Telstra.......

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16517383-2,00.html

The sale of Telstra has revealed all the flaws happening in the company..

:| man...

LOL.. I wonder how the sale of telstra will go hehehe.

How is Howard responsable for telstra dipping its hand????
Beezly is a jakass

Hmmmmm

14% of all phone lines in australia are faulty..
Telstra are loosing 1 billion a month..

Anyone else watching "A Current Affair"???

Heh, don't watch ACA its jsut sensationalist bullshit. I think the headline the other night was "BUTTER VS MARGARINE! WHICH ONE IS BETTER FOR YOU!!!! OMG TOTALLY BREAKING NEWS!@@!"...

Telstra will be fine, once the g'ment gets they're hands out she'll be sweet but they handled the situation so stupidly. G'ment wants services to the bush, so they should've put a tender out to the market and whoever could do it for the cheapest should've got it, be it telstra, optus, vodafone, whoever. Also the PM is a dumbass. Even suggesting that the company talk up its share price is sooo illegal. Oh and they're getting pwnt from ASIC too cause the g'ment leaked info that telstra gave them, and no other shareholders.

Quote from MetalAttack:
14% of all phone lines in australia are faulty..
Telstra are loosing 1 billion a month..

Anyone else watching "A Current Affair"???

Do you know how much they make a week? Let alone a month?

err do you know that you cannot be making money at the same time as not making money?

Im saying that they're still making alot more then 1 billion a month, Its still alot of money, but to Telstra not a substansial amount.

Also, they make it up in other ways .....

No Telstra announced they are loosing a billion a month.. As in not making anything.. as in going backwards..!!!

No wonder everyone at work has trouble just getting some tools let alone material to do jobs.

Whatever...

**** I give my input and get shafted... get ****ed.

yeh telstra make money other ways they pimp out alan :P hehehe. $2

I'd say what they mean when Telstra is losing a billion a month, is that the share price is plumenting wiping billions off the value off Telstra. As far as their profit, i'd say they are still making money, just the value of the comapny is in freefall.

On the news today you will hear Johnnie H now backflipping(tis politics after all), praising the board members now and refuting the 14% service faults.

What an absolute mess this has become.

a Billion a month sounds a bit much if you ask me for an Australian company to still be afloat.. even if it is telstra

Are you sure its that much? I could understand maybe a billion a year.

im with spero however i could be wrong. I guess we can all voice our issues howveer i don't think anyone would know the full story.

BTW .... did someone mention LAN SOON :D

As Frenzy has said. The value of the company is falling by about a billion a month, which is perfectly understandeable. They are not losing actual income.

Phen, you misunderstood. Don't get huffy about it dude.

Howard put himself in this goddamned situation and now he's saying because he's been put in this situation (where the Government is the regulator as well as the majority shareholder) that he should sell off the rest of Telstra. He then claimed that even if he didn't sell off Telstra in the first place the same problem would've occurred.

SORRY JOHNNY! You fail to realise that you made it a publically listed company... it didn't have shares so you couldn't have been the majority shareholder... you used to own and run the company (therefore there was no conflict of interest you fool). Sorry, watched the 7:30 Report last night and by god he really f'd up.

I think Telstra will pull itself together after the sale, but they should really look into better leadership of the company and think more along the lines of innovation to improve their service and products.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16539995-2,00.html

Quote from Seqo:
SORRY JOHNNY! You fail to realise that you made it a publically listed company... it didn't have shares so you couldn't have been the majority shareholder... you used to own and run the company (therefore there was no conflict of interest you fool). Sorry, watched the 7:30 Report last night and by god he really f'd up.

Actually it's "Sorry Seqo". It's possible to hold shares in a company which is not listed on the stock exchange. Those companies which "go public" list their shares on the ASX where any member of the public can buy or sell them. Hence "public company". Previously all shares of the formerly-private company Telstra were owned by the Government, which has sold 49.9%, thus remaining majority shareholder at 51.1%. Tada.

edit

Also you misunderstand the concept of sovereign risk. Is it a fair market when the regulating government owns a competitor?

I would say generally that the new yanks at the top of Telstra are pretty switched on guys. I like that they have the guts to point out that Telstra has to wear what nobody else in the market does.

On the other hand it could be pointed out that Telstra's network was not built on a commercial basis - Telstra got it "for free", courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.

fcken oath mate, company is giving 101%!

Quote from El Presidente:
Telstra were owned by the Government, which has sold 49.9%, thus remaining majority shareholder at 51.1%. Tada.

I just went out there and did my best, gave 101%

Quote from El Presidente:
Actually it's "Sorry Seqo". It's possible to hold shares in a company which is not listed on the stock exchange. Those companies which "go public" list their shares on the ASX where any member of the public can buy or sell them. Hence "public company". Previously all shares of the formerly-private company Telstra were owned by the Government, which has sold 49.9%, thus remaining majority shareholder at 51.1%. Tada.

What is the point of 'shares' in a private company? The only point of creating such a concept is to become a publically listed company. This was done to become public. In order to sell off portions of the company. And this was for an interim transition period before the company became publically listed.

Prior to this concept the company was just like any other private business except that it was controlled by governmental powers, not regulated by those same powers - as is the case now. The point is, Howard put himself in the situation where he (when I say he, I mean his govenrment) is the regulator and the majority shareholder. They didn't have to, but they chose to. My opinion is that this was an unwise decision from the beginning...

By all means, If I've ended up with some incorrect information cite me...

Should the regulating government own the majority of a competitor... that all depends. Is that 'competitor' also the baseline infrastructure when it comes to Telecommunications provisions throughout the continent? Where, when it becomes fully private, it has absolutely no 'obligation' to meet its previous excellent track record (I'm talking Telecom days here... you know, when we were world leaders) ?

Ok, so they fully privatise it... what then? The government is still the regulatory body. What changes? Except that it has more money in its backpocket (not necessarily a bad thing, dependent on what they do with that money)?

I agree that if its privatised, the government may choose to spend money in other areas, promoting competition and expansion of essential services. But who still owns the infrastructure that everything has to run on? And will the government actually do that...? or will it feed money back to Telstra to do that...?

Quote from Pres:
Also you misunderstand the concept of sovereign risk. Is it a fair market when the regulating government owns a competitor?

It's hardly your average competitor. It also invests money into / and has obligations to everyone to meet a certain level of service, regardless of whether those people use Telstra. Thats infrastructure the 'competition' doesn't have to pay for.

However, as far as I know, a lot of that obligation is being continued even with the sale, so.. *shrug*

Quote from Seqo:
What is the point of 'shares' in a private company?

To own ... wait for it ... a "share" of the company.

Quote:
The only point of creating such a concept is to become a publically listed company.

Shares in private companies allow multiple people to own those companies. The rule in Australian law is that a private (proprietary) company can only have up to 50 shareholders, after which ASIC will force either shareholders to cash out or the company to become a public company (s 165 of the Corporations Act, an' it please the court).

Quote:
The point is, Howard put himself in the situation where he (when I say he, I mean his govenrment) is the regulator and the majority shareholder. They didn't have to, but they chose to.

You may have heard of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats, whose previous control of the Senate made it hard for John Howard to sell any of Telstra.

Quote:
My opinion is that this was an unwise decision from the beginning...

Your plan being?

Quote:
Where, when it becomes fully private, it has absolutely no 'obligation' to meet its previous excellent track record (I'm talking Telecom days here... you know, when we were world leaders) ?

1. No obligation except for specifically targetted legislation affecting no other telecommunications firm, is that what you were getting at?
2. Telecom? Service? Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha *deep breath* ahahahahahahaahhahahahahaah!

Not my most eloquent answer, but I think it expresses quite well what anyone who remembers Telecom feels.

Quote:
But who still owns the infrastructure that everything has to run on? And will the government actually do that...? or will it feed money back to Telstra to do that...?

Telstra should be left to its own devices. While it got a head start in the Australian telecommunications market, it is being eroded by its competitors. Australia's fastest international internet uplink belongs to a consortium led by Optus, and other firms have laid both long haul and last mile fibre all over the place. Modern packet-switching technology makes point-to-point thinking obsolete, and with it goes the need for a single network to provide all services.

In short, sell the shares, repeal the legislation, let things sort themselves out.

Get some economic rationalism up ya! /concur with prez.

And most impotantly, if we ever want the infrastructure in Aus to catch up to at least 3rd world standards(yes sarcasm for those 'love to quote' types), then you must strip the service provider from owning the infrastructure.

With Telstra pretty much owning all communications in Australia, and being as stubborn as they are... Not much hope for our Exchanges.

2. Telecom? Service? Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha *deep breath* ahahahahahahaahhahahahahaah!

Not my most eloquent answer, but I think it expresses quite well what anyone who remembers Telecom feels

You didnt even own a modem when telecom was about :) You were about 13.

I remember using a 28k Modem at home.... downloading at a whole 2.5kb!!!!!

28k? you were spoilt.

Yeah 2400 baud is where its at.

46.5KB gif file - 45 minutes :P

Quote from CoCoBuckeTs:

You didnt even own a modem when telecom was about :) You were about 13.

I was 13 with my family based in Perth (STD calls on Sunday to Granddad & Nanna), with a communications engineer in the house. Telecom was mightily cursed at all opportunities. I remember the line dropping out whenever it liked and I remember how much we had to pay for it.

Nice El Pres!! Part of the cover story you tell to cover up your commie roots :)

Quote from CoCoBuckeTs:
Nice El Pres!! Part of the cover story you tell to cover up your commie roots :)

I'd liked to have had a few more commie roots while I was living in Sydney.

http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,16574230-462,00.html

Is the sale of Telstra really worth it?

Quote from IvoMan:
http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,16574230-462,00.html

Is the sale of Telstra really worth it?

I think that between them the new management and Barnaby Joyce have made it impossible, because:

a) The new management want less regulation and will drive down the share price as a bargaining chip, and
b) Joyce wants more regulation, and will use his Senate vote as a bargaining chip.

At this stage I think that the government is between a rock and a hard place. Incidentally not selling Telstra blows a $30 billion hole in the capital budget last year and this year. It essentially cripples the Future Fund too, which is a pity because the unfunded liabilities of PubSuper/ComSuper won't go away by themselves.

i dont know ne bout this whole thing... and i hav read thruogh the thread..... who is telstra being sold too? or was that a really dumb Q?

it's being sold to us

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1460291.htm

Because as we all know, the NT Government is so upset at Telstra's service to the bush that they punished them by giving them a multi multi million dollar contract to handle all NTG communications for the next 5 years.

Ya huh.

Quote from El Presidente:
Because as we all know, the NT Government is so upset at Telstra's service to the bush that they punished them by giving them a multi multi million dollar contract to handle all NTG communications for the next 5 years.

Ya huh.

Well seeing as Telstra and Optus were the only ones to bid for it.. Optus having the contract for 5 years and somhow not spending a couple of million to upgrade ANY Infrastructure they had no choice..

Quote from MetalAttack:
Well seeing as Telstra and Optus were the only ones to bid for it.. Optus having the contract for 5 years and somhow not spending a couple of million to upgrade ANY Infrastructure they had no choice..

You'll find Telstra has a lot more equipment in the NT than anyone else except for the military. A lot. Tonight on ABC they covered the ALP's launch of the $265 million shortfall report, then cut to a community manager talking about how his community had perfect GSM and CDMA coverage. Unusually evenhanded reporting for Channel Red, I thought.

Oh, and the bill passed the Senate. Telstra will be sold.