Thread: Awful Outback mobile and internet service

Rural residents would probably say they've already paid their share in their taxes.
Its OK for us pampered urban residents to say we don't mind not having comms for a couple of weeks on holiday, but I'm sure most remote residents definitely want better services and feel forgotten because the cities get priority for services. We can't complain that no one wants to live in the outback and ignore one of the main reasons people head for the coast - to escape remote isolation.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Rural residents would probably say they've already paid their share in their taxes.
isolation.

im not sure how taxes come into it.
mobiles n internet are private sector.

Rural areas don't have enough people to make it viable for phone companies so the government uses taxes to subsidise the cost of providing the service. The argument is that all Australians should be provided with a minimum level of services.
This country is plenty rich enough to cover everywhere if we consider it a priority. If we spend money elsewhere that's a choice. Personally I think better comms should be a national priority.
Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

Fifty years ago, if one ventured off the coast, it was in an EH Holden. There were few sealed roads, no air conditioning, mobile phones, CB or uhf radios. Everybody coped. Now we have $80,000 air conditioned carriages with $40,000 of upgrade to deal with the mostly bitumen highways and some people expect mobile, digital phone coverage for the entire 7.7 million square kilometres of the mostly uninhabited continent?
News flash, we already have total coverage, it's called a Satphone.
Australia has better phone coverage than the UK.

Originally Posted by Eevo

im not sure how taxes come into it.
mobiles n internet are private sector.

Part of the privatisation of Telstra included making sure that they (or another suitable carrier) have a "Universal Service Obligation" to mean that they have to provide adequate coverage to the population "wherever they work or live". Presumably that's a bit elastic for people just holidaying but nevertheless it's something that must guide their coverage.

https://www.telstra.com.au/consumer-...ice-obligation

If you go remote, and want to be in touch with reality, you are mad not to have a sat phone, or at bare minimum a UHF radio with a long and short range antenna along with a mobile. Never have I not been able to contact someone with those 3 items. A HF radio is a cheaper (if you use it regularly) alternative to the sat phone. I'd rather them spend the money around the cities where there are still heaps of black spots, than put a tower in ******* nowhereland incase some unprepared moron drives past... I'd rather have reliable covereage to conduct business in the city, than be able to conduct business halfway up a double black diamond 4WD track.

My Discovery spends lots of time in the bush, I've got a UHF, long and short range antennas and an antenna for my blue tick Telstra iPhone... And if I go further out at least one person in the group has a sat phone.

Originally Posted by bee utey

Part of the privatisation of Telstra included making sure that they (or another suitable carrier) have a "Universal Service Obligation" to mean that they have to provide adequate coverage to the population "wherever they work or live". Presumably that's a bit elastic for people just holidaying but nevertheless it's something that must guide their coverage.

https://www.telstra.com.au/consumer-...ice-obligation

the USO only applies to landlines. not internet or mobiles.
there has been talk about adding the internet to the USO (like some other countries) but it was deemed too expensive.

I would be in favor of a 25mbit/s min internet USO.

In some ways I miss CDMA. I recall quite some years ago being in the high country and being able to make a call with my phone with no external antenna where others with high gain bullbar mounted aerials had no service.