Recently, on Now We Are Talking, Mr Steve Toole (who I will show shares a resembelance to another spell) wrote this:

Mr. Torrento, I find it amusing that according to you, anyone with even the slightest kind word to say about `Telstra is “always intentionally dishonest and wrong” and you are personally, “always right and beyond reproach! It must be a great burden being so much more knowledgeable than everyone else, especially the experts!

But c’mon mate, even though according to you, “Telstra are standing in the way of your online businesses, greater success – 19/7”, it shouldn’t totally engulf and enrage you to the point of totally tainting all reason, surely?

For example, when Kevin Morgan (“independent telecoms consultant”) wrote “Telstra are the only choice…” – he was according to you, simply an “idiot” (nicely researched conclusion). Oh and yes it was slammed the next day, but by whom? Ravi Bhatia - CEO of Primus Telecommunications, a G9 member! So really, there was no need to rebut the vested interest rebuttal, was there?

Surely the CEO of Primus would not be biased in any way? No never!

But of course, the “independent expert” (who incidentally also has a background in the politics of telecoms) is biased? Yes, righto! Also, when WiMAX Day (who I suppose also don’t know anything about WiMAX?) said the government’s $1b handout to OPEL was reprehensible – you said for them to have made such comments, “money must have changed hands” (yet again, another masterful conclusion)! I suppose too, IT pioneer George Fong (keeping in mind, whose company although sold by Mr Fong, is now part of Telstra competitor TPG) is also an “idiot” and “you will of course correct him” for saying - “the Optus-Elders (OPEL) scheme into which the Federal Government has ploughed $958 million of taxpayers’ money in subsidies is “derisory” and likely to delay, rather than enhance, the kind of broadband the bush needs”?

Perhaps Mr. Torrento it’s time you simply took a little look at your own ethics and offensive remarks, particularly those outside of the nwat forum (which most herein may perhaps be unaware of) before speaking of dishonest, mistruths?

Contrary to Mr. Torrento’s assurances on nwat 18/7 - “I choose to do this (comment) without personal attack” - within the comfort zone of like thinking blogs, but particularly within his own “IT/Telecoms website”, his conduct has been nothing short of disgraceful. Why? Simply because people like me, have a difference of opinion to him! Ironic isn’t it Mr Ray Jones, that only days ago, you went into bat for Mr Torrento of all people, for nwat posters “chastising him”, when you were perhaps unaware of Mr. Torrento’s reprehensible conduct elsewhere (which due to my own ethics, I will not elaborate upon any further, here and now - but give me the word?).

So what kind of person are you Mr. Torrento? Instead of pointing the finger, can your argument rest on its merits alone? Or like before, when the heat is on, will you again simply resort to adolescent name calling?

I do not in anyway state that anyone who favours Telstra is wrong and dishonest intentionally.

I do not actually believe that either. Steve, this is point one of where you have shown yourself to be Mr. Steve Toole.

Further, Steve stated that I am totally engulfed to a level where I taint all reason, this is simply not true.

I simply recognise that Kevin Morgan’s biased opinion article is far from correct, and in fact, by even claiming that Telstra would get $20 bn discredits the entire article. It stinks of poor research and Telstra favouritism.

I’ll believe an article when both sides don’t have a bias added to it. The article is written by a true independant who has viewed the situation and has nothing to lose, nothing to gain by publishing both sides of the story.

Now We Are Talking comes close to this, believe it or not, but only in the discussion forums where users like me participate and offer what consumers can conceive as the truth.

Whilst I recognise Ravi had a bias, and already mentioned that, his article was so much more well written to show the point of reality, the point of logic. Something that is far from visible in the article written by Kevin Morgan.

Kevin obviously has some sort of vested interest here, some bias related to his support of Telstra, be it he is a consultant who is financially involved with Telstra, or otherwise, he didn’t demonstrate what could only be seen as a factual article.

Outlandish claims of $20 billion in compensation to Telstra for a network that they don’t lose ownership of is what I am talking about.

Anyone with half a brain can see the compensation figure will not exceed the profits they currently make, and anyone with more than half a brain would see that the profits aren’t all being taken away, they are still having ULL purchases made, which still has a profit attached to it.

The CEO of Primus has a bias, he mentioned that in his article though, that’s where he gets 5 credits of honesty. He was wide open about it all, and whilst only suggested FTTN as an alternative, he certainly did the article well, and his article didn’t defy common sense like Kevin Morgan’s did.

Further, the bias from Kevin Morgan could be further reaching into the days as Kim Beasley’s b*tch. Cash for comment seems to be a common phrase. I’m not gonna pin him to a wall and say that, but the article he submitted, didn’t read anything like a article that a independant person would submit. It was too well weighted towards Telstra and ignored all the other alternatives, such as my favourite, Tell Telstra to GAGF (you can use google) and go straight to FTTH, with $20 billion, that’s what they would be doing.

Heck, if your gonna piss Telstra off to the tune of billions (20 of them) do it in style. Make sure they can’t recover, screw them right where it hurts, destroy their last mile monopoly. That’ll have em fooked.

I make no comments on George Fong, and a few others. Simply because there is too much uninformed trap opening going on, and far too little research into what will work well over Australia’s vast landscape.

WiMAX is an ideal alternative, not because it duplicates the crap known as NextG, far from it, it’s because it encourages competition and kicks starts the backhaul needed to encourage competition to enter some areas.

The bush will get faster services with WiMAX, and if WiMAX proves a lemon (I highly doubt it!), infrastructure changes are far less costly once you’ve got the towers up. It’s all just a technology changeover, some of which can be done remotely, and others, well someone has to climb up really high, drop a device down, plug a new one in, done.

My ethics aren’t the question of the debate here, simply because if the federal government had screwed Telstra correctly in the first place, we wouldn’t have to have this discussion now. The job would have already been done properly.

Just on your last line, I can indeed debate solely on the facts alone.

If you read this blog enough, you’d realise that I have gone over several possible solutions to all the issues that exist in Australia for broadband services that I am amazed Helen Coonan hasn’t used it as an educational resource (not that I would advocate this blog to be used as a teaching tool in schools).

I don’t resort to name calling at all. A greedy pig is a greedy pig, the definition of a greedy pig is very clear, Telstra and its shareholders. It’s that simple. No name calling, it’s more of a definition, I’ll see if we can get it in the dictionary perhaps?
It’s amazing however, that they will publish personal attacks on the website, isn’t it Steve? You might want to read other posts besides mine to make a discovery… Could the rest of the posters (exceptions here, you are an exception) really be that .. .STUPID? “Lacking of Intelligence?” - It’s the NWAT model. Put the right comments out their for the uninformed, the stupid to read, because they’ll likely believe it and with the right misleading marketing to the stupid, we might get our own greedy way.

They didn’t just sink a few million into a website “for community service”. But you knew that already, didn’t you Toole?

And..

Now that we have the Toole sorted out, Telstra, and how it is UnAustralian, yet so many claim it’s the only Australian left.

For example, this comment:

Jason T, singtel is controlled by singapore. You are a clown and I hope you are not an example of Australia’s future because there won’t be one. Telstra is the last remaining truly great Australian, supporting telstra is equal to fighting for your country because if governments continue to support overseas companies, there will not be a country to support. MESSAGE TO HOWARD support TELSTRA and its AUSTRALIAN SHAREHOLDERS will support you. PLEASE don’t make us vote for labor.

I wasn’t stating they weren’t. For the most part however, Optus Australia are an Australian company, employing Australian people, running Australian infrastructure, supplying a service built inside Australia, while enhancing the Australian economy, by keeping Australians in jobs (and not sacking 12,000 of them).

But the comment I took most objection to, “Telstra is the last remaining truly great Australian”. RUBBISH! Absolute Rubbish.

It’s ran by US Imports, who will soon become Exports if they don’t perform. It’s owned by foreign shareholders. Hardly “Australian”.

Want to look at a true Australian?

Internode. Go look at them. A AUSTRALIAN business owned by an AUSTRALIAN, running AUSTRALIAN networks, for AUSTRALIAN consumers, at AUSTRALIAN prices, without AUSTRALIAN extortion.

Telstra? Hmm.

I dunno how many Australians do you know that will go to a shop, see that the shop is employing Australians (Sally), selling Australian products (Boomerangs), and enhancing Australia’s economy(Aussie Dollar), but being owned by a Singapore person?

Do we go into that shop and state: I’m not buying here, because that $5 you make off a telephone service goes to a Singapore person?

Or do we make sure Sally keeps her job selling Boomerangs and enhancing the performance of the Aussie Dollar by reducing imports?

Sure, the tag line is keep the dollars in Australia, but that’s not exactly easy when the Australian is not allowing a price fight to happen in many areas it holds dominant control over, and everyone else can’t invest because the costs or risk (or both) are exceedingly high, and the threat of a counter attack from the dominant, is very, very likely.

It’s more likely you’d put bets on the timeframe of when the dominant will strike, then it will be to put bets on the new startups success. That’s Telstra for you.

I don’t see Australian’s care when they buy Chinese takeaway that the Chinese owner lives in China. In fact many people do it. So why is the case any different for Optus?

As for Telstra being an Australian company, show me how many Australian’s go about ripping off fellow Aussies, or holding fellow Aussies to ransom, or treating fellow aussies with Extortion, and if you can get a percentage greater than 50%, I’ll certainly agree that they are Australian.

As you can see, it doesn’t matter who owns the company, what matters is the behaviour and the performance of the company in the AUSTRALIAN marketplace, the items that actually AFFECT AUSTRALIANS.

Optus’s Singapore Holding Company ownership doesn’t affect Australian’s. Optus have invested, and continue to invest in Australia’s future by:

Rolling out HFC network (but getting stalked by Telstra, because they couldn’t handle competition)
Rolling out their own backhaul network to some areas, and rolling out DSLAMs (ADSL infrastructure)
Preparing, researching and investigating a workable wholesale FTTN network for Australians.

That’s all done in AUSTRALIA. What has Telstra done this whole time?
Whinged about Optus Australia’s Singapore ownership because they couldn’t find anything to fault Optus, its infrastructure and its proposal on.

Telstra found it easier to be racist, greedy pigs.

Telstra? The Great UNAUSTRALIAN.

Enjoy!