Call4Change

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Ray Jackson, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. Ray Jackson

    Ray Jackson Guest

    Anyone who is fed up with Telecom's Monopolistic practices should visit
    this site and let their opinions be known:

    http://www.call4change.co.nz
     
    Ray Jackson, Feb 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ray Jackson

    ufo_hk Guest

    Would be helpful if the person who put together the on line polling actually
    made it such that any votes collected were meaningful. Currently any one can
    vote multiple times for either, so someone could write a simple script to
    vote multiple times. Given this there has to be a big question around the
    info collected.
    Maybe this type of development explains why these guys can't put together a
    alternative network?

    "Ray Jackson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Anyone who is fed up with Telecom's Monopolistic practices should visit
    > this site and let their opinions be known:
    >
    > http://www.call4change.co.nz
    >
     
    ufo_hk, Feb 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ray Jackson

    Gordon Guest

    On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:17:56 +1300, ufo_hk wrote:

    > Maybe this type of development explains why these guys can't put together a
    > alternative network?


    And perhaps why Telcom bought one ;-)

    --
    Fairy stories exist so children get used to real life
     
    Gordon, Feb 9, 2004
    #3
  4. "ufo_hk" <> wrote in message
    news:5_CVb.38607$...
    > Would be helpful if the person who put together the on line polling
    > actually
    > made it such that any votes collected were meaningful. Currently any one
    > can
    > vote multiple times for either, so someone could write a simple script to
    > vote multiple times. Given this there has to be a big question around the
    > info collected.




    Maybe there is some correlation happening at the back end with IP addresses
    or some other info retrievable from the browser remotely (hostname etc)


    > Maybe this type of development explains why these guys can't put together
    > a
    > alternative network?



    Maybe.

    Maybe they know that "they" won't take these unscientific stats seriously
    anyway
     
    Nathan Mercer, Feb 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Ray Jackson

    steve Guest

    Gordon wrote:

    > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:17:56 +1300, ufo_hk wrote:
    >
    >> Maybe this type of development explains why these guys can't put together
    >> a alternative network?

    >
    > And perhaps why Telcom bought one ;-)


    For a tiny fraction of what it would have cost to build one...and WE have
    been paying the price for Richard Prebble's mistake ever since.
     
    steve, Feb 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Ray Jackson

    ufo_hk Guest

    "Nathan Mercer" <nathan@4757979!!!SPAMSUCKS****mcs.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:NAFVb.38800$...
    > Maybe there is some correlation happening at the back end with IP

    addresses
    > or some other info retrievable from the browser remotely (hostname etc)

    Maybe - but seeing how many people are on dynamic IPs or have multiple
    people using the same machine .............. they'll have fun justifing the
    results.

    > Maybe they know that "they" won't take these unscientific stats seriously
    > anyway

    Probably right therefore as voters we shouldn't take it seriously either :)
     
    ufo_hk, Feb 9, 2004
    #6
  7. Ray Jackson

    ufo_hk Guest

    Yeap - but both CLEAR and Bellsouth both built alternative networks, however
    since neither of these are here and both were "bought" out, I guess we see
    the same happening.

    "steve" <> wrote in message
    news:hnQVb.22803$...
    > Gordon wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:17:56 +1300, ufo_hk wrote:
    > >
    > >> Maybe this type of development explains why these guys can't put

    together
    > >> a alternative network?

    > >
    > > And perhaps why Telcom bought one ;-)

    >
    > For a tiny fraction of what it would have cost to build one...and WE have
    > been paying the price for Richard Prebble's mistake ever since.
    >
     
    ufo_hk, Feb 9, 2004
    #7
  8. Ray Jackson

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <hnQVb.22803$>,
    says...
    > Gordon wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:17:56 +1300, ufo_hk wrote:
    > >
    > >> Maybe this type of development explains why these guys can't put together
    > >> a alternative network?

    > >
    > > And perhaps why Telcom bought one ;-)

    >
    > For a tiny fraction of what it would have cost to build one...and WE have
    > been paying the price for Richard Prebble's mistake ever since.


    Prebble knows about accounting, even if you don't. Book value and
    replacement value are not the same by any means.

    --
    Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
     
    Mainlander, Feb 10, 2004
    #8
  9. Ray Jackson

    colinco Guest

    In article <>, *@*.*
    says...
    > Prebble knows about accounting, even if you don't. Book value and
    > replacement value are not the same by any means.
    >

    So you're suggesting that his mates bought at book value and sold at
    market value?
     
    colinco, Feb 10, 2004
    #9
  10. On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:42:57 +1300, Mainlander wrote:

    > Prebble knows about accounting, even if you don't. Book value and
    > replacement value are not the same by any means.


    Telecom was sold off for $3billion at the end of a $5 billion rebuilding
    project.

    The _scrap_ value of the copper in the ground alone at the time of the
    sale was more than $5 billion.

    Telecom was broken up into 7 regional operating companies, 3 other
    companies and a holding company BEFORE being sold off, SPECIFICALLY to
    prevent it operating as a monopoly.

    Thanks to fuckwits thinking that new owners would play fair, there were no
    laws passed preventing cross subsidisation or the companies reamalgamating.

    End result: Within 3 months of the sale, Telecom Midland enacted a
    hostile takeover of Telecom Central. A few years later all the ROCs were
    swallowed back up by the holding company and the monpolistic practices
    started in earnest.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 10, 2004
    #10
  11. Ray Jackson

    Mutley Guest

    Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:

    >In article <hnQVb.22803$>,
    > says...
    >> Gordon wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:17:56 +1300, ufo_hk wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Maybe this type of development explains why these guys can't put together
    >> >> a alternative network?
    >> >
    >> > And perhaps why Telcom bought one ;-)

    >>
    >> For a tiny fraction of what it would have cost to build one...and WE have
    >> been paying the price for Richard Prebble's mistake ever since.

    >


    Would it have been ant easier if the GVT had retained ownership of
    Telecom.?? I doubt. It would still be a state own monopoly.

    Anyone remember the efforts in the late 80s to get a 3rd TV channel
    here.?? How many millions each applicant spent on it and how the
    incumbent monopoly TVNZ was allowed to get all the programming
    information the applicants and then use those ideas to beet them..
    That's the reason TV3 went bankrupt so early. The application costs
    and TVNZ using their ideas.
     
    Mutley, Feb 10, 2004
    #11
  12. Ray Jackson

    colinco Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Telecom was broken up into 7 regional operating companies, 3 other
    > companies and a holding company BEFORE being sold off, SPECIFICALLY to
    > prevent it operating as a monopoly.
    >

    I thought that it was more a standard method of getting rid of
    established work practices and staff. Chainsaw Harrison for one was good
    at shedding staff.
     
    colinco, Feb 11, 2004
    #12
  13. Ray Jackson

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > In article <>, *@*.*
    > says...
    > > Prebble knows about accounting, even if you don't. Book value and
    > > replacement value are not the same by any means.
    > >

    > So you're suggesting that his mates bought at book value and sold at
    > market value?


    What mates are these?

    --
    Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
     
    Mainlander, Feb 11, 2004
    #13
  14. Ray Jackson

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:42:57 +1300, Mainlander wrote:
    >
    > > Prebble knows about accounting, even if you don't. Book value and
    > > replacement value are not the same by any means.

    >
    > Telecom was sold off for $3billion at the end of a $5 billion rebuilding
    > project.
    >
    > The _scrap_ value of the copper in the ground alone at the time of the
    > sale was more than $5 billion.


    But that would be constrained by the cost of recovering it.

    --
    Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
     
    Mainlander, Feb 11, 2004
    #14
  15. On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:31:15 +1300, Mainlander wrote:

    >> The _scrap_ value of the copper in the ground alone at the time of the
    >> sale was more than $5 billion.

    >
    > But that would be constrained by the cost of recovering it.


    Scrap values usually include the cost of recovery.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 11, 2004
    #15
  16. Ray Jackson

    Mutley Guest

    colinco <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> Telecom was broken up into 7 regional operating companies, 3 other
    >> companies and a holding company BEFORE being sold off, SPECIFICALLY to
    >> prevent it operating as a monopoly.
    >>

    >I thought that it was more a standard method of getting rid of
    >established work practices and staff. Chainsaw Harrison for one was good
    >at shedding staff.


    He sure was..
     
    Mutley, Feb 11, 2004
    #16
  17. On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:39:16 +1300, Mutley wrote:

    >>I thought that it was more a standard method of getting rid of
    >>established work practices and staff. Chainsaw Harrison for one was good
    >>at shedding staff.

    >
    > He sure was..


    Shedding staff was easy when there were 5 layers of middle management
    whose sole function was to push paper.

    The first couple of years of telecom's existance were a good thing. As a
    SOE it was fast, cost-efficient and very customer focused.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 11, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page