Talk:G9 (consortium)

added 'apparently' to 'due to regulatory issues'
I added this word to the article as I believe it is debatable as to whether Telstra ever intended on actually going through with the proposal. Ensign R 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV changes
Who reverted the part that G9 were upgrading "Australia's telecommunications infrastructure"? They are only adding to it, and only a small part as they are not touching switching at all. Also they do want a monopoly with Telstra not allowed to build in competition, and they do want to steal Telstra's existing infrastructure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.96.127 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. Your contributions are obviously not written from a neutral point of view.  It would also help if references are included for controversial claims. -- Chuq 03:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where/when has the G9 stated that they don't want anyone to build competing infrastructure? Where/when have they said that they wish to exclude Telstra from using their new fibre backbone? (The opposite is in fact true). Where/when have they/do they 'steal' Telstra's existing infrastructure? Telstra are the ones who 'steal' by charging both the customer directly (through line rental charges) and indirectly (via wholesale charges to other ISPs) for supposed maintenance of the copper wires. If I was to expose my real views in this article, as you seem to want to, I certainly wouldn't have just added the word 'apparently' to the article as above. I would have added that the whole exercise of Telstra's FTTN was just another smoke screen to delay or hinder broadband competition in Australia. I am guessing you're a regular visitor to nowwearetalking.bollocks.au -- --Ensign R 09:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the PDF's that G9 submitted you would have seen "Ensuring that there is only one FTTN network" - as G9 does not want competition and as to stealing all Telstra's customers "Cutover of all copper pairs at a node" - it appears that you work for one of the G9 companies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.246.49 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the best idea for this article is if you add something, add a REFERENCE - news article would be ideal. Most political articles end up being so full of POV rubbish and with a combination of this article having so few people watching it, and me having little time to clean up rubbish, I'll just revert anything majorly POV which does not have a reference. -- Chuq 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

POV
I believe that there is a person pushing pov on this article, below are a list of IPs that I believe all belong to the same person pushing pov. All the IPs resolve to an IP in Sydney. -- A dam1213 Talk 06:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 211.30.77.124
 * 211.30.77.170
 * 220.237.96.103
 * 220.237.96.127
 * 220.239.98.143 (did not edit this article but edited a related one, Telstra
 * 220.239.228.103
 * 220.239.228.250

It is just posting facts about the G9 SAU, but Telstra bashers like you cannot handle the facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.77.170 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 19 November 2007


 * If you wish to make a statement about the ability of handling the facts please dont go removing my comments on the talk page.

If you can find the proposal on the G9 / optus /government web sites and can point out where it confirms your claims you are free to post them properly citing your reference. -- A dam1213 Talk 05:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The link is already posted, but in yopur Telstra bashing you ignore it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.77.170 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)