🚀 go-pugleaf

michael.wines@purethought.com.au (Michael Wines) writes:

>Your point is the same as mine, that Telstra does network planning in
>terms of a static idea of the customers' use of the telecommunications
>network. Where we differ is that I can see that telecommunications
>requirements are expanding and diversifying, and you can't.

I am not a great fan of Telstra, but I'd have o disagree with this one.
Telstra have very sophisticated forecasting methods. They don't rely on
a static idea of customer use of telecommunications.

>You make the prediction that 10 per cent of households in major cities
>will use their residential service for 3 hours during evening peak
>Internet/BBS times under the current arrangement. Telstra's response
>to this is to introduce financial disincentives to discourage this
>use. Instead Telstra should recognise that long-held modem connections
>for Internet and BBS access reflect a legitimate use of the service
>and should respond by investing in increased capacity at the local
>exchanges to handle the increased demand.

And then they need to recover the costs of this increased investment.
They can either raise the cost of every unit, or they can recover more
money from the people who caused them to have to increase their
investment in local office switching capacity and inter-switch
transmission capacity.

>Telstra's view: the customers must limit their use to meet Telstra's
>limited infrastructure.

Rubbish. Telstra's view is that customers must pay for what they use. 

>The customers' view: Telstra must provide the infrastructure to meet
>whatever services we require.

I'm a customer and this is not my view. It would be nice if I could get
what I desire without paying for it, but I don't subscribe to that kind
of cargo cult.

>If Telstra persists in its inflexible planning attitude, then in a
>very short time Australia will be stuck with a telecommunications
>network below the standards of the poorest countries in the third
>world.

Actually, not allowing the investmnt in improved infrastructure by
imposing unrealistic tariffing models is what causes the infrastructure
to drop in standard.

All that said, I doubt that there would be a need to charge another unit
very often to recoup the cost of investment. Prices for switching
equipment have plummeted in the last 5 years and the capacity of the
same equipment has skyrocketed. If there were more than a couple of
extra units charged for a 1-hour call, then I think there would be cause for
riots.

cheers,


--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
They told me I was gullible.............    And I believed them!