As @postulative points out as others may have before, Telstra have the contract to supply telephone services in all parts of Australia under the USO (this is a standard telephone service not a Mobile Network). Under the USO all telcos are required to pay money to Telstra so that Telstra can supply a service to whomever asks for it. It is however tech neutral, they can supply it by whatever means they deem suitable wireless, satellite, fibre, copper, microwave whatever works (somewhat) probably including tin cans with a string if they could work it into the system (by this I mean as cheap and as easily as they can do it).
Mobile Towers are a bit different in that yes, Telstra (or anyone) could put one in using their own funds but they are expensive so are mostly placed in locations that affords Telstra (or whichever RSP/Telco) the best financial outcome for providing a Mobile Network service. Not a USO service, for which Telstra are the only one continually funded to carry the extra cost burden of supply and service to a single dwelling or station or small community. Telstra has had the ability to use their already in place resources to expand their Mobile coverage at a reduced cost to themselves by utilising the USO infrastructure they were funded to put in place, no other Telco has had this advantage. That is why you see so much more Telstra coverage.
As @phb also points out the Blackspot program is not carrier specific and can be delivered by any Telco who desires to set up a tower in the area. I have seen shared installs at some places eg Voda and Telstra sharing a tower’s cost. The problem for some placements is a secure power supply (which could be solar and battery), and the ability to hook into the fibre backbone at some convenient point. These can be expensive (beyond commercially viable costs) to operate them. On average a Tower in the first 4 rounds cost $726,000. This is average so could be much more or less depending on where a tower is located eg urban, semi rural or remote and the likely higher costs would be remote locations. This was for 1,047 base stations Australia wide with a total cost of the rounds costing $760 million. The next 2 rounds (5 & 6) have a budget of $160 million total so on the previous average they can afford to build roughly a further 116 towers. This isn’t many towers considering the huge remote areas people want coverage in.
If anyone is desperate to have that “continual” teleconversation coverage they are able to use a satellite service (it is a much higher cost to the user but is at least fairly reliable). If the fibre network had been put in place as originally envisaged then much of the cost of Mobile Network expansion may have been reduced significantly but as it isn’t (and not likely for quite some time at that) the chances of getting decent coverage are as that famous saying goes about Buckley’s and none.
I’ve written about Optus on a number of occasions Fred.
The company is a bad bad operator which cut our phone and internet off for MONTHS refusing to reconnect even though the error was of its doing. The (supposed) regulator the TIO was as useless as tits on a bull and played games as well and this serious matter took it over a month to start addressing.
I have no doubts Optus was a bad choice for any contract. If the refusal to pay us the mandated compensation for its negligence is anything to go by I’d hate to think what sort sort of responsibility the company would take if this project had issues. Probably the same as with us when the matter stayed in the Indian Call Centre for a month with a refusal to direct to Optus in Australia. Having said that when the matter got to Public Relations in Australia it was not better until eventually a senior person became involved. She fixed it but did not pay the gazetted compensation. One thing after another!
It would be interesting to know what the complaint ratio is say per 1000 customers rather than a total number. This ratio would give consumers a better idea of the relative risks of each service provider.
It seems so unChoice like to rate a product or service without a detailed analysis.
Suggesting Telstra is any better or Optus any less customer focused without a detailed survey and data analysis deserves challenge.
All the Telcos/Internet retailers have problems and complaints. As unfortunate as some individual experiences can be, the statistics from the TIO are very clearly a black mark against the industry.
Telstra has more than 50% of all complaints, and is likely behind many more given they have a monopoly ownership of most of the copper network.
Notes,
It may not be so simple or easy to analyse statistically. It’s not just the number of complaints, the type or nature of the complaints may also skew a result.
2018 Mobile Market Telstra has 42%, Optus 28% (ref statista.com)
Data relating to fixed line and adsl internet might not be so simple to interpret as many providers rely on Telstra to provide and maintain services. Hence complaints to non Telstra providers may actually relate to a failure by Telstra?
Data relating to NBN services may also be difficult to properly attributed given the multiple parties and service types.
It would be as well as the number of new unique customer complaints.
If for eample a small telco had 20 complaints per 1000 customers (5000 in complaints in total), while a bigger telco had say 2 complaints per 1000 customers (50000 complaints in total), it indicates that the smaller telco may have problems as their level of complaint is 10 times a bigger guy. Looking at totals, it appears that the big telco is 10 times worse on average than the smaller telco). Using the per customer ratio, it indicates for a potential customer that they are 10 times more likely to have a complaint compared to the other telco. Such is useful…but…
The number of new unique complaints would also be useful as it is possible that the same issue may be reported as two separate complaints (two contacts from the same custoner about the same issue) . Futhermore, there may also be a number of complainants which may fall into serial complaintants whereby complaints are made about everything no matter how frivolous (being sensatised by past issues). Such could bias the data collected and make one telco seem worse than they really are.
While raw numbers may be important say to the telco ombudsman in relation to where resources may need to be deployed to reduce their own workload (and also which telcos to work with in relation to their complaint management system to reduce their own workload), it has limited value to the consumer other than there were a lot of complaints. A TO is more likely to chose to work with a telco with the higher number of complaints as it provides a bigger bang for the time invested.
Does this change the original discussion point? That the Government has awarded a black spot mobile tower contract to Optus in preference to Telstra, without considering the implications for customers. It would seem not, given the complexity of the discussion already on how to rate a Telco objectively.
Who is going to hold the Government to account, for the decision affecting the Archer River Roadhouse, and what justification has the Government offered?
Given the reaction of the local Federal Member who is part of the Government of the day, it seems a done deal for Optus.
Anyone not happy with the outcome, might find it more useful to discuss the matter with the federal Member for Leichhardt (Hon Warren Entsch), or the Federal Minister for Communications Paul Fletcher, or the Minister for Regional Communications Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie.
Contacting any or all of these is far more likely to deliver a better outcome in this instance than complaining about Telstra or Optus.
This assumes that there are no Optus mobile customers either living or frequenting the area. It is highly unlikely that this will be the case…especially when Optus is the second biggest carrier by customer numbers (as per a previous post).
Like many government decisions, itnis not possible to satisify everyong. If for example Telstra did happen to receive the contract for this particular location, it is highly likely that existing Optus customers (who live or frequent the locality) would not be happy with the decision and could also complain to the ABC.
There are two things which have not been discussed in this thread.
The first is the particular locality subject of the ABC news story has never had any mobile network coverage. This location starts from a very low base, namely a (‘unreliable’) landline and satellite phone service options only. One could argue that having any mobile network (even if it was one of the smallest carriers in Australia rather than Telstra or Optus) is better than one and provides a new option to those who reside or frequent this locality. Just because it is not some of the communities preferred option (as they made a decision to have Telstra sims for their mobiles which don’t work in this blackspot), it doesn’t necessarily mean it is not an improvement or suits many others in the same community.
The second is that one of the issues raised is safety. Like any mobile network, a network is open access to all carriers in the case where an emergency call is made. While one may not be able to use their phone for personal calls, it will be able to be used for emergency calls.
The final point which could also be made is if locals who have existing Telstra mobiles (assuming Telstra don’t piggyback with their own antenna), still have the option to purchase a low cost Optus package to provide mobile connectivity. No one is forced to only have Telstra network options and there are phones available which allow multicarrier sims (two/dual sims) be installed in the one phone.
It should also be worth noting that there are other carriers which use the Optus network…so one is not necessarily restricted to Optus sims only. Cheaper mobile packages may be found with other carriers/retailers.
A litany of the usual Optus lies claiming what a wonderful job they are doing for the community.
Last week the truck was illegally parked on Council land adjacent to our local shopping centre at an angle to a very busy intersection of the Bruce Highway and the side street which ironically leads to the cemetery and crematorium and the speed limit throught the intersection had been reduced from 80km/h to 40km/h due to roadworks.
The huge screen was advertising a sale at their store in the shopping centre.
A quick phone call to the Council to advise them of this illegal activity and the resultant traffic hazard saw it long gone by the next day.
I believe that their claim of “The Smallest Footprint” is not about waste but their sub-standard mobile coverage.
