🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Doyle <mike.doyle_RE@move_optushome.com.au> wrote in
message news:3ce345f8$0$4696$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Mike Doyle <mike.doyle_RE@move_optushome.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Mike Doyle <mike.doyle_RE@move_optushome.com.au> wrote

>>>>>> Well Mike according to:

>>>>>> http://www.witsa.org/presentations/Telstra.pdf

>>>>>> "During the remainder of 2001/2002 financial year coverage
>>>>>> and capacity will continue to expand, to exceed an estimated
>>>>>> ADSL coverage of 80% of all premises by June 2002."

>>>>> How about finding the equivalent figures for NZ?

>>>> I doubt its available. Telstra is caught between a rock and a hard
>>>> place because the govt wants to flog off the rest of Telstra and so
>>>> is monstering Telstra on the adsl rollout, amoungst other things.

>>> The government owns the majority of Telstra.

>> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket
>> scientist desperately wanking children ?

>>> That is why Australia has a better ADSL rollout than NZ,

>> Have fun explaining the very different cable rollout here and in NZ.

>>> where Telecom is 100% owned by US corporations.

>> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
>> Optus was never govt owned, and was the reason for the
>> much better cable rollout here than in sheepshaggerland.

>>>>> If NZ is anything less than 80% then my claim is correct.

>>>> Wrong again on that terminally stupid claim
>>>> that 'virtually every Australian town has ADSL'

>>> I think

>> Liar, all you can manage is bullshit.
>> Nothing even remotely resembling 'think'

>>> 80% falls within the ambit of "virtually".

>> More fool you. Thats nothing like 'virtually every', wankerboy.

> Yes it is.

Even you should be able to do MUCH better than that, wankerboy.

>>>> Even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp
>>>> that a hell of a lot less than 20% live outside towns in Aust.

>>> About 90% of Australia's population lives in towns
>>> with a population greater than 2000 people.

>> And an even bigger percentage live in towns, wankerboy.

> What percentage would that be?

Chase it up for yourself, wanker boy.

>>>>> Also, Australia's population is more concentrated than NZs

>>>> Yes.

>>>>> so it is easier to wire up 80% in Australia than in NZ.

>>>> Thats distinctly arguable when virtually
>>>> everyone has a phone service in both countrys.

>>> Having a phone service is not the most important criterion.

>> Sure is with adsl.

> No it isn't.

Fraid so, particularly with 'towns', wankerboy.

> Having a adsl-ready exchange is more important.

Wrong. As always. Its trivial to add
a dslam to an exchange, wankerboy.

Only takes minutes.

> It is relatively simple to add a phone line as required.

No phone line is 'added' with adsl, wankerboy.

>>> The distance from other towns,

>> Got absolutely NOTHING to do with the availability of adsl.

> Yes it has.

Wrong. As always.

> Because of the way the ADSL network is constructed.

Even you should be able to bullshit
MUCH better than that, wankerboy.

>>> and age of the exchange

>> Utterly mangled all over again with the exchanges seen in both countrys.

>>> and wiring is more important.

>> Yet another pathetic little fantasy.

>>>>> And more profitable too.

>>>> You dont know that either.

>>> I do know.

>> Like hell you do.

> I do too.

Like hell you do.

>>> The larger the population base the greater the profitability.

>> Wrong. As always.

> You are more wrong than me.

Even you should be able to bullshit
MUCH better than that, wankerboy.

>>> The denser the population (no pun intended) the greater the profit.

>> Wrong. As always. With fibre optic links between
>> exchanges, it really doesnt matter much to the total
>> costs what the distance between the towns is.

> Rubbish.

We'll see.

> Fibre optics costs $ per meter.
> Laying costs $ per meter.

Pity thats all there for the basic phone services, wankerboy.

> It matters a lot.

Pigs arse it does on profitablility, wankerboy.

>> And Aust is rather worse in that respect than sheepshaggerland anyway.

Funny that. Yet more egg on your pathetic little dial.

>>>>>> "Telstra uses several platforms to deliver broadband services - HFC
>>>>>> covers about 2.5m homes, DSL 7.5m homes and satellite covers all."

>>>>>> "Rural and remote customers are covered by a subsidised satellite
>>>>>> service"

>>>>>> So I need to ask the following questions:

>>>>>> 1/Precisely when did the data comes from that makes
>>>>>> up your list? And what are the approxiamte populations
>>>>>> (to within say 100,000) of those towns you list

>>>>> From the Whitepages and Bigpond ADSL availability page. Search
>>>>> Whitepages for "Smith" in a particular town. Select some of those
>>>>> telephone numbers and plug  them into the ADSL availability page.

>>>> Soorree, doesnt qualify as 'virtually every
>>>> Australian town has ADSL' any time soon.

>>> 80% is virtually every Australian town.

>> Wrong. As always. And 80% of Aust towns dont have adsl anyway.

> Oh, so now you are saying that "... 80% of Aust towns
> don't have ADSL".  Where do you get that figure from?

Just showed you a list, wankerboy.