TLS - Telstra Corporation

Last month we moved from the Adelaide hills to a place we recently bought near the beach (sea change).
Went through the usual stuff with organising phone disconnect and reconnect at new location etc.
About a week prior to the move I got a call from Telstra confirming the move etc, I asked about the number and was told I could keep the number that was at the property now.
Two days before the move I got a text asking if someone would be at the property on the Thursday as they needed to connect and check the line. I rang them and eventually got hold of someone who told me the line would be connected on Thursday as requested (the day prior to move) and did I want to know the new number. When I told him I already had it we compared numbers and he had a different number, I couldn't keep the one at the property because it was a silent number (even though they gave it to me a week before).
In the meantime I had organised my internet to be connected to the number I was originally given so I had to ring them and tell them of the new number.

I couldn't meet the Telstra guy on Thursday so I organised it for Friday, he turned up just as I did, did his check of the phone connections and left.
Ten minutes later he came back and asked how many connections I wanted as there was already a phone line connected yesterday (Thur) and he had just connected another.
We compared the phone numbers and I told him that the one connected yesterday was the amended number and that was the one I wanted to keep.

He then got on his mobile to ring Gupta (his words) to disconnect and remove any details associated with the new Friday number, a few minutes later after he explained everything about three times he hung up, advised that it was all sorted and left.

About an hour later I tried to make a call, no dial tone, tried the other socket, dead too. On the mobile phone to Telstra and 20 minutes later I find out that they disconnected the line that they had connected on Thursday as well as the one connected today.

The following Tuesday we got the phone back on, meanwhile the ADSL had also been disconnected with the phone line so I had to get that reconnected too.

I cannot understand why anyone would not want to hold shares in a company that runs so efficiently, absolutely amazing.

It makes you wonder how Optus makes a living....

I have their Fusion plans here at my business and at home, here at work for $99.00 per month I get phone rental, free calls to local, STD, any mobile and 20gig of DSL, not bad hey and at home for $129.00 per month phone rental, free calls to local, STD, any mobile and 30gig of ADSL.

With every customer now leaving their mobile phone number as a contact and 3 teenagers at home I'm getting value for money.

Why can't Telstra offer this as they own the copper wire I'm using?

I thought the reason TLS costs more was due to their excellent coverage for mobile devices. You pay for what you get. My iPhone plan with vodafone might be cheaper and my mate's plan with Optus is just as cheap but however don't travel too far west or in certain areas and there will be no coverage.

I believe TLS get a hard deal when it comes it the 3rd party operators.

I cashed in a whole heap of TLS shares today for a very nice profit. I also believe they will continue to grow in share price as the year goes on and as the final deal comes closer.

Boggo said:

I cannot understand why anyone would not want to hold shares in a company that runs so efficiently, absolutely amazing.

Click to expand...

Not sure a few stuff up and a few disgruntle customers qualify as a matrix for buying and selling a business

No large organization is perfect, hell people hate banks guts and they still making decent profit ...

and dominos is cheap and nasty pizza and the youtube video about some guy wipe his ass with dominos pizza but they still racking in.

if investment decision are based on personal experience and internet sensation not sure if you can make much money out of it

PS: I hear Vodafone is an excellent company and provide good customer services but I wouldn't put a cent into that business.. I rather put alot more in Telstra..

also Nokia executives are nice and friendly and got great market shares
with their phone but I rather buy Ass holes Steve Jobs apple business and not even put 1 cent into Nokia

ROE said:

and dominos is cheap and nasty pizza and the youtube video about some guy wipe his ass with dominos pizza but they still racking in.

if investment decision are based on personal experience and internet sensation not sure if you can make much money out of it

Click to expand...

There's nothing else to go on really is there other than personal experience etc.

You could always inject a dose of reality I suppose. Then again reality is just an illusion created by alcohol deficiency.

Some people use that charting (pictures with squiggly lines) type stuff but I would rather trust a Mexican than use any of that.

.

Well at last a decent outcome for telstra shareholders. From the news articles it would appear that Telstra will be compensated as subscribers are transfered to the N.B.N. Also one would think they will require Telstra to play a major part in rolling out the infrastructure as they are probably the only ones with the expertise and skilled labour pool to expedite the roll out. From the newspapers they say some of the money is for access to Telstras exchanges, which would indicate Telstra will still own them. It should be great for the shareholder because the government payments should enable Telstra to maintain the dividend as it migrates its dying landline customers over to the N.B.N(taxpayer). What a winner as the universal service agreement monkey is off Telstras back and the regulation forbidding Telstra from offering the same deals as the other carriers should now be lifted.
If you could get the same deal from Telstra as Optus, Vodaphone etc, but have much better coverage, I know who I would be using. Bring it on a level playing field, just look how the overseas banks went, can't wait to see what Optus has to say when they can't sic the ACCC onto Telstra.
UPWARD AND ONWARD, I SAY YEH.

Hi Boggo, I was writing the post so never noticed your chart.
As I stated before charts show historic trends and don,t have the ability to factor in changes, they only show in the future what effect those changes had, be it good or bad. The reason I thought Telstra were a reasonable punt was because when they were floated in the 90,s at $3 the opposition government at the time stated they were a give away price to help the fat cats make money.
Subsequently the next tranche was floated at $7.40 since then Telstra has installed a wireless network far in excess of the competitors. Because the opposition tele providers promise to install infrastructure but don't bother because it's easier to cherry pick high density areas. If the restrictive legislation is lifted Telstra will cream Optus because Optus have sat on their **** and cherry picked for years.

sptrawler said:

Hi Boggo, I was writing the post so never noticed your chart.

Click to expand...

I was a holder of TLS in the early days, it had (and still should have) enormous potential but through idiots and mexicans they ruined it.
I have probably made more by shorting it than what I made on its way up, it shouldn't be like that.
Telstra are not doing themselves any favours with the level of bungling of what should be simple routine daily tasks that constitute most of the gripes on here.

They need to have a big clean out from the top down and they need to approach their business in a competitive manner.
Some of the staff they have in their newly branded stores need to spend six months in McDonalds to learn some of the most basic of skills, how they actually get employed to be the public face of a company is beyond me.

One day I hope to be able to have TLS in my SMSF and and also feel confident that I don't have to set aside half a day to sort out minor problems.

The one area I do have an issue with is why anyone would have hung on to their shares while they dropped over 60% in ten years and then get excited when they turn up by 5%, maybe its just me.

Lets hope that this NBN etc is a new start for them.

Rant over

Hi Boggo, I agree with you completely, I had them in the early days and luckily I had some T1's that offset my losses on T2. It just shows what a stuff up Governments do when they get involved in the market. Just have a look at the R&I i.e Bankwest fiasco with bank of Scotland. I just think that now the government is getting out or should that be getting in and taking the monkey, or is that the ACC, off telstras back they may be able to compete on a level playing field. If they give a return of capital or a big dividend it is well worth being in at $3 especially in the SMSF.

Interesting column in todays Sydney Morning Herald Business Day. They suggest that the tls price is unlikely to go above $3.47 as that was the price the future fund dumped their large parcel previously.
Even though the brokers value it arround $4, now that it's involvement with NBN has been given some positive direction, it is considered unlikely for the institutions to buy in while the overhang of the future funds holding persists.

skc said:

I moved recently and just called Telstra to sign up for new phone connection.

I wanted to get naked DSL so just wanted a cheap phone plan and ditch it later.

They have a homeline budget for $20.95 per month, but the consultant told me that you are not allowed to connect ADSL with another supplier with that service. So I had to go with the next plan at $27.95.

Click to expand...

Not sure if that is a new policy they brought out but i have the budget homeline connection set up with ADSL from another supplier. It was connected about March last year.
If you are getting naked DSL why don't you just use VOIP instead of paying that much for a phone line?

Tatts said:

Not sure if that is a new policy they brought out but i have the budget homeline connection set up with ADSL from another supplier. It was connected about March last year.
If you are getting naked DSL why don't you just use VOIP instead of paying that much for a phone line?

Click to expand...

It's a catch 22 - you actually need a phone line first before they can get you naked...

With the NBN essentially paying TLS to shut down the copper wire, TLS become essentially a retail operation - will they be a better performing company compared to an integrated monopoly?? hmm...

ROE said:

Not sure a few stuff up and a few disgruntle customers qualify as a matrix for buying and selling a business

Click to expand...

I agree - except for the fact that is not a few. I have yet to meet a satisfied customer of TLS. A mate of mine works for TLS and when I asked about hooking up our phone (we have just moved) he recommended several companies - none of which were TLS!! When I queried him he said that he would never recommend them. Even though he gets a staff discount off his phone bill if he is with TLS he has his phone with another company.

I thought I would give them another chance and went into the local TLS shop to enquire about home and mobile phones. The sales girl told me that I would be better off with Optus as TLS was too expensive!!!!

With that kind of service and reputation - what hope do they have?

malachii

Add to that the fact that they cannot do an announcement properly, quite a few would have been buying on Monday from the people who got on last week.

http://media.theage.com.au/national/selections/tesltra-insider-trading-suspicion-1628170.html

Is Telstra the beast that it is because it's a "private" organisation owned by the government with the appropriate legislation to secure it in the market?

Would Telstra behave more efficiently if they were a totally private business competing against other telcos with no legislation to make it a monopoly?

I deal with HP regularly and they are much bigger than TLS but they don't have monumental stuff ups like TLS.

Well Dunger, the whole stuff up was the Government, as usual. They wanted maximum money from the float, so they sold it to the mums and dads as a verticaly intergrated company( and lets be honest the mums and dads i.e taxpayers payed for building it originally). That way the mums and dads thought they were going to get a good return.
Then came the problem, all the overseas multinationals eg Optus, Hutchinson, Vodaphone, said we can't compete and since then it has been downhill for Telstra. After getting maximum dollars for it the Government have then constantly legislated to cripple it, Telstra can't offer the same price as the competitors, they must sell access to the network cheaper than they sell it( so the multinationals can make a margin). They have to supply a service to outback areas where the service runs at a huge loss, funny the multinationals don't want to service these low margin areas.
Telstra shareholders have had to carry the social conscience of the Government. Really the only fair thing to do would have been to have nationalised Telstra and payed out the shareholders at the same price the Government recieved for it( but that money has been spent).

sptrawler said:

Well Dunger, the whole stuff up was the Government, as usual. They wanted maximum money from the float, so they sold it to the mums and dads as a verticaly intergrated company( and lets be honest the mums and dads i.e taxpayers payed for building it originally). That way the mums and dads thought they were going to get a good return.
Then came the problem, all the overseas multinationals eg Optus, Hutchinson, Vodaphone, said we can't compete and since then it has been downhill for Telstra. After getting maximum dollars for it the Government have then constantly legislated to cripple it, Telstra can't offer the same price as the competitors, they must sell access to the network cheaper than they sell it( so the multinationals can make a margin). They have to supply a service to outback areas where the service runs at a huge loss, funny the multinationals don't want to service these low margin areas.
Telstra shareholders have had to carry the social conscience of the Government. Really the only fair thing to do would have been to have nationalised Telstra and payed out the shareholders at the same price the Government recieved for it( but that money has been spent).

Click to expand...

Don't blame anyone, when you make an investment decision you have to factor in some risks....whether it's regulation, **** management, or change in landscape of the business or change of government..

No one put a gun to anyone head and say buy Telstra...

mum and dad or whoever they are smart enough to make that call when you put the money on the line to buy something....if they cant then it's their problem and they need to understand the risk before they buy into a business.

when you drive on the road people assume you know the rules, if you don't
you get into accident, same with investing in the sharemarket...if you play ignorant and don't know the rules you can get burned and who to blame but yourself..

Dunger said:

Is Telstra the beast that it is because it's a "private" organisation owned by the government with the appropriate legislation to secure it in the market?

Would Telstra behave more efficiently if they were a totally private business competing against other telcos with no legislation to make it a monopoly?

I deal with HP regularly and they are much bigger than TLS but they don't have monumental stuff ups like TLS.

Click to expand...

you don't get regulate because you are big, you get regulated because you are in the business that has regulation surrounding it..

Regulations usually exist in business that provide vital services and infrastructure to the people...Electricity, Gas pipe line etc..

HP can stop selling computers and printers and it wont effect people life
but if Telstra decided that they turn off the phone services in regional area
then farmers and people in those area will be up in arm

or someone decided to turn off the Gas pipe line or rack up price 100%
you don't have much choice but pay up...

HP can rack up their computer and printers by 100% and people don't care
as they just ignore them and buy from someone cheaper...

Hey ROE I am not blaming anyone for an investment decision, what I was saying was the`same people that sold it(the Government) then systematically destroyed its value. They should have done that before they sold it.

Actually what is really ironic is the Government is going to replace tax payer infrastructure it sold to the tax payers. With tax payer infrastructure it is going to put in and then in 5 - 10 years sell it to the taxpayer. I WON"T BE CAUGHT NEXT TIME. I must remember.