Theresas Performance

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Jedmeister, May 17, 2006.

  1. Jedmeister

    Jedmeister Guest

    After the euphoria of telecoms bollocking has settled, I've decided
    that Gattung should be fired for her incompentence.

    Telecom had the chance to ward off unbundling a couple of years ago by
    providing a reasonable bitstream service that allowed other ISP's to
    actually make a buck.

    But, her direct stalling and tardy tactics caused the government to
    bite and wreak massive damage on the company.

    I hold her to blame at least.
    Jedmeister, May 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jedmeister

    shannon Guest

    Jedmeister wrote:
    > After the euphoria of telecoms bollocking has settled, I've decided
    > that Gattung should be fired for her incompentence.
    >
    > Telecom had the chance to ward off unbundling a couple of years ago by
    > providing a reasonable bitstream service that allowed other ISP's to
    > actually make a buck.
    >
    > But, her direct stalling and tardy tactics caused the government to
    > bite and wreak massive damage on the company.
    >
    > I hold her to blame at least.
    >



    She was there because those tactics provided good value to shareholders
    The tactic with the best return is to get as big a share of mobile phone
    customers, not to build a high capacity backhaul network for the adsl
    customers they had a monopoply on.
    shannon, May 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jedmeister

    Sue Bilstein Guest

    Jedmeister wrote:
    > After the euphoria of telecoms bollocking has settled, I've decided
    > that Gattung should be fired for her incompentence.
    >
    > Telecom had the chance to ward off unbundling a couple of years ago by
    > providing a reasonable bitstream service that allowed other ISP's to
    > actually make a buck.
    >
    > But, her direct stalling and tardy tactics caused the government to
    > bite and wreak massive damage on the company.
    >
    > I hold her to blame at least.


    David Cumliffe will probably arrange this for you.
    Sue Bilstein, May 17, 2006
    #3
  4. Jedmeister

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Jedmeister" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > After the euphoria of telecoms bollocking has settled, I've decided
    > that Gattung should be fired for her incompentence.
    >
    > Telecom had the chance to ward off unbundling a couple of years ago by
    > providing a reasonable bitstream service that allowed other ISP's to
    > actually make a buck.
    >
    > But, her direct stalling and tardy tactics caused the government to
    > bite and wreak massive damage on the company.
    >
    > I hold her to blame at least.


    She's tried to deceive the public and the government for years. Telecom
    could've been that competitive that it wouldn't have been worthwhile to join
    so many other ISPs and wouldn't have been worthwhile for a lot of ISPs to
    even go up into business. It's thanks to Telecom for stepping back for
    several years that ihug was able to grow as quickly as it making millions
    each year at a great rate with hardly any competition to try to stop them.

    Telecom would still make good money by having more customers than it has
    instead of losing a big share of the public to other companies.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, May 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Jedmeister

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "shannon" <> wrote in message news:446b8c65$...
    > Jedmeister wrote:
    >> After the euphoria of telecoms bollocking has settled, I've decided
    >> that Gattung should be fired for her incompentence.
    >>
    >> Telecom had the chance to ward off unbundling a couple of years ago by
    >> providing a reasonable bitstream service that allowed other ISP's to
    >> actually make a buck.
    >>
    >> But, her direct stalling and tardy tactics caused the government to
    >> bite and wreak massive damage on the company.
    >>
    >> I hold her to blame at least.
    >>

    >
    >
    > She was there because those tactics provided good value to shareholders
    > The tactic with the best return is to get as big a share of mobile phone
    > customers, not to build a high capacity backhaul network for the adsl
    > customers they had a monopoply on.


    That's not quite true at all.

    How the Hell can losing more and more customers over the years to other
    companies be good for share holders and the real potential for more profits
    by having a much larger share of the customers?
    It's Telecom choosing to be anti competitive for years that allowed mainly
    ihug at first to do so well, then later other ISPs, and then rival phone
    companies.

    It's the same with the power companies. If one power company was to take
    the chance of dropping it's prices it's share of customer numbers would go
    right up, which would actually give them more profits than ever just because
    of having a much larger customer base.

    If one goes after the customers then a company can still make real good
    profits. Just look at the Warehouse, and the supermarkets that keep prices
    down to get as many people as possible coming to them which then gives them
    a far greater turnover.

    Telecoms greedy tactics worked for a while but competition has reduced it's
    number of customers over the years - which must've hurt the chances of
    making more money from having a much larger number of total customers.

    And just how many customers has Xtra managed to lose over the last couple of
    months compared to what they lose each year in proportion to new customers
    that join them because the poor sods who first join them them don't know any
    better?

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, May 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Jedmeister

    Jo Guest

    "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    news:1147900063.721930@ftpsrv1...
    >
    >> I hold her to blame at least.

    >
    > She's tried to deceive the public and the government for years. Telecom
    > could've been that competitive that it wouldn't have been worthwhile to
    > join so many other ISPs and wouldn't have been worthwhile for a lot of
    > ISPs to even go up into business. It's thanks to Telecom for stepping
    > back for several years that ihug was able to grow as quickly as it making
    > millions each year at a great rate with hardly any competition to try to
    > stop them.
    >
    > Telecom would still make good money by having more customers than it has
    > instead of losing a big share of the public to other companies.
    >
    > E. Scrooge
    >


    Jealousy will get you nowhere, same old argument. Female leader, supposedly
    lesbian, money grubbing, and greedy yet useless. The accusations are always
    the same, and there is never anything new. She has been in the job for so
    long that its pretty obvious that the shareholders want her there.
    Jo, May 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Jedmeister

    shannon Guest

    E. Scrooge wrote:
    > "shannon" <> wrote in message news:446b8c65$...
    >> Jedmeister wrote:
    >>> After the euphoria of telecoms bollocking has settled, I've decided
    >>> that Gattung should be fired for her incompentence.
    >>>
    >>> Telecom had the chance to ward off unbundling a couple of years ago by
    >>> providing a reasonable bitstream service that allowed other ISP's to
    >>> actually make a buck.
    >>>
    >>> But, her direct stalling and tardy tactics caused the government to
    >>> bite and wreak massive damage on the company.
    >>>
    >>> I hold her to blame at least.
    >>>

    >>
    >> She was there because those tactics provided good value to shareholders
    >> The tactic with the best return is to get as big a share of mobile phone
    >> customers, not to build a high capacity backhaul network for the adsl
    >> customers they had a monopoply on.

    >
    > That's not quite true at all.
    >
    > How the Hell can losing more and more customers over the years to other
    > companies be good for share holders and the real potential for more profits
    > by having a much larger share of the customers?
    > It's Telecom choosing to be anti competitive for years that allowed mainly
    > ihug at first to do so well, then later other ISPs, and then rival phone
    > companies.
    >
    > It's the same with the power companies. If one power company was to take
    > the chance of dropping it's prices it's share of customer numbers would go
    > right up, which would actually give them more profits than ever just because
    > of having a much larger customer base.
    >
    > If one goes after the customers then a company can still make real good
    > profits. Just look at the Warehouse, and the supermarkets that keep prices
    > down to get as many people as possible coming to them which then gives them
    > a far greater turnover.
    >
    > Telecoms greedy tactics worked for a while but competition has reduced it's
    > number of customers over the years - which must've hurt the chances of
    > making more money from having a much larger number of total customers.
    >
    > And just how many customers has Xtra managed to lose over the last couple of
    > months compared to what they lose each year in proportion to new customers
    > that join them because the poor sods who first join them them don't know any
    > better?
    >
    > E. Scrooge
    >
    >


    The cold hard facts are that there are multiple cellphone pro rata
    customers per household compared to one adsl account.
    Xtra are sh*t and still have a huge number of customers, proving that
    advertising has a better payoff than actually delivering the network
    service you commit to.
    Overselling their network was more profitable than upgrading it.
    Ihug just retailed the Telecom crap service like every other isp, hardly
    an achievement.
    shannon, May 17, 2006
    #7
  8. Jedmeister

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Jo" <> wrote in message news:446b9a26$...
    >
    > "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    > news:1147900063.721930@ftpsrv1...
    >>
    >>> I hold her to blame at least.

    >>
    >> She's tried to deceive the public and the government for years. Telecom
    >> could've been that competitive that it wouldn't have been worthwhile to
    >> join so many other ISPs and wouldn't have been worthwhile for a lot of
    >> ISPs to even go up into business. It's thanks to Telecom for stepping
    >> back for several years that ihug was able to grow as quickly as it making
    >> millions each year at a great rate with hardly any competition to try to
    >> stop them.
    >>
    >> Telecom would still make good money by having more customers than it has
    >> instead of losing a big share of the public to other companies.
    >>
    >> E. Scrooge
    >>

    >
    > Jealousy will get you nowhere, same old argument. Female leader,
    > supposedly lesbian, money grubbing, and greedy yet useless. The
    > accusations are always the same, and there is never anything new. She has
    > been in the job for so long that its pretty obvious that the shareholders
    > want her there.


    Bullshit, Theresa!
    In fact you weren't even in the top job at Telecom 10 years ago. You're
    that damn good that ever since you've been stuffing around in Telecom that
    Telecom has lost more and more customers to more and more of it's fast
    growing competitors over the years.

    If there was ever a need for a female leader like you, then it would have to
    be over in Iraq.

    Instead of rubbing their together at well Telecom has done, the dopey
    Telecom shareholders should be looking at well the opposition to Telecom is
    managing to do all that their expense. and not forgetting that ihug started
    out as nothing more than a pathetic little internet cafe compared to the
    multi million dollar international company that it is today, and it was
    mostly all thanks to Telecom for standing by and let it happen.
    Telecom doesn't have 90% of the country, if it did then it's shares would be
    worth more than ever, Theresa. There'd be no Telstra and Vodafone and
    others, it would hardly be worth their while if the profit margins weren't
    as great as they are all thanks to the greed of Telecom who don't mind
    losing customers to fast growing rival companies.

    You're even using another company yourself, Theresa, sneaking round using
    Telstra/Clear.
    LOL

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, May 17, 2006
    #8
  9. Jedmeister

    Jo Guest

    "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    news:e4g6vb$pde$...
    >
    >
    > You're even using another company yourself, Theresa, sneaking round using
    > Telstra/Clear.
    > LOL
    >
    > E. Scrooge
    >


    Whatever you are smoking scrooge its making you paranoid.
    Jo, May 17, 2006
    #9
  10. Jedmeister

    Jo Guest

    "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    news:e4g6vb$pde$...
    >
    >
    > You're even using another company yourself, Theresa, sneaking round using
    > Telstra/Clear.
    > LOL

    BTW

    My name is not Theresa, I have not worked for Telecom for a number of years,
    and I use TelstraClear for all my services. Back when I was working for
    Telecom, it was cheaper to be connected to Saturn and forego 15+yr employee
    benefits. Ultimately, I know you think otherwise, but then again your
    reputation as being a kneejerk reactionary, with the scruples of a
    genetically defunct maggot precedes you.

    I have a problem with wankers who pick on women just because they hold a
    position in government office or run a large public company. It is of no
    doubt the same response from you wouldnt occur if a man (no matter how
    inept) held the same positions
    Jo, May 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Jedmeister

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "shannon" <> wrote in message news:446b9bea$...
    > E. Scrooge wrote:
    >> "shannon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:446b8c65$...
    >>> Jedmeister wrote:
    >>>> After the euphoria of telecoms bollocking has settled, I've decided
    >>>> that Gattung should be fired for her incompentence.
    >>>>
    >>>> Telecom had the chance to ward off unbundling a couple of years ago by
    >>>> providing a reasonable bitstream service that allowed other ISP's to
    >>>> actually make a buck.
    >>>>
    >>>> But, her direct stalling and tardy tactics caused the government to
    >>>> bite and wreak massive damage on the company.
    >>>>
    >>>> I hold her to blame at least.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> She was there because those tactics provided good value to shareholders
    >>> The tactic with the best return is to get as big a share of mobile phone
    >>> customers, not to build a high capacity backhaul network for the adsl
    >>> customers they had a monopoply on.

    >>
    >> That's not quite true at all.
    >>
    >> How the Hell can losing more and more customers over the years to other
    >> companies be good for share holders and the real potential for more
    >> profits by having a much larger share of the customers?
    >> It's Telecom choosing to be anti competitive for years that allowed
    >> mainly ihug at first to do so well, then later other ISPs, and then rival
    >> phone companies.
    >>
    >> It's the same with the power companies. If one power company was to take
    >> the chance of dropping it's prices it's share of customer numbers would
    >> go right up, which would actually give them more profits than ever just
    >> because of having a much larger customer base.
    >>
    >> If one goes after the customers then a company can still make real good
    >> profits. Just look at the Warehouse, and the supermarkets that keep
    >> prices down to get as many people as possible coming to them which then
    >> gives them a far greater turnover.
    >>
    >> Telecoms greedy tactics worked for a while but competition has reduced
    >> it's number of customers over the years - which must've hurt the chances
    >> of making more money from having a much larger number of total customers.
    >>
    >> And just how many customers has Xtra managed to lose over the last couple
    >> of months compared to what they lose each year in proportion to new
    >> customers that join them because the poor sods who first join them them
    >> don't know any better?
    >>
    >> E. Scrooge

    >
    > The cold hard facts are that there are multiple cellphone pro rata
    > customers per household compared to one adsl account.
    > Xtra are sh*t and still have a huge number of customers, proving that
    > advertising has a better payoff than actually delivering the network
    > service you commit to.
    > Overselling their network was more profitable than upgrading it.
    > Ihug just retailed the Telecom crap service like every other isp, hardly
    > an achievement.


    ihug managed to be the only major ISP that offered a flat rate plan for
    years, that's how ihug got a large number of customers in only a few years.
    It would've been a lot harder for ihug and later other ISPs if Telecom had
    met the challenge a lot earlier. Same with the start up of Telstra and
    Vodafone in the country, Telecom had the resources to be more competitive,
    and would pick up more new customers each year than any other outfit in the
    country would. The population is growing all the time. Telecoms share of
    the pie will be getting smaller and smaller, especially when it comes to
    internet services as more competitive than ever Broadband starts to take
    off.
    Once again people will start paying about $30 a month for real good
    internet, but Telecom won't be getting as much of it that it very easy
    could've.
    ihug quickly started from piss all and all it was all mostly thanks to
    Telecom's greed that it was able to do so. These days ihug is one of the
    largest ISPs in the country. Not quite as big as Xtra but it and other
    major ISPs have taken a good size share of the pie, sport. And it's all
    thanks to Telecom who stood by and let it all happen right before their own
    eyes. As long as Telecom was making good money the fast growth of rival
    companies didn't bother Telecom one bit, when looking to the future it
    fucking well should have.
    Telecom was taking each day as it came instead of looking ahead and and
    looking at the fast and easy growth of other companies. The future can only
    get even worse for Telecom, especially when eventually there won't be need a
    for any phone lines any more. Any fool can see that must happen eventually.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, May 17, 2006
    #11
  12. Jedmeister

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Jo" <> wrote in message news:446ba51a$...
    >
    > "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    > news:e4g6vb$pde$...
    >>
    >>
    >> You're even using another company yourself, Theresa, sneaking round using
    >> Telstra/Clear.
    >> LOL

    > BTW
    >
    > My name is not Theresa, I have not worked for Telecom for a number of
    > years, and I use TelstraClear for all my services. Back when I was working
    > for Telecom, it was cheaper to be connected to Saturn and forego 15+yr
    > employee benefits. Ultimately, I know you think otherwise, but then again
    > your reputation as being a kneejerk reactionary, with the scruples of a
    > genetically defunct maggot precedes you.
    >
    > I have a problem with wankers who pick on women just because they hold a
    > position in government office or run a large public company. It is of no
    > doubt the same response from you wouldnt occur if a man (no matter how
    > inept) held the same positions


    Just because I called you the name of a real person then lets you run off at
    the mouth being abusive as you like does it?

    You have far bigger problems after carrying on like that. You trying to
    make it sound like women can do no wrong at all, instead of being mature
    enough to enough to treat everyone equally.

    The fact is, no nuts, that even if any man in the country had been running
    Telecom like the present idiot has done - then they'd still be no better
    than your foolish greedy little mate Theresa is. Trust you with your
    twisted mind to think it's a woman verses man thing, instead of badly run
    outfit which is all thanks to a piss poor CEO, which by the way just happens
    to be Theresa. Had the CEO been a man it would still be much the same lousy
    outfit that's fast going under thank to real competition and big advances in
    technology.

    You really are looking pretty damn foolish looking while standing on your
    little women verse men soapbox.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, May 17, 2006
    #12
  13. Jedmeister

    ~misfit~ Guest

    shannon wrote:
    > Jedmeister wrote:
    >> After the euphoria of telecoms bollocking has settled, I've decided
    >> that Gattung should be fired for her incompentence.
    >>
    >> Telecom had the chance to ward off unbundling a couple of years ago
    >> by providing a reasonable bitstream service that allowed other ISP's
    >> to actually make a buck.
    >>
    >> But, her direct stalling and tardy tactics caused the government to
    >> bite and wreak massive damage on the company.
    >>
    >> I hold her to blame at least.
    >>

    >
    >
    > She was there because those tactics provided good value to
    > shareholders


    Maybe in the short-term. IMO it was a big mistake for the good of the
    company in the long term.

    > The tactic with the best return is to get as big a share
    > of mobile phone customers,


    And yet there's going to be a shake-up of the charges in NZ for mobile
    phones very soon. You heard it here first.

    > not to build a high capacity backhaul
    > network for the adsl customers they had a monopoply on.


    And look where they are now. They no longer have said monopoly. I could just
    cry.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, May 18, 2006
    #13
  14. Jedmeister

    ~misfit~ Guest

    E. Scrooge wrote:
    > "shannon" <> wrote in message
    > news:446b9bea$...
    >> The cold hard facts are that there are multiple cellphone pro rata
    >> customers per household compared to one adsl account.
    >> Xtra are sh*t and still have a huge number of customers, proving that
    >> advertising has a better payoff than actually delivering the network
    >> service you commit to.
    >> Overselling their network was more profitable than upgrading it.
    >> Ihug just retailed the Telecom crap service like every other isp,
    >> hardly an achievement.

    >
    > ihug managed to be the only major ISP that offered a flat rate plan
    > for years, that's how ihug got a large number of customers in only a
    > few years. It would've been a lot harder for ihug and later other
    > ISPs if Telecom had met the challenge a lot earlier. Same with the
    > start up of Telstra and Vodafone in the country, Telecom had the
    > resources to be more competitive, and would pick up more new
    > customers each year than any other outfit in the country would.


    Telecom could have killed Vodafone in NZ at the get-go. It's a widely known
    fact that we pay pretty much the highest prices in the developed (and most
    of the undeveloped) world for cell-phone calls. Back then it was worse. All
    Telecom needed to do was halve the price of cell calls and it wouldn't have
    been viable for Vodafone to build their towers and network. Telecom would
    still have made a healthy profit.

    (I'm pleased they didn't. I love competition. However, the fact remains that
    the company has been run very short-sightedly for years now. They only seem
    to have looked as far ahead as that years bottom line).
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, May 18, 2006
    #14
  15. "shannon" <> wrote in message news:446b8c65$...

    >
    >
    > She was there because those tactics provided good value to shareholders


    In the short term perhaps. She did not look much beyond her nose and thus
    faled the shareholders in the longer term. She should pay the penalty for
    that as should the entire board of directors.

    > The tactic with the best return is to get as big a share of mobile phone


    The tactic with the best return is not to piss off a socialist government.

    R
    Roger Dewhurst, May 18, 2006
    #15
  16. Jedmeister

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Jo wrote:
    > "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    > news:1147900063.721930@ftpsrv1...
    >>
    >>> I hold her to blame at least.

    >>
    >> She's tried to deceive the public and the government for years. Telecom
    >> could've been that competitive that it wouldn't have been
    >> worthwhile to join so many other ISPs and wouldn't have been
    >> worthwhile for a lot of ISPs to even go up into business. It's
    >> thanks to Telecom for stepping back for several years that ihug was
    >> able to grow as quickly as it making millions each year at a great
    >> rate with hardly any competition to try to stop them.
    >>
    >> Telecom would still make good money by having more customers than it
    >> has instead of losing a big share of the public to other companies.
    >>
    >> E. Scrooge
    >>

    >
    > Jealousy will get you nowhere, same old argument. Female leader,
    > supposedly lesbian, money grubbing, and greedy yet useless. The
    > accusations are always the same, and there is never anything new.


    Ouch!!! Hit a nerve there? Feeling persecuted? Looking to blame
    someone/thing for your inadequacies?

    LOL.

    It would have been the same had she been male, Maori, Jew.. Whatever. It's
    not about gender/race/sexual orientation (unless you make it so) it's about
    short-sighted management.

    Just because your statements (Note: *your* statements) above are probably
    true doesn't make them relevant. It's just a cop-out. Pass the buck, try to
    blame things other than the truth.

    > She
    > has been in the job for so long that its pretty obvious that the
    > shareholders want her there.


    The shareholders weren't in as good a position to gauge the government's
    probable (Note: Not *possible*) reaction to Telecom's tactics as Theresa
    was.

    I hate threads that are crossposted to the looney bin. <Note to self: Ignore
    future instances or remove the crossposting>

    Buh-bye now.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, May 18, 2006
    #16
  17. Jedmeister

    Guest

    You can't blame her for what comes naturally - she did what any greedy
    National voter would have done, namely exploit their position to meet
    their own ends.
    , May 18, 2006
    #17
  18. Jedmeister

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Jo wrote:
    > "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    > news:e4g6vb$pde$...
    >>
    >>
    >> You're even using another company yourself, Theresa, sneaking round
    >> using Telstra/Clear.
    >> LOL

    > BTW
    >
    > My name is not Theresa, I have not worked for Telecom for a number of
    > years, and I use TelstraClear for all my services. Back when I was
    > working for Telecom, it was cheaper to be connected to Saturn and
    > forego 15+yr employee benefits. Ultimately, I know you think
    > otherwise, but then again your reputation as being a kneejerk
    > reactionary, with the scruples of a genetically defunct maggot
    > precedes you.
    > I have a problem with wankers who pick on women just because they
    > hold a position in government office or run a large public company.
    > It is of no doubt the same response from you wouldnt occur if a man
    > (no matter how inept) held the same positions


    Yep, a bitter, probably ugly and lonely woman who is looking for something
    other than herself to blame for the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

    Argues ad hominem and hates herself so accuses Scrooge of traits she
    exhibits herself (kneejerk reactions, maggoty personality...). Sad, very
    sad.

    At least she's found a spiritual home in the looney bin. A place for
    dysfunctionals to flourish.

    Heh.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, May 18, 2006
    #18
  19. Jedmeister

    ~misfit~ Guest

    E. Scrooge wrote:
    > "Jo" <> wrote in message
    > news:446ba51a$...
    >>
    >> "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in message
    >> news:e4g6vb$pde$...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You're even using another company yourself, Theresa, sneaking round
    >>> using Telstra/Clear.
    >>> LOL

    >> BTW
    >>
    >> My name is not Theresa, I have not worked for Telecom for a number of
    >> years, and I use TelstraClear for all my services. Back when I was
    >> working for Telecom, it was cheaper to be connected to Saturn and
    >> forego 15+yr employee benefits. Ultimately, I know you think
    >> otherwise, but then again your reputation as being a kneejerk
    >> reactionary, with the scruples of a genetically defunct maggot
    >> precedes you. I have a problem with wankers who pick on women just
    >> because they
    >> hold a position in government office or run a large public company.
    >> It is of no doubt the same response from you wouldnt occur if a man
    >> (no matter how inept) held the same positions

    >
    > Just because I called you the name of a real person then lets you run
    > off at the mouth being abusive as you like does it?
    >
    > You have far bigger problems after carrying on like that. You trying
    > to make it sound like women can do no wrong at all, instead of being
    > mature enough to enough to treat everyone equally.
    >
    > The fact is, no nuts, that even if any man in the country had been
    > running Telecom like the present idiot has done - then they'd still
    > be no better than your foolish greedy little mate Theresa is. Trust
    > you with your twisted mind to think it's a woman verses man thing,
    > instead of badly run outfit which is all thanks to a piss poor CEO,
    > which by the way just happens to be Theresa. Had the CEO been a man
    > it would still be much the same lousy outfit that's fast going under
    > thank to real competition and big advances in technology.
    >
    > You really are looking pretty damn foolish looking while standing on
    > your little women verse men soapbox.


    LOL. We agree Scrooge. That's not that common an occurance. <g>. And I don't
    even know this person. I don't have to, the three or four posts of "its" (in
    case "she's" a transexual) tell me all I need to know.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, May 18, 2006
    #19
  20. Jedmeister

    shannon Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > shannon wrote:
    >> Jedmeister wrote:
    >>> After the euphoria of telecoms bollocking has settled, I've decided
    >>> that Gattung should be fired for her incompentence.
    >>>
    >>> Telecom had the chance to ward off unbundling a couple of years ago
    >>> by providing a reasonable bitstream service that allowed other ISP's
    >>> to actually make a buck.
    >>>
    >>> But, her direct stalling and tardy tactics caused the government to
    >>> bite and wreak massive damage on the company.
    >>>
    >>> I hold her to blame at least.
    >>>

    >>
    >> She was there because those tactics provided good value to
    >> shareholders

    >
    > Maybe in the short-term. IMO it was a big mistake for the good of the
    > company in the long term.


    That doesn't matter to a shareholder.
    The advantage of being the incumbent operator can only be ruthlessly
    exploited until others route around it through new technology or
    legislation.
    At which stage they end up on a level playing field, nothing lost.


    >
    >> The tactic with the best return is to get as big a share
    >> of mobile phone customers,

    >
    > And yet there's going to be a shake-up of the charges in NZ for mobile
    > phones very soon. You heard it here first.


    Theres still a lot less risk to Telecom in the mobile biz than the adsl
    line biz despite their stupid CDMA choices

    >
    >> not to build a high capacity backhaul
    >> network for the adsl customers they had a monopoply on.

    >
    > And look where they are now. They no longer have said monopoly. I could just
    > cry.


    Nothing has happened yet.
    They still own the local loop, they still get the payoff renting out the
    copper.
    The low density technological limit of distance from exchange to
    subscriber, remains the same for any other operators who install their
    own DSLAM.
    I'd say keep the whistles and streamers until someone else is ready to
    sell you a better connection
    shannon, May 18, 2006
    #20
    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.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    HEXUS.review: Rockdirect XTI 3.8 Performance

    Silverstrand, Aug 8, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    615
    Silverstrand
    Aug 8, 2005
  2. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    634
    Silverstrand
    Aug 24, 2005
  3. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    614
    Silverstrand
    Sep 20, 2005
  4. Silverstrand

    Mushkin eXtreme Performance XP4000 2GB Review

    Silverstrand, Oct 3, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    613
    Silverstrand
    Oct 3, 2005
  5. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,262
    Silverstrand
    Oct 6, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page