Should there be a "not" in that sentence? Not taking the pee...
Of course. Especially if you ignore planned incremental improvements in favour of presenting a solid "bottom line" to shareholders. It's a mad situation at the moment I have wotked for Telstra, and I have worked in opposition to Telstra. Telstra have done, and do some things very well indeed. Sometimes they f*** up. Micro planning is great, strategic planning is a shambles.
Sell the infrastructure off to a Haliburton and hold onto your $40 a month xDSL invoices. You'll need them to weep in very shortly.
See above. We already have the situation were the new mob are already pleading "cut - cut - cut" on infrastructure to meet the "bottom line" of showing short term profits. I happen to think a nations communication infrastructure is FAR more important than a short term blip on a stock board.
Perhaps they are fostering a buyers market? Done any game theory?
Nor hinder them depending on the required result of the end game.
I can predict that rather easily. T2 will be worth toilet paper, T3 even less, T1 will take a hit trading paper for paper. And then the luck buyer will be able to keep the operation at a very minimal citing all sorts of reasons why Australian communications "is not really an interesting concern".
Since we have come this far, keeping the infrastructure, and selling the footprint to a commercial retail Telstra, at the same price as to all other service providers seems to be the only way out of this mess.
Mark Addinall.
