HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pte900@jatz.aarnet.edu.au (Peter Elford)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: telecomm w/schools
Date: 20 Dec 1992 23:13:35 GMT
Organization: Australian Academic and Research Network (AARNet)
Reply-To: Peter Elford <P.Elford@aarnet.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.130.204.4

If someone can assist this person, then please feel free to do so.

I would be kind of interested in knowing what the state of play is
with the Australian K-12 efforts (if any), since this is not thre
first time a query like this has appeared.

Peter

----- Begin Included Message -----

From halvorse@nes.nersc.gov Wed Sep 30 08:12:54 1992
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 15:12:41 -0700
From: Joel Halvorsen <halvorse@nes.nersc.gov>
Message-Id: <9209292212.AA32380@nes.nersc.gov>
To: P.Elford@aarnet.edu.au
Subject: telecomm w/schools
Content-Length: 1221
X-Lines: 40
Status: RO


Dear Peter Elford,

John Hine <John.Hine@comp.vuw.ac.nz> suggested
I contact you.
 
I am a technology specialist from Minneapolis 
Minnesota USA, and I work for a consortium of 52 area  
school districts helping teachers integrate technology 
into their  classroom. One of the areas of interest for our 
schools is Global  education, and sister school 
exchanges with various places around  the world. We 
are using telecommunications as the primary means  for 
communicating and working on joint curriculum 
projects. I am  interested in facilitating further one-to-one contact 
with schools in various places around the world that  
potentially could be linked to Minnesota schools via 
e-mail. Currently we 
have exchanges occurring in  the USA, Russia, 
Colombia, Bolivia and Canada
 
I am interested in acquiring a list of schools interested in 
one-to-one school exchanges via telecommunications
If you are interested please 
respond
 
Thank You for you time and help,
 
Sincerely, 
Joel Halvorson
TIES School dist #925
2665 Long Lake Road
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
USA
 
        (612) 638-8794
fax   (612) 638-8798
 
e-mail:  (Internet) halvorse@nes.nersc.gov
or                         jdhalvorson@stthomas.edu


----- End Included Message -----

-- 
Peter Elford,                             e-mail: P.Elford@aarnet.edu.au
Network Co-ordinator                      phone: +61 6 249 3542
Australian Academic Research Network      fax:   +61 6 249 1369
c/o, Computer Services Centre             pager: +61 6 245 3035
Australian National University            post: GPO Box 1142     
Canberra, AUSTRALIA                             Canberra ACT 2601
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: harsant@headplant.trl.OZ.AU (Dave Harsant)
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC.  The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Organization: Telecom Research Labs. Melbourne, Vic, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:39:37 GMT

In article <2502@eram.esi.COM.AU> dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall) writes:
>| ago), it was stated that the average length of a call is 3 minutes, or
>| thereabouts.
>
>Was this before or after modems became popular?

This figure has been used for a long time.  Other factors influencing the
traffic stats include faxes, answering machines, radio/TV competitions, 0055
numbers, 008 numbers, Christmas, overseas disasters, etc.

--
Dave Harsant,
Telecom Australia Research Laboratories  |  d.harsant@trl.oz.au
From: dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Call length (was Re: Optus v AOTC...)
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:16:53 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 <6962@otc.otca.oz>,
    brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:

| When did modems become popular? :-)  I started with Telecom in 1985, so no
| doubt modems weren't as popular then as they are now.  However, neither were
| mobile phones, and the average length of a mobile phone call is much less than
| three minutes.  They'd probably cancel each other out!

Well, David Harsant has already pointed out other factors, such as FAX
machines, 008 numbers, 0055 numbers (who in their right mind calls them?)
that would influence the figures.

It would be interesting to see a diagram of call duration; I would expect
a number of peaks, say at 3m (voice), ~10m (FAX - some are HUGE!), and of
course an hour or more for those nasty modems :-)

Anyone from Telecom like to provide one?

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)         VK2KFU @ VK2RWI.NSW.AUS.OC
dave@esi.COM.AU                ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC.  The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:29:09 GMT
Distribution: aus

in article <1992Dec14.060732.6720@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) says:
> 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.

To dimension your network properly you need to know the Erlangs generated by
each customer in the Busy Hour, so you need to know how many calls they make
and how long they last as a distribution during the day.

When I did my teletraffic engineering course in my Telecom days (some time
ago), it was stated that the average length of a call is 3 minutes, or
thereabouts.

-- 
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: greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney)
Subject: Re: Nuclear waste (was Australian Research Reactor Proposal)
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:07:23 GMT

anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
>Oh I remember that, didn't someone said if God had wanted us to
>fly then He would have given us wings ?  Using two accidents is
>no argument for saying something is impossible.

I don't think you read what I said. I'll re-arrange it a bit:

In the nuclear environment, any accident at all is intolerable and has
far-reaching effects; in the real world in which we live, it's just not
possible to run _all_ nuclear reactors perfectly safely.

I didn't say it was impossible to run a single reactor safely, I said that it
was impossible for all of them in the world to be run safely. Three Mile
Island nearly melted down, and Chernobyl exploded, so it can no longer be said
that all nuclear reactors can be run safely.

>                                                 If you want
>proof of safety of nuclear reactor then what about the nuclear
>reactors they used on U.S. nuclear submarines.

Not a good example since it's so easy to contrast with the USSR's nuclear subs;
they had a tenancy to dump decomissioned but still highly radioactive reactor
cores straight into the ocean. There was a newspaper article just a few weeks
back about the problems of cleaning the resulting mess up.

>                        Instead of using accidents to scare, why
>don't you put up some sound scientific arguments that the nuclear
>industry will never be safe.

The reasons why all nuclear plants can't be run safely aren't purely
scientific: they are political, legal and economic. You may be able to run one
safely from a scientific standpoint, but that's not how they all work out in
the real world.

Considering the economics of nuclear power generation, it wouldn't be viable
at all if the cost of waste disposal was included as part of the equation.
This isn't unique to the nuclear industry by any means; other industries
should also address the problems of their waste products, but the nuclear
industry particularly stands out because of the toxicity of its waste.

regards,
Graham
-- 
Graham Stoney
Canon Information Systems Research Australia (whew!)
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: pod@sour.sw.oz.au (Paul O'Donnell)
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC. The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Distribution: aus
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:51:21 GMT

In <1992Dec12.234850.16243@runx.oz.au> lawriew@runx.oz.au (Lawrie Waller) writes:

>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

What?  How do you make this leap of intuition?  Come and look
at my the phone bill at my house some time, STD calls account
for about 70% of our bill.  Cheaper STD calls are the best thing
that could happen to our bill.

-- 
Paul O'Donnell - Softway Pty Ltd         |"You're just saying that because
Internet: pod@softway.sw.oz.au           |you don't understand art."
Phone: +61 2 698-2322 Fax: +61 2 699-9174|     - Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Darwin area BBS's
From: byrnes@cbr.hhcs.gov.au
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:11:18 +1000
Distribution: world
Organization: Aust. Dept. Health, Housing and Community Services
Keywords: darwin communications BBS info
Summary: Request for info: Darwin area BBS's


Could some kind net.person post a listing of Darwin area BBS's. I am up in
Darwin for a period, from Canberra, but forgot to bring my BBS listings with
me.

Any help would be much appreciated.
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: Let's sell Australia.
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:33:08 GMT

mwp@iconix.oz.au (Michael Paddon) writes:


>I've got an even better idea! Why don't we sell Australia, lock, stock and
>barrel to the highest bidder. An entire continent, rich in natural resources,
>should be worth at least 20 trillion dollars or so. That's enough to make
>every man, woman and child a millionaire.


>How about it, fellow Australians?

Yup, let's do it. And quick, before our beloved great helms persons and
leaders sell us out too. Let's start with Parliament House in Canberra.
Should fetch at least a couple of billion dollars (that's what it cost).
Its contents, after grinding for bonemeal, we could sell off too. It's
all good organic manure, after all.
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC.  The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:48:41 GMT
Distribution: aus

in article <1992Dec13.225704.20809@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) says:
> [re Optus contirbuting towards Telecom's CSO's]
> Is this it's penetration country wide? And assessed by whom?

Australia wide, and assessed by Austel, I presume.  Telecom is then free to
distribute the money amongst it's various CSO's as it sees fit.

> If we already have 'world's best', then I can't see Optus even trying to
> compete, not if the ground rules were fair.

You seem to fail to understand that there's more to being a good
telecommunications company than having the world's best technology.
 
> Now, Telecom has to have in place expensive accounting practices to keep 
> track of the CSOs. Does Optus contribute to this increased running expense
> or does the Government? 

It's appalling business practice to not be able to identify the internal costs
of running a business.  How can you make efficiency gains if you don't know
where your costs are?

All that's happened is that Telecom has brought it's accounting practices in
line with that followed by other major corporations.  Adopting these practices
should *save* Telecom money.

> So the government has guaranteed a large slice of the pie for Optus.

Not really.  They've just made it easier for them to reach a 30% market
penetration.  The hope is that this will more rapidly introduce the benefits
of competition (lower call charges, more responsive customer service, more
innovative telecommunications products) compared to other deregulation
attempts overseas (eg UK).

> I wish I could start a business under these conditions.

You're not starting a business against the third largest enterprise in the
country, with immensely powerful resources at its disposal and a cash flow
that matches the GDP of small nations, and that *also* held a monopoly.

> The foreign owners can't lose and we in Australia will be paying them.

Yes they can.  They can fail to reach the 30% market threshold and yet still
have invested huge sums in their network.  Telecom may prove to be a fierce
competitor and slash Optus' projected revenues.  I'd call that losing.
 
> [re Optus GSM network]
> Why do we need two parallel systems offering the same technology?

Because there will be service, price and availability differentiation, and
products targeted more closely to specific users.

> If you are wrong then can we go back to what we originally had, an
> Australian business wholly owned by Australians?

AOTC will remain a wholly Australian owned business unless some future
Government decides to sell it, which is an entirely separate issue.

-- 
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: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Nuclear waste (was Australian Research Reactor Proposal)
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:10:25 GMT
Reply-To: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au

In <1992Dec15.003753.4994@latcs1.lat.oz.au> jem@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joan McGalliard) writes:

:>:I didn't say it was impossible to run a single reactor safely, I said that it
:>:was impossible for all of them in the world to be run safely. Three Mile
:>:Island nearly melted down, and Chernobyl exploded, so it can no longer be said
:>:that all nuclear reactors can be run safely.
:>
:>Your logic is faulty:
:>
:>_all_ nuclear reactors are unsafe == there does not exists a safe
:>reactor.

:Whose logic is faulty?  Graham says "not all nuclear reactors are safe".
:The implication from this is "there exists at least one reactor that is
:unsafe".  Try to read with a little comprehension (or re-read your formal
:logic texts).

You are right I read his statement wrong.  Sorry.
--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
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 21:35:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.002242.8568@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au (Christopher JS Vance) writes:
>
>I don't ever remember receiving an invitation to the Annual General
>Meeting.  I never had the opportunity to comment on the membership of
>the Board.  I never received dividends.  I never had the opportunity
>to buy or sell my share(s).
>
Who said that it was a 'share company', owned by those that can afford shares?
The people of Australia for decades have invested in the telecommunications
infrastructure of this country, initially through their taxes and then via
their usage of the telecommunications services. This investment has crossed
many governments, many of whom have been paid (taxes) from the investment.
But ownership resides in the people and not the government of the day.

>It was owned by the Government, not the people.  `Stuff the people,
>we'll *tell* them what they want, and they'll bloody well like it.'

Many a true word spoken in jest.

>-- Christopher

DJ...
From: dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall)
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC.  The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Date: 14 Dec 92 08:01:03 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 <1992Dec14.122645.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>,
    sysnet@cc.newcastle.edu.au (David Morrison) writes:

[ Redesigned phone box ]

| This is claimed to have made the payphone business profitable??

Skip if you have a weak stomach:

That depends on whether you like cleaning various excreta out of
telephone boxes...  By ``excreta'' I mean the whole gamut; vomitus,
urine, faeces, flatulence, cigarette smoke etc...  Why do sub-humans
mistake telephone boxes for toilets?

On one memorable occasion I even saw blood-stains (thankfully not recent!)
on the floor...

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)         VK2KFU @ VK2RWI.NSW.AUS.OC
dave@esi.COM.AU                ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave
Newsgroups: aus.general
Subject: Re: Cream skimming considered beneficial
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:49:12 CST
Followup-To: aus.followup
 <1992Dec11.034141.3723@trl.oz.au> <chris.724049855@suite.sw.oz.au>
Distribution: aus

chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:

>introduced competition. But if Telecom had been as wonderful as everyone
>is now saying (;-) there wouldn't have been a need to introduce competition.
Isn't this presupposing that competition was necessary, in
my opinion that argument was never conclusive and the
introduction came as much as anything along in a wave of
other deregulation.

--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
DSTO ITD/SE 171 Labs          		Fax: +61 8 259 5589
PO Box 1500				Telex: AA82799
Salisbury SA 5108, Australia		michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks)
Subject: Re: Cream skimming considered beneficial
Organization: Telecom Research Labs. Melbourne, Vic, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 03:41:41 GMT

In article <chris.723973173@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>
>There's no doubt 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.
>
Why is it "rude" to say it as it is?
Can I call my neighbour using Optus? Does Optus provide Directory Assistance?
Does Optus provide Payphones? Can I call Alice Springs East using Optus only?
The answer is NO!!! Optus are a multinational company that are not benefiting
Australia. They are skimming the cream from profitable areas of 
telecommunications and using AOTC's equipment to do it! Used any Optus mobile
equipment lately??? Except for the bill printing machine.


>If what is really meant is that AOTC is somehow more warm and furry
>because it cross-subsidises its loss making businesses then you need
>a crash course in capitalism. It's just stupid to do this, or perhaps
>it has an owner who doesn't care about business objectives much.
>
Nothing wrong with capitalism and competition is there? Can I set up MY
business in YOUR home using YOUR electricity and YOUR customers? You
call that competitive capitalism???


>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...

And if you, as a CITY DWELLER don't like the cross subsidies what will
you do about them?

>-- 
>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.

DJ...

Newsgroups: aus.general
From: sysnet@cc.newcastle.edu.au (David Morrison)
Subject: Re: Cream skimming considered beneficial
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:15:25 GMT

In article <chris.724049855@suite.sw.oz.au>, chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
> In <1992Dec11.034141.3723@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
> 
>>I wrote:
>>>There's no doubt 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.
> 
>>Why is it "rude" to say it as it is?
> 
> Because it's a highly emotionally loaded term. The conotation is negative.
> If anyone is to blame for the "cream skimming" it's the Government which
> introduced competition. But if Telecom had been as wonderful as everyone
> is now saying (;-) there wouldn't have been a need to introduce competition.
> So let's blame Telecom for being silly enough to create the climate for their
> own demise.

Who said there was a need to introduce competition, at least from the cost and 
provision of services angle?  There may have been, but I suspect the primary 
"need" was by the government who wanted to make lots of money by selling 
licences...
-- 
David Morrison, Manager, Networks and Comms, Uni of Newcastle, Australia
sysnet@cc.newcastle.edu.au or (VAX PSI) psi%0505249626002::sysnet
Phone: +61 49 215397	Fax: +61 49 216910
Newsgroups: aus.general
From: summer@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Mark Summerfield)
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC. The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:04:07 GMT

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.
          --------------------------------------------------------
              Mark Summerfield,  Photonics Research Laboratory
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Melbourne  
                ACSnet[AARN/Internet]: summer@ee.mu.oz[.au] 
          --------------------------------------------------------
   "This terminal is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone
    to meet its maker. This is a late terminal. It's a stiff. Bereft of
     life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the bench, it
      would be pushing up the daisies. It's run down the curtain and
            joined the choir invisible. This is an X-Terminal!"
Newsgroups: aus.general