra-related pages.
I am aware of and will abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
My contributions will be posted on the talk pages for Wikipedians' considerations. I will not edit any Telstra-related pages directly.
If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, or e-mail me at t.dunning@team.telstra.com Tarnya Dunning ( talk) 00:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The Telstra Mobile section is missing a number of citations. I propose the following for consideration:
1. “Telstra Mobile is Australia's largest mobile telephone service provider in terms of both subscriptions and coverage.” – The Australian, ‘Mobile broadband takes off’, 1 April 2008 2. "holding a 50% stake in the 3GIS Ltd 3G network infrastructure, shared with Hutchison (Three)" - Hutchison Telecommunications (Australia) Ltd, Half Year Report 2007
3. "The NextG network operating on the 850MHz band was built to replace Telstra's CDMA network which operated from 1999 until April 28th 2008" - CRN, ‘Telstra closes its CDMA network today’, 28 April 2008
4. "The 850 MHz band was chosen over the more common 2100 MHz band as it can cover much greater geographic distances for a lower overall investment" – Ericsson, ‘Bringing the Telecom Revolution to the masses’, 18 March 2005
5. "This network was implemented under contract by Ericsson as part of a project internally dubbed "Jersey" and launched on 6 October 2006" - Mobilised, ‘Telstra to deploy new 3G GSM network’, 15 November 2005 and http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_211.php4| GSA, ‘Telstra Mobile Broadband Launch is More Evidence HSDPA is Mainstream’, 6 October 2006
6. "Telstra was the first company in Australia to provide mobile telephony services" - Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association (AMTA), ‘Ten Years of GSM in Australia’, n.d.
- Tarnya Dunning ( talk) 10:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
According to the Telstra web site, as of 30 June 2008, Telstra is no longer taking new customers for Austar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.62.217.11 ( talk) 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 06:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The article has very little information and no sources and would be best to be located within a section in the Telstra article then having it's own article. Bidgee ( talk) 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain why there is only one paragraph on the privatisation of Telstra. It seems odd that something so significant politically and financially in this company's history merits only a couple of sentences. The Hack 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to add more which is referenced, by all means do so. I added the majority of the sentences some 18 months ago but was limited in doing so due to the lack of references, but particulary information on the privatisation. And looking at how it is now, it probably is enough. 121.45.225.44 ( talk) 14:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a small point. Reference to Telstra's initial foray into GSM digital mobile phones refers to their branding as Telstra MobileNet. It was infact still Telecom MobileNet when GSM was launched, the Telstra brandname didn't come in to effect until it was adopted across the entire corporation. I worked in the Electronics and Mobile Communications industry at the time and remember the branding process quite well. 138.130.130.119 ( talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Andrew Lark, 15 Oct 2009.