[LINK] Telstra free Internet
Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:10:23 +1100
If goConnect, FreeOnline, FreeNetOnline, Hop-On and half a dozen other
companies are gonna go "free ISP" and have market capitalisation in
excess (combined) of $1 billion, then why shouldnt Telstra also join
them? It is almost certain that:
1) the capital markets will reward them (Telstra's share price will
move with market and other reasons separate to this)
2) the customers will get a great network and be happy
3) the overall consumer market will likely be expanded
4) competition will be INCREASED
5) people outside the sydney, sydeny/melb, sydney/mel/other capital
cities could share in this
I am not sure why there are such complex conspiracy theories abounding
when the real options available to Telstra are much simpler. In fact,
I reckon they owe it to their shareholders to do this, rather than buy
the other free ISPs a year or two down the track. Plus, they
would almost certainly enjoy the lowest cost structure in the country
for doing this.
If the mathematicians in the group work out revenues from local calls,
additional lines, calls to mobiles, increased "on-net" traffic and
the value, however ephemeral, of the audience, it is a no brainer.
Unless of course, you are an investor in one of these other "free"
Check out the 4th www.consult AdForum 15-16 March
Paul Montgomery wrote:
> Stewart Fist wrote:
> > I say that all of these are complete bullshit -- except for part of the ABC
> > content deal which is the only one they really expect to get (and then only
> > in part). The questions of ABC content are complex issues, and so the ABC
> > deal story can be washed off the front pages of the newspapers in a matter of
> > minutes by a simple story like Telstra's free access.
> > I've worked in top corporate PR, and I know how these things are planned.
> Given Telstra's denials of the truth behind the story elsewhere today, I
> can see several possible scenarios, listed in order of likelihood. One,
> John Rolland said something he shouldn't have about something that was
> never going to be more than speculation, in what was otherwise a fairly
> standard conversation. The only effects of this would be that Dan got
> himself a run on the front page, and John would get a refresher course
> on media handling.
> Two, they actually are considering it, and Dan has managed to land a
> good story which might actually annoy Telstra by hurting its share
> price. This will run for several days, just like the AOL/Time Warner
> story, with shiningly positive coverage of the concept in the first
> couple of reports, then a realisation that hey, isn't it a bad thing to
> forego revenue? The Fairfax press are already cheerfully knocking over
> the story.
> Three, as Stewart suspects, it's an interference pattern. It is usually
> prudent to assume, especially within such a byzantine enterprise as
> Telstra, that incompetence is a greater cause of events than conspiracies.
> > I'd also bet that Dan Tebbutt will get a visit from some ACCC
> > representatives, asking to be given the names of the Telstra executive who
> > passed him the story. Ethics insists that we journalists not provide these
> > names -- but only when the story is passed in good faith.
> Erm, the MEAA Journalists' Code of Ethics has this clause:
> ] 3. In all circumstances they shall respect all confidences received
> in the
> ] course of their calling;
> ( see http://www.alliance.aust.com/news/3-3.html )
> This does not mention any riders or caveats. If there is a Mr/Ms Big who
> has fed Dan the story, he is within his ethics to grant them immunity.
> The only possible time this would not apply is if the informant was
> confessing to a major crime, although even then journalists have been
> known to go to jail rather than reveal their sources.
> Anyway, wasn't John Rolland the executive Dan referred to?
> Paul Montgomery: editor @ Image & Data Manager; Internet World journo.
> Tel: +61 2 93182644 Mobile: 0410 622 589 mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org