Telcos give a tick to NBN ad splash

It is also against the Law to advertise services,articles, that do not exist.

Therefore it was with interest to note Graeme Samuel from the ACCC was awarded a"gong" in the Queens Birthday Notices.

I seem to recall of recent times, were the ACCC has taken action against Telcoland for similar advertising.

So Mr Samuel, we await with interest!

Legal Eagle:

The NBN Advertising was about the NBN, not if the NBN services that are or are not available on it.

This is happening in other places as well (say singapore).
http://www.techgoondu.com/2010/06/15/lack-of-knowledge-main-reason-for-homes-refusing-fibre/comment-page-1/

Bruce:

Bit rich, that can happen regardless if the NBN is there or not.

My point was that at this moment in time there is no NBN, furthermore, there is grave doubt NBN will ever come into existance.
A preview is of a product that exists, the Cinema is not obliged to show it,however, that product does exist!
A catalogue shows actual items that are intended for sale,they can be withdrawn, and in most cases there are caveats on all catalogues if you care to read the fine print.In both cases there is intent of good faith!
By definition NBN is a service, for without that serv ice that runs across the fibre, it is nothing!
The Salient point is national, not part, but whole, not without the regionals, and as in the case of previews and catalogues there are stated times of the event.

I thought Mr Rudd recently described this sort of advertising as a "cancer" on our society and promised to stop it? Don't be surprised at anything Mr Samuels will pull as his lack of action on the blackmail of Telstra to remove it as a competitor to the Rudd NBN clearly shows. What a joke the champion of competition (ACCC) is when it condoned the establishment of a Government monopoly and allows the destruction of opponents to it.

Frankly I took the add in the Sun Herald as misinformation. The NSW Government already have their own Fibre network which amongst other things connects schools. I have even seen the fibre cable which connects our local High School to the network..

Its just spin and spin of the worst kind.

@Sydney.
Its that sort of sentiment that got us into this situation in the first place.
A. seperation was said to be done soon, that was at the time of the first sare float, it was there in the documents...However it got delayed and side lined and became a polictical to hard basket victim. Meanwhile Telstra was sowing the seeds of its own problems.
B. The NBN wouldnt even exsist today, if Telstra invested more instead of bloating, the previous governments broadband network would now be up and running in conjunction with Telstra.
Thankfully that didnt happen otherwise we would of had to make do with that scheme for the next 50 years.

Once you cut through all the spin one point comes up that is the crux of why the NBN was felt to be needed. Telstras copper infrastructure is life ex, and Telstra was slow or even reluctant to replace it, instead they wanted us to all go wireless, and this was deemed not fit for purpose by the government, bun fights started, Sol was called names, and the spin war with smoke and mirrors started.

My thought on this is Telstra has planned to enter in an agreement to the NBN all along, but were holding out for a better deal, or an election and a chance to take control or majority run the NBN under a new name......God help us.
Why so many people laughed at their infrastructure value, as it was quoting as if most of it was near new and not coming to end of life.

I have no 'Devious Agenda" but will openly say out loud, I think Telstra abused its powers, and have squandered its own future for bloating up its share prices. and now they are reaping the harvest of the Sol years, I have alot more faith in their new management, who are struggling with alot of issues, one of which is saving face.

I agree with you about the Rudd blackmail part but and its a big BUT, thats after the stupid games Telstra played, if anything both sides are guilty as each other, and the only true victim as per usual is the public caught between the two.

What on earth is the government thinking? The NBN isn't an electorally contentious issue like filtering or the mining tax. So why are they flinging money around to advertise the benefits of better internet speeds? $16M could employ another 200 nurses. Wouldn't that be a better use of funds? Oh that's right they've backflipped on federal health as well.

Legal Eagle your information is certainly frightening and if correct could tie in with Mr Rudd's promotion of world government.

Margaret you are correct and Mr Rudd did promise to reduce the "cancer" on society {Government spending) a short time ago. But you must understand that the 43 billion NBN promise is developing into a huge debate as the election draws near.

D Newman I do agree with the fundamental points you make and have no problem with the Government trying to deliver on its hope to build a NBN across Australia. What I do not agree with is the Government blackmail of Telstra to stop Telstra competing with it.

To clearly demonstrate the stand-over tactics of the Rudd Government is the fact that the ACCC (the champion of competition) takes no action when Mr Rudd uses regulation to stop Telstra from competing with his NBN Co.

Sydney it even sadder that you continually display your irrational and despicable Telstra share greed.

It also demonstrates a sycopathic psyche, as you will do and say whatever you have to, to support your more precious than life itself Telstra shares.

And cut the lies about super too.

Only days ago you sided with the billionaire mine owners and bagged the Rudd governments mining super tax, which would benefit the average aussie employees super, at the expense of these mining tycoons.

Sell the shares and smell the roses...

Gee it hasn’t taken long for the Telstra minions to flip-flop and start chest beating, has it?

So Legal Eagle, if your ridiculous reference was in relation to me, you are sadly 100% incorrect and I’m sure even Sydney will back me on this one.

For months and months I (NOT YOU) have been advocating (at ZDNet and Telstra Exchange) the very deal which has just been agreed to – HAVEN’T I SYD?

And why,? So that Telstra could do exactly as you now “most originally [sic]” are claiming.

I even purchased TLS shares myself at sub $3, awaiting the deal and imho, the subsequent TLS rally, which would occur.

However, I grew tired of waiting and sold with a 7.5% profit. But FYI, I will again be gauging the TLS share price today!

So please don’t start the flip-flopping and chest beating, by taking credit for anything that has occurred here or might occur as a consequence.

Don't forget...it was Sydney (and Telstra minions like YOU), who vehemently argued against all of this!

Oh Legal Eagle, no need to get all teary eyed, defensive and (pseudo) warn me to keep my opinions to myself, lol…

Opinions are what these threads are for and I will continue to air my views even if you don’t like them. Particularly in relation; to stupid comments like #18…yours!

Also, I do not know you either and reading your comments, do not wish to. But unlike you, I do not feel threatened by you or your comments. So I won’t conceitedly believe my comments any "more or less" productive than yours. So please feel free to keep ‘em coming, even though you clearly (imho) have no idea. Now…

Let me make this abundantly clear also – it is no good you coming here and having a Sydney-esque brain explosion, as you clearly did in #18, then, try to save face by saying but, but, but my points were…

NO…your points in #18 had nothing to do with your points in #20 (go back and have another read). Had they been so, I wouldn’t have needed to reply to such nonsense.

#18 was Telstra stupidity (speaking of tirades and childlike hatred of Telstra) which Syd would have been proud of, imho.

However, I will concede that your comment may have been a **ss take at Syd’s expense and if so, I apologise. But I think not.

So if you don’t like people replying to such comments in the same manner as your comment (although again you are most welcome) it may be prudent, for you to at least think, before you type!

Gee seems I’ve hit a raw nerve, whilst facetiously poking fun at the cerebrally challenged one, known as Legal Eagle (whose comments sound suspiciously similar?)…LOL.

All I asked of you was for one simple thing brainiac…

“Think before you type”!

But alas…

Lol...just can't help yourself eh?

Please do not reply you say, and then you are drawn into replying to my reply, LOL...

I love toying with fools, and you fool, are my new toy, cool...

By the way, like your twin who comments almost identically to you, here (but he’s away and you have magically appeared – lol) if you are going to lie, know the basics and at least know how to spell the names of your lying, wealth making activities…LOL!

Firstly it’s scrip, not script (something, even the greenest, squillion making, legal eagle, lol… would know) and secondly the company was Davnet, not Davnett.

Hardly hanging offences I know, but it shows you really “don’t know” and like your twin, are making up as you go along… basically, YOU ARE FOS…

Plus in comment #18, you said duct for cover, lol. What a Rhodes Scholar you are…! Yes, we all make typos, but really, you are nothing more than an illiterate fool, masquerading as somebody, he’ll never be.

But please continue! Whilst your twin is not commenting (ahem) and you are taking his place, both here and beneath Thodey’s desk there at Telstra, I will enjoy dangling the banana in front of another ape…!

So it is dangling...

Well the irony of that is Raymond was also considered that, as well as a massive list of other things, that would require lithinium.....
.And RS does have a point there is some very large profile indicators to your typing style, but this is the internet forums, where girls are men and children are FBI/interpol so as my daughter would say, "Like whateeeeeever", (shudders years of schooling and I get Britney frackin Spears in the house)