
Cornered! is a blog devoted, most of the time anyway, to telecommunications: local and global issues, technology, people and trends from the perspective of someone who's been reporting, analysing and commenting on the industry since the dark ages (BC - before competition). Sometimes serious, sometimes flippant, sometimes frivolous. Controversial, analytical, informative, amusing, but never boring; a vehicle for examinations of important issues and observations on my encounters and experiences in an industry where polarised views and hyperbole are the norm.
Follow the Australian Telecommunications scene NEWSLETTER- FREE TRIAL Blog
Technology news and Jobs
Cornered!
Telstra masters the art of the leading question
Cornered!
Telstra masters the art of the leading question | Telstra masters the art of the leading question |
|
| by Stuart Corner | |
| Sunday, 23 September 2007 | |
|
Page 2 of 2 This question could have been more neutrally worded: "The Australian Government decided to spend almost $1 billion to improve broadband services in regional and rural Australia and called an open tender process. A consortium of Optus and Elders was the successful bidder and has promised to deliver .... Do you agree or disagree that this was an appropriate use of government funds? Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
Well the Government is making no such claim: it is simply saying that it wants to be convinced that Next G coverage IS the same or better than CDMA before it will let Telstra shut down the CDMA network, rather than just taking Telstra's word for it. The questions continue in similar vein: "Policies and regulations should NOT force Telstra shareholders to pay more than its fair share to subsidise uneconomic rural services: Policies and regulations that apply only to Telstra should be eliminated, permitting Telstra to play by the same rules as all the other telecommunications companies that it competes with. Do you agree or disagree?" Frankly I cannot see what the point of this is. Even if Telstra gets an overwhelming response along the lines it wants the result will have not on shred of credibility. And finally, such surveys are generally anonymous, or if the respondents are asked to identify themselves the reason why is usually made clear. Not in this survey. Respondents are simply asked to provide their shareholder number "for reference purposes". However the preamble does say that the independent market research organisation, Global Reviews, "has assured us that it will not keep or use any of the information you provide." Does this include the responses? That would be a very wise move indeed.{moscomment} |
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|


Tags





