Telstra jacks up internet prices, introduces three year contracts

thomasr:

These prices need to be coming DOWN and speed going UP.

Have they lost their minds? Is this the best way to react to falling profits? I was close to a NextG card purchase, but now I'll go without or go elsewhere.

idiots.

thomasr

raindog:

I'd love to sign up to these plans Sol. Honest I would. (smirk)
When they said bigpond was a rock-star level service, what they meant was you would need a rock-star budget to fund your connection to it!

john:

Screw bigpond ... un-australian rabble.

John:

Reporters/commentators like this needs either to be sacked or retrain to report the facts and not mislead the people with titles like these.

1- why is this a misleading article because the reporter deliberly has not mention wireless internet.By just writing internet he is trying to use scare tatics, this article is saved and sent to the management of this magazine who this reporter is working for and also is being asked pleas explain why did they let the person to write a misleading title

g00nster2004:

read the first sentence of the second paragraph

the entire article is talking about wireless internet and no its not misleading as you cant put a entire descriptive paragraph as a headline!

John:

Read the title as good editors or reporters know the title is more important then the paragraphs

raindog:

Here's one for you to ponder John! Which is the greater sin? A totally correct if not fully detailed topic headline or a Telco rapidly jacking the terms of multi year contracts just months after the release of those same contracts.
I do recall that in between showers and other fiascos Sol and his happy team of crank yankers were putting NextG forward as the universal internet solution. Let's re-run those claims with the new figures and see how even further from the truth those claims were.

Travis:

I would save your breath, I doubt that 'John' will even exist, and if anything would be a Telstra employee, or at least someone so blind to what Telstra is doing to the Telecommunications 'industry' in Australia.. and it's not for the good of it.

Telstra, get your American board members, and get the f@%c out of our country.

Sol Trujillo:

John is probably Sol Trujillos handle

Dr.Hobbs:

I agree with the misleading of the title, yes goonsters i agree with your point too.The editor should have put wireless internet in the title something like this wireless to rise.

As for the original title it is misleading as soon as people see the title they will automatically think normal internet prices are going up.

There is no way the editor or reporter or even the magazine can say the title isnt misleading

Steve the insensable:

In my experience, article titles and topic sentences of articles and news reports are specifically formulated to direct people's attention to the remainder of the story rather than as a position statement or a synopsis of the topic. That the whole of the article was read indicates its effectiveness.

a_real_user:

Telstra Telstra Telstra
How many times have we told you that you must take your reality pills every night other wise you will end up doing stupid things that make no sense and you know you end up having thoughts that are totally un-realistic.
Now go and take your reality pills!!! and make sure you swallow them.

tin:

I'd love to see The Chaser's Surprise Spruiker down at the Telstra head office....

I'm not as good as he is, but I imagine something along these lines:
It's Telstra's mid quarter price rise madness week. Prices must increase as we've just realised that we're a monopoly. That's right shoppers. If you want to use a phone or internet, you'll be paying through the nose for Telstra's overpriced, overrated, overcrowded services.

Adam:

And yet all the marketing hype will still manage to sucker ppl into signing up... HOW!!!

raindog:

Questions to Craig Middleton

Why would APC's price increase if the circulation doubled? (The price for advertising within would likely increase to reflect demand but there is no reason to increase the cover price. Such an action would almost certainly decrease circulation.)

How is any increase in uptake a justification for a price increase? premium product or not.

Red herrings aside the Premium product tag smacks of the arrogance we are coming to expect from Telstra/Bigpond. NextG penetration in a nation wide breakup of Internet access methods is hardly a major portion. Jacking the pricing up, (especially if its "cos we could" motivated)will change NextG's profile to that of a curio.
It's looking very much like Telstra has built a Delorean, any technical merit has to be cost competitive or the market wont want to know.

bryce:

Of course if APC's readers go up, then ad sales costs will go up. It's logical - the advertisers are GETTING MORE so they're PAYING MORE. NextG customers are Getting the same service and paying more??? Crazy!

tin:

Price increases can be caused by increased uptake of a finite product. Remember that Tesltra's frequency allocation is limited in capacity physically.

That said, I doubt Telstra are hitting too many issues relating to usage at this stage. Prices were already too high for most to use it heavily anyway.

Craig Middleton:

I was referring to ad rates. It's how all the media make money - more readers, viewers, listeners - the more they have the more they charge for advertising.

The Next G network's technical merit is undeniable, as was recently seen at 3GSM in Barcelona.

The fastest and largest 3G network in the world, with 98%-heading-for-99% population coverage. Unmatched and unbeatable, Raindog.

Ed:

Hope G9 move quickly to provide an alternative network, and for that matter, a roll out of WIMAX.
We desperately need some Real competition for Telstra, otherwise we will continue to be "screwed" by them!

Mark:

Next G might be the largest 3G network its just a pity the handset range is one of the smallest. There are still blackspots in rural areas (where I live and work) that are not there with CDMA.

raindog:

I am well aware you were referring to adverting rates Craig, but your analogy is poor, what Telstra/Bigpond have done is the equivalent to a cover price increase of a magazine. Your analogy was flawed there is no comparison.

Technical merit stands for squat if it cannot be reasonably obtained or afforded by the market. Telstra propaganda suggests Next G as a common place solution, yet by your own admission it is clearly priced top shelf and not for the masses.

Fastest & Largest? woohoo same cost prohibitions apply.

As for your 99% coverage, apply that to the city centric, coast hugging, populous of our wide brown land and compare that reality with the false vision nationwide coverage via laptop and combi wagon.

Over priced, under done, and unsuitable for application and that was at the old and lesser prices! Spin! Spin! Spin!

Anonymous345345242346246:

A 1GB plan is $15/mth cheaper with Telstra Mobilenet at $99, rather than BigPond's $115.00.

I think you'll find this is $16/mth.

Anonymousme:

How come... Aren't they the same company?

B:

…and this is what Telstra do when they have some competition in a particular market (Wireless Internet). Imagine what Telstra would do in a market with less or no competition; the relative price increases would be higher again.

Let’s hope when Optus do deploy Australia wide 3G, it forces Telstra to price more reasonably through a higher level of competition, because they certainly won’t do it on their own.

This just goes to prove that Telstra are not the kind people they make out. They will say all sorts of stuff about acting in the interests of Australia in terms of building infrastructure, but as is clearly demonstrated by Telstra’s attitude here, will call anything they exclusively provide a premium product and charge the earth for it. Clearly that is Telstra just looking after Telstra.

The attitude a lot of Telstra shareholders have is almost like robbing Peter to pay Paul. If Telstra get to become more of monopoly in given markets, the shareholders share price might go up, but they will pay more for telecommunications services because Telstra will price as per what they have demonstrated here.

Craig Middleton:

With 157 carriers, four mobile operators, 23 mobile resellers and more than 500 ISPs in Australia, where is this so-called monopoly?
There are 23 ISPs per million people in Australia, compared with 2 in the US and 3 in the UK.

And using "premium" to describe something 'best in the world' is perfectly appropriate.

One day you'll notice that noone else is building these networks. Plenty of hot air, press announcements, talk and hands out for taxpayer subsidies - but no holes in the ground or towers going up.

B:

How many of those ‘157 carriers’ and ‘500 ISP’s’ have nationwide networks? How many of them ultimately have to use some sort Telstra owned infrastructure? The vast, vast majority. In the end, you usually have your finger in the pie at some stage.

Telstra has a nationwide fixed line network that no-one else has because its the former sole carrier in Australia. If another company tried to come in and build a parallel fixed network, you would do everything in its power to stop them, or at least slow them down. History proves that.

If there was a competing Australia wide 3G network now, you wouldn’t be raising prices like that and having that attitude about it, because competition would kick in. As it is, you will price Next G as high as you think you can get away with, before you either get to a point where public and/or media pressure becomes an issue for you, or you just price yourself above customers’ means.

You will do that because Telstra is run to make as much money as possible, not because Telstra is a kind hearted company.

You know full well that your CDMA and Next G networks are the only option for many. At least with CDMA, there are resellers, but not with Next G. You know that customers will have to become Telstra customers because they have no other choice.

I am a customer of a CDMA reseller who has told me that it looks like they will have to transfer me to GSM because becoming a reseller of your Next G network isn’t likely. If you really believe what you are saying about doing stuff in the interests of Australia, allow existing CDMA resellers to resell Next G. Go on, I dare you. In the end, I don’t think you would. You will just wait for a competing nationwide 3G network to come online over time and milk the market in the meantime.

You have a vested interest in doing everything you can to keep the competition out as long as possible. Again, that is because you exist to make money. The crap Telstra goes on with regarding doing it for the good of Australia is just a cover for wanting to make as much money as possible.

Like I said, bring on an alternative nationwide 3G network. The sooner it gets here the better the consumers of Australia will be.

Your statement about taxpayer subsidies is very hypocritical. Telstra also asks for taxpayer subsidies and has received them previously. Its fact, and you know its fact. A couple of examples are the hundreds of millions taxpayers contributed to your CDMA network and the $600m you have asked for to expand your ADSL network.

tin:

You might want to sell those Telstra shares soon... Telstra is going to drop pretty quick with their current attitude. A business that treats their entire customer base as the enemy is not going to do very well long term. Monopoly now doesn't mean monopoly forever.

And yes, they do have a monopoly on fix network services. Who do you think the other 500 ISPs buy the ADSL ports from? And the other carriers... How do they get that last mile connection?

Blackrat:

Telstra a joke......

Anonymouse:

if you own a non business residence there is only one set of copper cables into your home (not talking HFC or fibre here). Telstra own those wires. any other of the '500 isps' *must* provide their product under sufference of telstra. if you dont like their terms; you have no other choice. that is to say; it is a monopoly. same go for many of the '157 carriers' many of whom are VOIP carriers; virtual networks provided over already existing majority telstra lines.

only mobile carriers fit as a non monopoly market; competition is well and good there. again craig, you are mistaken noone else is putting up their hand to build an alternative network - for wireless there has already been substantial non telstra investment and for fixed lines, the whole point of G9 attracting investment bank financing is so they can provide that alternative network.

there are many isps building small scale fixed line networks but they come up against one common thing - most of the home landlines and most of the backhaul is already owned by telstra. Towers by the way are under build restrictions iirc, so you may wish to rethink the claim that towers are not going up - they are not as visible as they used to be(edges of buildings and so forth).

Even Optus's 'phone line' product is provided over a telstra wire accessed under ULL, out of HFC areas. HFC is a slightly different kettle of fish but we know the coverage area for THAT product, dont we. it is not competitive to the copper footprint, or even the touted nextG coverage.

with a business premises there are a few other options for the cable entering premises, but as a business you can usually consider options that cost a lot more money, to the point of having trenches dug and own lines laid.

a lot of businesses find it simpler to just go with the existing telstra copper - because there are few competitive options available to them - competitive on price or other criteria.

and again, even for a business using a pair of phonelines on a non telstra ISP, even considering using a DSL2 24mbit capable product with annex M for extra upload ability, and 2 such lines bundled together that product is still delivered over telstra copper and should telstra decide to cut that isp off and use the copper for another purpose (such as the FTTN rollout formerly proposed, where the copper would be repatched to a cabinet that competitors would be refused access to) telstra would be well within its rights to do so - because it owns the wired network. THAT is its monopoly.

theres all sorts of semantical spin you can use to say 'oh theres competition' or 'oh theres no monopoly here'. unfortunately the arguments do not stack up - telstra have a natural monopoly on fixed lines.

as to the next G thing; werent telstra touting this as the 'value for money' replacement for CDMA networks in rural areas, where income isnt particularly high particularly in drought years? its all well and good to pitch 'its a premium service so you pay premium rates' but to install such an expensive network as saviour to CDMA and then slap premium rates on it for those least likely to afford it is a bit of a joke. 95-99% coverage (where you can afford it).

i do know there are subsidies and so forth that can be accessed by such folk in those areas but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth (having lived in such areas im grateful i am at least not in their position at the moment.

as far as non fixed(wireless) networks go; i can at least agree that telstra do not have a monopoly there. but i can not agree that can be said for the fixeed lines.

manettas; this is not abou arseholes wanting something for nothing. its all about fair network access (legislated for already that telstra should provide) to those not able to install a country wide fibre network (or any other medium other than wireless).

if you agree that iinet westnet internode and a whole host of the 'other 500 isps' cannot afford such an infrastructure build, you implicitly accept that they have to seek acces from the one who has and can afford such a buildout - the monopoly owner.

when you only have one choice and no competition for the lines you resell you have to take whats on offer from the monopoly provider or take your ball and go home. given we are attempting to build a competitive telecoms environment since telstra lost its incumbency, letting that competition dissapear for no good reason should certainly be pause for thought when discussing what leniency to grant telstra insofar as what it can - and should - charge competitors to use its infrastructure.

allowing telstra to charge too much would take us all back to the 'there is only one' market. allowing it to charge too little likewise giving away 'something for nothing'. where is the balance point?

jke:

Dude ... take a pill. You clearly know something, but not enough to present a cogent arguement.
The Gov't should have retained ownership of the network, but now it tries to create competition through regulation. By its very nature regulation can't keep pace with technology. And it's clearly resulted in a lack of investment.
I wonder how you would feel if you bought a new Merc and legislation decreed that you had to share access with the bogans next door. You'd keep your money in your pocket too.
Telstra's a basket case, cause John Howard sold it off that way !!! Telstra is the only listed company in Aust, that has to piggyback every one of its tin pot competitor.
It will be remembered as part of Howards rich legacy to us all.

Manettas:

Craig, well put. It should be appreciated by all here that you're at least trying to explain Telstra's motives in this open forum. Name me any other major corporation that would even bother trying to answer critics like this. They wouldn't give them the time of day. I'm a Telstra customer, I like the service, I love the free content. I don't have a problem with Telstra. As for the carping that goes in here, anyone who has run even a small business would understand just how impossible it is to please every customer. Every arsehole who wants something for nothing. Multiply that by a million and you have Telstra's challenge.

raindog:

Would you like to buy a bridge? 500 Telstra shares perhaps.
I dont want something for nothing and I sure as hell hate paying too much for something that is second rate.
Mr Middleton can spin to his hearts content but for every Telstra fan there are a legion who have a bad taste for Telstra retail.
Check you bills against the competitors Manettas then tell me how free that content really is.
400Mb limits on a 550 to 1500mb speed yeah sure looks like a premium product.

schenke:

"A 1GB plan is $15/mth cheaper with Telstra Business Mobile at $99, rather than BigPond's $115.00."

umm....115 minus 99 equals 16.

oh my god telstra:

thats total junk telstra!!!
lower the prices youve got people that want to be able to use this and youre charging more!!!!


please LOWER THE BLOODY PRICES

raindog:

I had the dubious pleasure of reading the Telstra propaganda piece that was posted out to shareholders last week.

BAC or broadband Australia campaign is a distortion of fact that even an incumbent NSW politician would be proud of. This work of fiction and disbelief blames government, independent ISP's, the public and probably even trolls under bridges for all the Telstra inaction and incompetence.
Try to get a copy to read, it's a good laugh. You'll all know a Telstra shareholder from somewhere although most of these disillusioned souls may not openly admit it!

Telstra's Solution is, I quote "We must put pressure on government and regulators to create a level playing field for all. We must ALL tell them to get rid of the regulations that only apply to Telstra and stifle investments in broadband infrastructure" So I'm going to take that advice! We all should lobby those same governments and regulators to put Telstra on the level playing field they so desire and allow ALL broadband providers the same direct access to customer lines. Sound fair?

Smorgon Magma:

I'm appalled at the attitude of their spokesman. Talk about bloody arrogant. Who says it's a premium product.

Bigpond start off with reasonable deals that start backtracking on everything whilst pushing their prices up.

I bought cable broadband a few years ago with infinite downloads. They quickly changed to 3gb downloads and then I found out I was paying for uploads too!

Give them a big swerve. Once the numbers start to drop, they'll review their arrogant position and their bloody ridiculous prices.

Pico:

I use a NextG wireless internet connection for my business, which I run from a relatively remote location. The fact that I have to reset the modem 10 or 20 times a day is a drag. But compared to my previous 10kbps connection, the 1.5mbps I reliably get now is a revelation. What I don't understand is the way they price their plans. I pay something $150 a month and have a 3G download limit, which I can easily exceed if I'm not very careful. So the first 3G costs 5c/Mb. If I go over I pay 15c/Mb. So if I were to use an extra 3G, then that second block would cost $450!!!!. That's ridiculous. They should be happy for me to use more. It would be like them getting all the profits from a second customer without any of the overheads involved in managing that customer. Any normal business recognises this by giving you a discount rate if you used more, rather than penalising you. We desperately need some competition in the wireless market.