HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markd@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Delany)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: APANA - Melbourne Public Access Unix
Date: 18 Dec 1992 11:05:56 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

s871780@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Antony Suter) writes:

>In Melbourne there is the public access unix group called APANA.
>It been around for 2 or even 3 years and is more extensive than even
>Sydney I believe. I am a subscriber and I know a couple of the commitee
>members personally.

>Would someone from APANA care to relate more info here please?

Send mail to info@apana.org.au and all is revealed. It tries to
provide info on all Pub access systems within the APANA umbrella.



--
Mark Delany                                          markd@werple.apana.org.au
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks)
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC.  The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Organization: Telecom Research Labs. Melbourne, Vic, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:07:32 GMT

In article <6948@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>
>Exactly.  Telecommunications reform is one extremely important area of 
>microeconomic reform that the Government has moved on and yet has had little
>credit for in the media.

Credit?? What benefits have we got from Optus? Cheaper STD/IDD? - these were
dropping anyway due to better technology adopted by Telecom. I know what we
have got, and that's unemployment. Optus have said they will employ 5000 
people over the next 5 years but Telecom has shed that many each year just
so they can pay the increase in taxes to this 'economic reform' government.
The people of Australia own Telecom NOT some temporary government.

>I wouldn't call it deadly.  Most people in the industry knows that if local
>calls were to be priced closer to the cost of provision, they'd be timed.
>Short calls (eg most calls are 3 minutes or less) would probably be cheaper
>than they are now.  Of course, timed local calls are politically unsaleable,
>so the status quo will remain.

When was the last time you made a 3 minute call, one that wasn't a wrong
number? The vast majority of calls in Oz are longer than 3 minutes, particularly
local calls. Try timing your calls for a few days and if 3 minutes is to
be considered the 'break-even' point between timed and untimed calls just
see how much extra timed calls will cost you.


>What you also have to understand is that advances in transmission technology
>(eg optical fibre) and networking mean that increasingly the cost of a call
>will become less dependent on distance and more dependent on the use of
>resources (circuit hold time).  This is the main reason why long distance and
>international calls have plummeted in price compared to the CPI whilst local
>calls have stayed pretty constant in price.

Agreed, so technology, not competition, is making the STD/IDD paths cheaper
and thus a company that can specialise in this market whilst avoiding the 
lower technology/expensive areas of the local network will be able to "skim
the cream."


>Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space

DJ...
From: rcgaym@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Angus Y. Montgomery)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC. The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 00:53:45 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall) writes:
>Skip if you have a weak stomach:

> [some stuff about telephone hygeine (sp?)]

reminds me of the planet that got rid of all its hairdressers, telephone
hygiene inspectors, &c. in douglas adams' HGTTG, and dumped them on
prehistoric Earth.
as i recall, all the ones left behind were killed by a virulent oral
infection caught from a telephone...

.angus.
From: zik@zikzak.apana.org.au (Michael Saleeba)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: APANA - Melbourne Public Access Unix
Date: 18 Dec 1992 11:47:17 +1100
Organization: Zikzak public access UNIX, Melbourne Australia
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: zikzak.apana.org.au

s871780@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Antony Suter) writes:

>In Melbourne there is the public access unix group called APANA.
>It been around for 2 or even 3 years and is more extensive than even
>Sydney I believe. I am a subscriber and I know a couple of the commitee
>members personally.

>Would someone from APANA care to relate more info here please?

APANA (the Australian Public Access Network Association) has been
around for about two years now. It is an Australia-wide organisation
whose primary purpose is to provide cheap Internet feeds for its
members. It is non-profit, and the current fees are $55 a year. These
fees are mainly used to cover the cost of AARNet connection.

We currently have around fourty members Australia-wide, with about
half of those people being in Victoria. Nearly all nodes are UUCP
connected, but about five of the central machines are on a SL/IP
network. Unfortunately we are only AARNet Mail Affiliates, so there
is no telnet or ftp access outside the APANA network at the moment.

We are all hobbyists, and one of our primary interests is to aid other
hobbyists. Members struggling to start network connections in states
without a local link may be subsidised by the group until they can
bootstrap themselves.

People interested in becoming part of the APANA network can mail
info@apana.org.au. If you merely want access to a network-connected
machine you should look for a public access APANA site in your local
area.

Disclaimer: I'm a member of APANA but I don't speak for them officially.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|         -|-   Zik   -|-           |  "Sometimes I get the feeling   |
|    zik@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au     |   that Schrodinger wasn't       |
|         Michael Saleeba           |   really a cat lover."          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: lawriew@runx.oz.au (Lawrie Waller)
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC.  The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 23:48:50 GMT



[stuff deleted]

>I think it has succeeded, and even though I work for Optus' opposition, I
>think we can all look forward to a much more responsive, technologically
>advanced, and innovative telephone system.  One I think that will easily be
>the best in the world, if it's not already.
>
But at what price? I note for instance that the current Optus/Telecom
price war is being directed at STD and hence essentially benefits the
business phone user. Now this of course cant be bad for a Country
so deep in recession(depression?). But why the deadly silence on the
cost of "local" calls? Could it be that both Optus and Telecom know
that with the cross subsidy from business to domestic being removed
then local call costs will have to increase and we are being softened
up. Or is that I am being cynical and pessimistic?????
>-- 
>Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
>R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
>Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
>|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig


-- 
===========================================================================
lawriew@runx.oz.au              |Friend is sometimes a word devoid of
Lawrie Waller-SYDNEY AUS        |meaning;enemy,never.(Victor Hugo)
============================================================================
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: lee@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Lee Naish)
Subject: Re: Nuclear waste (was Australian Research Reactor Proposal)
Organization: Department of Computer Sci, University of Melbourne
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:45:39 GMT

In article <11413@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> anthony@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>If you want
>proof of safety of nuclear reactor then what about the nuclear
>reactors they used on U.S. nuclear submarines.  In 1963, the
>U.S.S.  Thresher went down with all her crew but so far they have
>not detected any radiation leaks.

"so far" - a very important phrase.  Thirty years is nothing.  Waste
from fission reactors needs to be sealed off for hundreds of thousands
of years.  Are you claiming that the solution to the world's nuclear waste
problem is to pack it all into old submarines and then sink them?

> It is possible to build safe
>reactors,

Sure, you can build reactors which will not lead to spectacular disasters
like TMI and Chernobyl (Lucas Heights has one right now).  They still
tend to emit some radiation on a semi regular basis and lead to the same
problems with decommissioning and long term waste management.

	lee
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC.  The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:04:31 GMT
Followup-To: aus.politics
Distribution: aus

Followups should probably go to aus.politics...

in article <1992Dec12.234850.16243@runx.oz.au>, lawriew@runx.oz.au (Lawrie Waller) says:
>> [re competition]
> But at what price? I note for instance that the current Optus/Telecom
> price war is being directed at STD and hence essentially benefits the
> business phone user.

So you don't have any friends or relatives who live out of town or overseas?
You'd be one of the few!!

> Now this of course can't be bad for a Country so deep in recession.

Exactly.  Telecommunications reform is one extremely important area of 
microeconomic reform that the Government has moved on and yet has had little
credit for in the media.

> (depression?).

The only people who say this are people who haven't read about (or 
experienced) the conditions in Australia in 1929.  When we have 30% adult
unemployment and a 20% contraction in GDP come back and tell me we're in a
depression.

> But why the deadly silence on the cost of "local" calls?

I wouldn't call it deadly.  Most people in the industry knows that if local
calls were to be priced closer to the cost of provision, they'd be timed.
Short calls (eg most calls are 3 minutes or less) would probably be cheaper
than they are now.  Of course, timed local calls are politically unsaleable,
so the status quo will remain.

What you also have to understand is that advances in transmission technology
(eg optical fibre) and networking mean that increasingly the cost of a call
will become less dependent on distance and more dependent on the use of
resources (circuit hold time).  This is the main reason why long distance and
international calls have plummeted in price compared to the CPI whilst local
calls have stayed pretty constant in price.

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC. The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Distribution: aus
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:16:02 GMT

In <1992Dec15.221012.8098@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>You forgot to add though that all of this "immensely powerful resource" palls 
>into insignificance when compared with the resources of Bell South and Cable
>& Wireless, the Optus owners.

Sure. Bell South and Cable and Wireless are big companies, but Optus is
neither of them. They may bail Optus out, but it doesn't seem likely to
be necessary. Neither does it seem likely that the 30% target won't be
met. Does that imply satisfaction with the way things used to be?

>Belgrave, Victoria, used to have a couple of small supermarkets until
>Safeway moved in with lower prices. Now Belgrave only has Safeway and
>the prices there are much higher than elsewhere. Safeway now has a
>monoploy in Belgrave and is using that monopoly to subsidize other stores
>such as Ferntree Gully where there is still some other supermarkets.
>That's competition, with the ultimate goal of getting a monopoly.

No, that's anti-competitive. Monopolies are clearly anti-competitive.
Are the people at Belgrave happy with their new efficient supermarket
service or do they drive the extra 1/2 hour to find a cheaper one at
Ferntree Gully?

>If you support competition then how can you also support government
>interference in that competition.

So that monopolies _don't_ form. That's what government is all about,
unless, like Mr Lam, you are a loony libertarian.

>Let Telecom do what is necessary to compete, just like you (and the
>government) let Safeway compete.

If what you say about Safeway is true, I'm sad that any government let
it happen. I'm pleased that our current government decided to break
up Telecom's anti-competitive structure and is continuing to intervene
to ensure a successful outcome for everyone - yes, even AOTC.

>For example. Optus offer a discount on the  route from Geelong to
>Melbourne, a high traffic STD route. Telecom is NOT PERMITTED to
>match this competitive rate on this route because the rules say
>that it must offer the same rate on all routes of a similar distance.

Whose rules? Why does Telecom complain about Optus instead of complaining
about rules which it was instrumental in forming. If you say it's a CSO,
then Optus is already paying Telecom its share of the cost. Again, what's
the beef?

Chris
-- 
Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd		Internet: chris@softway.sw.oz.au

PHONE:	+61-2-698-2322	"I'm waiting for X-Windows to become just that;
FAX:	+61-2-699-9174	 Ex-Windows" - A McGrath.
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: ricky@matilda.vut.edu.au (Andrew Stein)
Subject: executive computing implementation
Organization: Victoria University of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:34:54 GMT


I am commencing a thesis based upon the work of Mary Boone (
Leadership and the computer) and am applying her methodology 
to implement executive computing solutions in small to medium 
sized Australian enterprises. I am interested 
in contacting people with experience in this methodology or 
who have have an interest in the development of 
computing solutions for executives. Please contact me through email.


Andrew Stein  Lecturer  Dept. Business Computing
Victoria University of Technology
Melbourne
Victoria, Australia.

ricky@matilda.vut.edu.au

PO Box 14428 MMC
Melbourne Victoria 3000
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks)
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC. The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Organization: Telecom Research Labs. Melbourne, Vic, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:16:35 GMT

In article <summer.724629847@murillo> summer@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Mark Summerfield) writes:
>brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>
>>I have to ask the question though, if Safeway now has a Belgrave monopoly and
>>"the prices there are much higher" why hasn't someone else started a low-cost
>>supermarket there again?  Surely they'd win business??
>
>Presumably because Safeway still have the resources to drop their prices
>again and drive the new competitor out of business.  Now, if somebody
>would legislate that Safeway had to subsidise the competition until they
>had achieved a 30% market share, the problem would be solved! :-)
>
>Mark.

Well said Mark. Now answer that one Brendan.


Newsgroups: aus.general
From: paul@cs.su.oz.au (Paul Craig Tyler)
Subject: Re: Cream skimming considered beneficial
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 03:38:51 GMT

In article <chris.723973173@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>
>There's no dount that both these companies are in business to make
>profits, as is AOTC (but not the government). So it's exceedingly rude
>to label them as "cream skimmers" - that's business.
>

Although this view seems reasonable on the surface it is not.  I remember
hearing recently that OPTUS was getting a ruling on Telecom's right
to introduce "Family and Friends", and other "Flexiplans".  It was based
on the agreement that Telecom COULD NOT discriminate with its charging rate
based on who the customer is.  I presume this means that they (Telecom) must
charge the same for a call from Sydney to Melbourne as they do from some
remote point in Australia to another that is the same distance.  This puts
Telecom at a disadvantage, as it is clearly less expensive to provide a
conection between Sydney and Melbourne than between remote areas of
Australia.  As they are forced to charge the same for these calls, and
OPTUS is not required to provide the outback service, OPTUS has a clear
advantage.

In article <summer.723859035@murillo> summer@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Mark Summerfield) writes:
>2) Can people choose Optus (by dialling '1') from a Telecom Payphone?  I
>   don't think they ought to be able to, but I suspect they can.  If
>   Optus want payphone customers, they should have to ibstall their own
>   payphones.  Actually, in a deregulated environment, anybody should
>   be able to install and operate payphones, connected to the network
>   of their choice -- the user of the phone should have no say in
>   the network(s) traversed in connecting their call.  This is just
>   my opinion, of course... fee free to disagree!

This brings in my other complaint about the system.  At present, most
people will connect to Optus through Telecom.  Telecom charges Optus
for this but at a rate which THE GOVERNMENT sets.  This doesn't sound
like free enterprise to me.  The way I see it, if someone were to call
Sydney to Melbourne through Optus where the source and destination phones
were Telecoms subscribers, then the charge should be a local call for
each end, ie 50c, the cost to connect to the Optus network.  Where the
link to the Optus network is the equivalent of an STD call away, then
that should be the additional charge.

Now given that Optus is going to be a bulk user, a similar discount
should be available to them as any other business making a massive
number of connections.  Telecom should not be allowed to discriminate
against Optus, but should be able to treat them like any other client.
So there is the irony Optus is a Telecom client!

--
Paul Tyler       paul@cs.su.oz.au
University of Sydney, Australia
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC. The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Date: 19 Dec 92 03:54:06 GMT
Distribution: aus

in article <1992Dec18.061635.29165@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) says:
>>Presumably because Safeway still have the resources to drop their prices
>>again and drive the new competitor out of business.  Now, if somebody
>>would legislate that Safeway had to subsidise the competition until they
>>had achieved a 30% market share, the problem would be solved! :-)
> Well said Mark. Now answer that one Brendan.

I'm not sure which bit you want me to answer to.

Answering the first bit, if the only way Safeway can compete is on price
alone, they'd be sitting ducks for competition.  Look at what happened when
Woolworths tried to compete with Franklins solely on that basis.  They nearly
became insolvent.  They changed tack, marketed the quality of their
supermarkets and service, and they're now the most successful supermarket
chain in Australia.

The second bit does not really require an answer.  Obviously my attempts to
illustrate that setting up a second telecommunications carrier against a 
monopolist incumbent is different to *any* other business case you can think
of have failed spectacularly.

If you don't think there is any difference, then nothing I can say is going to
convince you otherwise.

Cheers,

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
From: dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Call duration (was Optus v AOTC. The Facts. (was Cream-Skimming))
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:22:10 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Pacific ESI, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?"
X-Witty-Saying: "Mobius strip - see other side for instructions"

In article <miw.724486296@cc.uq.oz.au>,
    miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:

| >Was this before or after modems became popular?
| 
| Are modems significant in the amount of traffic they generate yet? Are 
| they any worse than teenage daughters anyway? 

I don't know; anyone from Telecom like to hazard a guess?  I know I
spend about an hour or more most evenings on the modem, and there are
all those dial-up ACSnet/UUCP connections.

As for teen-age daughters, I guess I'll find out soon enough.  She's
only nine, but is already calling her friends...

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)         VK2KFU @ VK2RWI.NSW.AUS.OC
dave@esi.COM.AU                ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: jonathan@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (Jonathan Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Cream skimming considered beneficial
Followup-To: aus.general
Organization: Psychology Department, University of Queensland
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 01:03:37 GMT

chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
|> 
|> One of the great benefits I think Optus (and Compass) will do in
|> Australia is bring the hidden cross subsidies in our transport and
|> communications industries out into the open where we can examine the
|> cost/benefit ratios...


Damn straight!


Jon.
--
                        | Internet:            jonathan@gauss.psy.uq.oz.au
Jonathan Dwyer          | Bitnet: jonathan%psych.psy.uq.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
Department of Psychology| JANET:     jonathan%psych.psy.uq.oz.au@uk.ac.ukc
University of Queensland| EAN:                    jonathan@psych.psy.uq.oz
AUSTRALIA   4072        | UUCP:     uunet!munnari!psych.psy.uq.oz!jonathan
                        | JUNET:               jonathan@psych.psy.uq.oz.au

Newsgroups: aus.general
From: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC. The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Distribution: aus
Date: 18 Dec 92 05:37:52 GMT

In <summer.724629847@murillo> summer@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Mark Summerfield) writes:

>brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>
>>I have to ask the question though, if Safeway now has a Belgrave monopoly and
>>"the prices there are much higher" why hasn't someone else started a low-cost
>>supermarket there again?  Surely they'd win business??
>
>Presumably because Safeway still have the resources to drop their prices
>again and drive the new competitor out of business.  Now, if somebody
>would legislate that Safeway had to subsidise the competition until they
>had achieved a 30% market share, the problem would be solved! :-)

So long as the new supermarket is the first of its kind in the business.
If it were to be K-Mart opening a new store at Belgrave then Safeway would
need to reconsider trying to drive them out of business just by price
cutting. Now, if we had two _established_ phone companies, then we wouldn't
need to protect one of them from the monopolistic activities of the other,
because one of them wouldn't be an established monopoly... Get it?
-- 
Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd		Internet: chris@softway.sw.oz.au

PHONE:	+61-2-698-2322	"I'm waiting for X-Windows to become just that;
FAX:	+61-2-699-9174	 Ex-Windows" - A McGrath.
Newsgroups: aus.general