Yep

yes i do however my reason for this post is to suggest that tls defend themselves on other forums such as sharesguru.com.au and aussieforums.com.au. tls and the regulators have been mentioned many times. these forums are accessed by many shareholders and are mainly focussed on the aust. sharemarket. cu tricky

You guys stink! How low will you go? Regulation is an important part of any capitalist society. Without it the swine who run big business would be free to do whatever ridiculous scheming they do. Pull your head in Telstra and forget the whinging and complaining like a school kid.

The ACCC regulations concerning Telstra are in fact anti-competitive. It is a fact that the weak cannot be helped by pulling down the strong. The result of this action will be a mishmash of second rate Companies, none of whom have reached their full potential. It is my hope, and desire, that the Telstra Chairman and Board will continue to assist Sol in his efforts to regenerate Telstra into a Company of world significance. Thank you for the opportunity.

No. The regulations in the Australian telecommunications industry have been developed in response to the need to keep the marketplace a fair battleground. Like any business, Telstra's primary concern is naturally the pursuit of profit -- its altruistic vision of the future for telecommunications is its way of making profit. Large companies deal in dollars and cents; altruism is part of the marketing budget. Regulation is especially important in the delivery of broadband, where Telstra has repeatedly been in conflict with its wholesale customers by reselling its retail BigPond Broadband service at a price below which it offered to wholesale customers. Telstra CEO Solomon Trujillo has said over and over again that he will not allow ISPs to "piggyback" off Telstra's future investment in a next generation broadband network. However, this rhetoric ignores the fact that ISPs pay for access to the network. Their monthly fee for each customer repays Telstra's investment in the network and cost of maintaining it. The argument should really be (and has been over the past few years): what is the true, actual cost of building, running and maintaining the network, with a commercially fair profit margin applied? Of course, if that can be determined, then Telstra isn't losing out on the cost of building, running and maintaining the network. Sure, it is missing out on some of the fat retail profit margins it can charge if it's the only company servicing a customer. But that's exactly what competition is all about: ensuring companies offer the best possible services to consumers and compete with each other on the best price that's commercially viable for them. Regulation exists to help ensure that consumers get a fair go and that one large company with deep pockets cannot dominate the market and jack up prices to whatever it likes.

No. The amount of profit earned by a particular area should not define the minimum level of service they receive. An "Australian" service provider should provide service to all Australians regardless of geographical location.

Not at all! The current regime has led to there being the highest number of ISPs per person in the world. Our mobile calls are only charged when we call out, not when we receive calls. The issues I see are when companies hold back technologies to attempt to preserve their existing revenues, such as Telstra's stance on ADSL in the late 1990s when it kept prices high to sell more of the expensive but slower ISDN technology to customers. Or right now when Telstra has a commercially ready VOIP network but is holding it back to use as a defensive tool rather than proactively pushing forward due to the potential loss of fixed phone line revenue.

All i want is uncapped broadband internet and my mobile. I don't care about regulations or all this drama i just want good service for good money.

Yes it does. Since the beginning of deregulation no telecom player (reseller) has invested in advancing the infrastructure/services to a new level. Optus laid some cables and that is about it. The only thing they did was to piggy back on Telstra's investment and re-sell services. The government does not pay enough attention to the needs of customers in the next 5-10 years. It is almost as if nothing will change, and it is only about giving some competitors a share of Telstra's profit to create the impression of a competitive environment. Yes, we need competition, but the approach must be different and supportive of willingness to invest and risk money. I totally disagree with the government, especially with ACCC. To me ACCC is driven by ego. It has not demonstrated that its most important goal is the consumer, but the desire to win argument and power. Grahame's response to Mr Stanhope's letters in regards to ULL cost structure is appalling. Instead of replying on factual argument it used sarcasm and political empty speech. ACCC does with Telstra what they did with Caltex petrol station operators: to win an argument it is willing to skew the data. It seems it does not matter what Telstra says, ACCC will rigidly pursue winning their argument at any price. It is a pitty because for the first time Telstra is trying to do the right thing and raise from the corner it has been boxed in for year.

I think that a regulatory regime that forces Telstra to allow competitors to provide broadband services over the copper lines is FANTASTIC. Otherwise we'd all be stuck with the HUGE RIPOFF that BigPond broadband is.