| Bashing Telstra for the right or wrong reasons? |
|
|
|
| Written by Alex Zaharov-Reutt | |
| Friday, 07 December 2007 | |
|
Page 1 of 2 One problem any brand new network has when it is first rolled out is calls that drop out, usually more so than whatever mature technology is in place, in this case 2G GSM networks. The ‘3’ network, the first 3G UMTS network in Australia, was famous for dropping out so much that 3 had to refund callers ‘flag fall’ rates for several months for calls that dropped out and were called back again so callers could continue their conversation. Of course, over time, 3 tuned their network, and now their dropout rate is the same as what you’ll find on regular 2G networks, meaning it does drop out every now and then, as does any mobile phone, but at ‘normal’ rates rather than just about every single call when the network was new. When Next G launched, it was the same story. It wasn’t as bad, but the Next G network was suffering a higher rate of dropouts than the regular 2G, at least according to my own experiences in testing the service with a supplied handset, and those of friends who had signed up to the Next G service. Fast forward several months, and we find that the Next G network has settled down greatly, at least in the areas I’ve tested it, as Telstra have continued tuning the network alongside upgrading it to 7.2Mbps HSDPA and 1.9Mbps HSUPA capabilities. Given an absolutely brand new phone network’s propensity to be unreliable at first and in need of tuning and updating as real users start making and receiving calls, and transmitting data across the network, one can only wonder why Telstra and their advertising agency thought it was a good idea to claim ‘coverage wherever you need it’. Clearly, despite Telstra’s protestations since the court decision, that was a very bad idea. Telstra has now been slapped and has been directed to ensure that future advertising makes plain the ‘real world’ limitations of the network and coverage, especially in rural and regional areas were handsets rated for country use are required, alongside the correct in-car antennas needed for reception. Now, I believe this is a good decision. Truth in advertising, and ensuring that customers have the correct expectations, instead of inflated expectations which can’t always be met, or should be met with specific handsets or additional antennas, is a good thing. Had Telstra done this, then complainants wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on, and Telstra wouldn’t be in this mess. Continued on page 2. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Subscribe to iTWire's daily e-newsletter now and get a FREE 12 month license to project management software valued at $99 USD. 
