🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Doyle <mike.doyle_RE@move_optushome.com.au> wrote in
message news:3ce3336a$0$4697$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> 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.

>> 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.

>>> 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.

> The distance from other towns,

Got absolutely NOTHING to do with the availability of adsl.

> 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.

> The larger the population base the greater the profitability.

Wrong. As always.

> 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.

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

>>>> "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.

>>> It could be automated if you wanted
>>> to perform a comprehensive survey.

>>> I haven't looked at the population figures.

>>> That could easily be done if you were doing a serious
>>> survey. But I did record the number of Smith's that were
>>> found which gives a relative population measure.

>> God knows what this silly wank is about.

> Everyone knows what a relative population measure is

Pity that dont qualify, wankerboy.

All the rest of your desperate wanking flushed where it belongs.