Jump to content

Talk:Telstra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Telstra cleansing?

[edit]

I saw some edits which can only be interpreted as Telstra or its employees trying to cleanse the article of bad news. Please dont do this. Thanks. RogerM1975 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 R's

[edit]

Current Telstra staff should adhear to the 3 R's poilcy before making an edit to the artical page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amckern (talk • contribs) 02:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger of Telecom Australia and Telstra

[edit]

I have proposed that Telecom Australia be merged with Telstra. They are, after all, the same company and are just different trading names relevant to the times. 121.45.225.44 (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. They are not the same company. Telecom Australia was not a company at all. Telecom Australia was a trading name used by a statutory authority (Australian Telecommunications Commission) before it became a statutory corporation (Australian Telecommunications Corporation). 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. They may not be the same company but Telecom Australia is an important part of Telstra's history. It is already mentioned in the History section of this article. In fact in its current state the Telecom Australia page could be safely deleted without any loss of important information. All it has is a statement that it existed then a rather arbitrary section on phonecard art.--Amaher (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Telecom Australia was in fact an ongoing Royal Commission when it started. Also Specifically Telecom Australia was an "Engineering" company primarily, which supplied telecommunications services to clients.

Telstra in contrast is a "Services" company which supplies telecommunication services to clients. In one instance the company was a Government Commission and public entity, whereas Telstra is a Corporation with Shareholders. Perhaps it may be argued that Telecom Australia Should retain a page because it was a Government owned and run making it an arm of Government, thus significantly and intriniscally different in both function and purpose. AquaLeopard (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CEO Table

[edit]

Well done to the person that has added the CEO Table to the artical - its a good idea, but it needs to be used - if any one wants to move it within the artical so it sits in a better loaction, or expand on it in any way that would help - at the moment its only a list of names.

Dear anonymous: you could also just move it:) --Rmarsden (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Management section

[edit]

Hi there. I removed content from the management section because I feel that it is outdated, and that there may be an undue weight issue. As a disclosure, I am indeed an employee of Telstra, however I came across this text reading this article, and removed it as an enwiki editor, not acting in any capacity as a Telstra employee.

The text that I initially removed was the following:


Most of this information is rather outdated - at least five or six years ago, and I am not sure if it adds a lot to the article. The second section especially, which was a comment from an management meeting that was reported on a current affairs program five years ago. I invite others to review this content and if they agree, to consider changing or removing it. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Deare, Steven (26 February 2007). "Westpac hires ex-Telstra CIO: News – Business – ZDNet Australia". Zdnet.com.au. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
  2. ^ Balfour leaves Telstra, Australian IT[dead link‍]
  3. ^ "Four Corners – 18 June 2007: Tough Calls". Abc.net.au. Retrieved 22 August 2010.

Im with you. Seems like some kind of revenge and adds nothing. I've removed 60.225.145.42 (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and criticism

[edit]

Where's the controversy / criticism section? These are standard practice for any established company. The really big ones like Google even have their own articles on the subject. P.S. If this gets a diplomatic answer, I'm going to investigate further as I smell a corporate rat who's been tampering with this article.--Coin945 (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, let's not jump to conclusions now; I've been watching this page for about 2 years and a controversy section has never been proposed nor inserted into the article. I assume that one reason for this is that most of the controversies that Telstra has been involved in are quite technical and generally don't directly affect consumer; such as NBN opposition, share market drop, monopolistic agenda, Trujillo, etc. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's not about the inclusion of that sort of content... it's more about the exclusion of that content. And this is a lot more subtle. You'll find that small changes are made to rephrase things in a more positive light. I suspected some of this bias was going on when inspecting the revision history. Perhaps my comment was a bit strong, but at least it got some attention, which is the most important thing when the problem may be so slight it is virtually unidentifiable without close investigation.--Coin945 (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont get it. If you want this section, add it. No point in discussing adding it if noone wants to put the work into it? 101.164.50.161 (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if a problem is so slight that it is unidentifiable, is it a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.25.45 (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australia’s largest telco stored data for FBI

[edit]

Telstra, Australia’s largest phone company, stored emails and phone calls to be handed over to US intelligence upon request, according to an agreement it signed in 2001 with the FBI and US Department of Justice.

The copy of the 12-year-old agreement, which was posted online on Friday by news website Crikey, is in confirmation of this week’s earlier leak by Edward Snowden, revealing that large amounts of communication data sent around the world via undersea cables could be intercepted by the US, based on the agreements federal agents signed with foreign corporations.

The Australian Greens Party has called on Telstra to “immediately disclose details” of the deal, which allowed “the FBI and US Department of Justice to monitor calls and data traffic via the company's undersea cables,” according to the party’s website.

“This is an extraordinary breach of trust, invasion of privacy, and erosion of Australia’s sovereignty,” Greens Party Senator Scott Ludlam said.

http://rt.com/news/telstra-australia-us-surveillance-004/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And? what's the relevance for the TALK page? you can add this info into the article if you like 101.164.50.161 (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

[edit]

An IP and another user have been repeatedly making detrimental edits to the lead. The users suggested that Telstra was also known as www.telstra.com, which is frankly preposterous, firstly because it's www.telstra.com.au, secondly because in no official document is Telstra referred to as by its website. User also removed a few statements without reasoning and reworded a paragraph in a manner that made it more convoluted and frivolous - it's totally unnecessary to state that a company is subjected to regulations as all companies are. As I said before, the edit was not an improvement to the lead but rather was a detriment. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The oldcurrent lead in paragraph claims that Telstra is undergoing changes due to the "mass adoption of the internet". THis sounds very dated because this has happened a long time ago. And yes, regulation is a dominant force in how Telstra is being shaped, as a large incumbent. It's far more prominent than "any company". Just read the news: NBN, Adam acquisition, ... etc. The whole point of this place is that content can be changed by "anyone". Just because something is here first doesnt make it right or better Rmarsden (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was perhaps one aspect of the reverted edit I failed to restore but frankly his other claim that social media was the cause of structural changes overshadowed any improvements he may have made to the tone. The mass adoption of the internet is still ongoing if you haven't noticed; internet usage rates in Australia continues to increase, the creation of the NBN also bears testimony to that fact. That's beside the point though as my main concern is your and IP's suggestion that social media has affected Telstra; in what way could this be true? Yeah, it affects marketing but such changes affect every company currently in existence, why again must something so frivolous be mentioned? Unless you can think of another impact social media has and cite a source that verifies it, don't include it in the lead. YuMaNuMa Contrib 03:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SOcial media = fewer people call. Smartphones = more people use VOIP proviers. Both have massive impact on Telstra. See Telstra's comments on decline of fixed phone line usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.174 (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about citing this comment you speak of instead of referring to it here? None of the existing citation mention anything about social media and its impact on fixed lines the last time I checked. If any of them do, please clearly cite them here. Texting has contributed to fewer calls, and so has email, however since I don't have a source that can verify either of these claims, it cannot be included in the article regardless of whether it's true per WP:NOTTRUTH. Having said that, the article as you can see is not of a high quality and while it is correct to include sources in the body, if one does not exist there, it can be temporarily in the lead until one rectifies the minor technical issue. This is the case here; removing sources and contributing to the bareness of the content rather than moving them to the body is detrimental to the quality of article. Also, it's undeniable that internet adoption is continuing to impact the structural of Telstra. The NBN scheme is bears clear testimony to that as stated before; there's a clear need for the NBN as current infrastructure isn't able to handle the continual growth and demand for high bandwidth internet. Hence, rather than outright removing clearly accurate and sourced claims, why not move the entire statement to the body if social media is an impact and a source can be found and cited. I have added a tag to the top of the article remind users to continue to discuss the matter in the talk page before carrying out changes. Please observe WP:BRD. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added content incl. several ref's in the article. Also, AUstralia's broadband market is growing less than half the rate of oecd, so this trend is over. I also added a ref in the body of the article. PLease read those first. 101.164.17.34 (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you've addressed a part of my concern. I would still like to retain information on the structural impacts that internet adoption has had but the recently added content is beneficial therefore I'm not going to revert it, however direct links to Telstra would be beneficial if not imperative per WP:SYN. I'm not going to fuss too much over that but according to the previously cited guideline, the content can still be disputed due to the lack of direct links to Telstra. Actually, in the middle of writing this response, I realised that User:Bidgee has reverted your edit. I'm not going to revert it back because he is technically right. To resolve this issue, you'd need sources that clearly state that Telstra has been impacted by social media and smartphones. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the Anon to find sources that are about Telstra (and the sources must state "Telstra"), rather than using sources to support your view point. As stated above, it violates WP:SYN. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source directly from T. Note: the phrase you keep reverting to has no reference of any kind. It's just made up. Pls apply same criteria to all content, not just changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.224 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the first few comments in the discussion. There's no need to mention something as frivolous as social media having an impact on marketing as this trend has affected all businesses and is basically a given. The source also fails to support your earlier claim that "SOcial media = fewer people call" and mentions nothing about smartphones. You've also restored a section that is not in any way linked to Telstra and its business structure, and from what I can see would be better suited in general articles such as social media, the internet and fixed line. The previous source is not "made up", your inability to find it does not mean it's nonexistent; please try searching the keywords in the citation on Google. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we have an editor (User:Rmarsden) socking to push though content that is false and misleading. Telstra trades as "Telstra", not www.telstra.com (nor www.telstra.com.au) and "Australia's largest" is a clear POV and not supported within the article or sourced from independent sources. Bidgee (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telstra source

[edit]

Discussion moved from User talk:Alex Sims#Telstra_Source

Hi. the source you restored has a serious problem: the author of the HBR article also consulted to Telstra on the very marketing model he describes. He says so in the source itself. So there is an inherent bias in the claims of the effectiveness of the strategy and therefore I dont rate the claim that Telstra was able to "retain several point of market share" by using this strategy as "encyclopedic". Please reconsider. Thanks 101.164.50.161 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share your concerns. The article is from a peer reviewed journal and this will counter any bias. pleas have areas of WP:RS . P.S. You might want to consider getting a Wikipedia username. It makes communication between editors much easier, also gives you a Watchlist. Alex Sims (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the HBR is peer reviewed 101.171.170.147 (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard Business Review articles are internally reviewed and references checked. The bar for entry is quite high, and I doubt anyone would not consider the printed magazine reliable. You could argue it sits somewhere between a scholarly publication and a news article in reputation, but I would put it along with scholarly publications. If you really wanted to you could use a review article (if one exists) about the same topic instead of this reference, but I would leave the reference in. Any bias you are concerned about would have been dealt with by the editors of the HBR. Alex Sims (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like any magazine, articles are reviewed by editor. But I seriously doubt that the content of articles is fact checked independently. Anyways, I have amended the article to reflect the reference, ie that the person who designed the Telstra program claims is works. A fair compromise Id say. 101.164.50.161 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a barrow to push by using straw man arguments about HBR. The same author has used the same arguments in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Please discuss further on the article talk page not here. Alex Sims (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the discussion here Alex Sims (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. You could also help by shaping the article to better reflect reality. You can't seriously claim that there isn't a circular reference here. This article is the only reference for the claim and it was written by someone advising Telstra as a consultant on this strategy. Surprise surprise, the consultant says his advice saved the day. At least, let's be clear about what the "reference" is. Apart from that, this is hardly encyclopedic. It's a minor minor element of the market position of Telstra. 101.164.50.161 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MErge with Bigpond

[edit]

Executed merge 14 May 2014 New but motivated (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update Info Box

[edit]

The Information box (top right of article) has out-of-date information. I suggest the following update, noting that the term "Total Income" has replaced the term "Revenue" to reflect what is used in the Annual Report. An alternative is to use the "Sales Revenue" figure but that is a different measure to what is currently used in the article.

Total Income = Increase $26.3B (2014) [1]

Profit = Increase $4.3B (2014) [1]

Assets = Increase $39.36B (2014) [1]

Equity = Increase $13.96B (2014) [1]

Employees: 31,931 [1]

Products: Fixed and Mobile telephony, Data and IP products and services, Network and Application Services [1]

--Baisili (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f {{cite report |title=Annual Report 2014 |url=http://telstra2014ar.interactiveinvestorreports.com/

Sponsorships and awards

[edit]

I would appreciate assistance with updating information in this section. With potential CoI, I do not want to modify this information directly but I believe the suggested updates provided below are desirable:

Section: Sponsorships and awards

Suggested text (to replace all the text currently in that section):

"Telstra's sponsorship portfolio includes AFL, NRL, Netball Australia, Surf Life Saving Australia, The Australian Ballet, NATSIAA (National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award), and the music development program Telstra Road to Discovery. (https://www.beinvolved.com.au) Telstra also sponsors the Australian Business Awards (http://www.telstrabusinessawards.com/) recognising small to medium sized businesses since 1992, and the Australian Business Women's Award, acknowledging the contribution of women in Australian businesses since 1995. (http://www.telstrabusinesswomensawards.com/) In addition to these sponsorships Telstra supports community groups through its Telstra Foundation. (http://telstrafoundation.com/)"

Rationale for changes: Telstra is no longer a sponsor of V8 supercars (http://www.v8supercars.com.au/about/official-sponsors). Telstra does not have naming rights related to Telstra Clear, which Vodafone acquired in October 2012 (http://www.vodafone.co.nz/telstraclear/).

The Nintendo JV has long since expired. If of historical value, I suggest the following re-write of that topic to improve understanding. (Note that I cannot find a reference for the end of the JV so have not mentioned it):

"In April 2007, Telstra in conjunction with Nintendo Australia launched a service allowing Nintendo DS®* users to access Telstra Wireless Hotspots at more than 1,000 destinations across Australia. Destinations include McDonald’s Restaurants, Starbucks Cafés, airports, hotels and city hot-zones throughout Melbourne and Sydney.(http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/181458/nintendo_telstra_double_up_ds_hotspots/ )" Baisili (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sensis

[edit]

A COI editor, CS at Sensis, wants to create an article solely about Sensis, which would have an impact on this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Telstra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Telstra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make Clear which government sold Telstra

[edit]

This page could be improved by making clear which political party made the decision to sell Telstra, and how much contribution the share sales made to Annual Budgets. 220.240.235.240 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC) = Why dont you do it? 120.18.88.50 (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single Purpose Account?

[edit]

Account WikiLydia seems to be SPA, editing essentially only the Telstra article, seemingly aimed at protecting Telstra 120.18.88.50 (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Telstra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Australia is why" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Australia is why. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20#Australia is why until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section

[edit]

Of the three events listed in the article's controversies section, two seem like they shouldn't be there:

  1. A number of companies, including Telstra, blocked sites sharing videos of a terrorist murdering people.
  2. Telstra was one of many companies that donated money to the Yes campaign of the upcoming constitutional referendum.

The sources seem to just be describing things that happened, rather than saying that the thing was bad. That would seem to be required for them to be controversies. James (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear outdated template

[edit]

The section "Fixed-line and mobile telephony" of "Products and services" was marked as outdated in April 2020, but was left without an inputted reason. What parts are outdated? TheRubixWriter (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time for re-write?

[edit]

This article makes me cringe a bit, it ignores half of Telstra's product range (enterprise etc), is is structured around executives rather than time, it is clearly a 20-year old list of peoples grievances, and it is in many cases contradictory (eg so much emhpasis on 3G - where is 5G? Bigpond has been dead for 12 years, and the media business is basically dead) I'd love to have a crack at a rewrite but it would probably be reverted by someomne with a chip on their shoulder. Amargosa (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Telstra&oldid=1256078880"