Talk:Telstra

3 R's

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)

Proposed Merger of Telecom Australia and Telstra

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

CEO Table

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)

Management section

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 I removed content from the management section because I feel that it is outdated, and that there may be an undue weight issue.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:

“ In April 2006, the appointment of Fiona Balfour as Chief Information Officer saw Vish Padmanabhan demoted to his previous role of deputy CIO. On 6 February 2007, Balfour left the company, 10 months after she had joined the company following 14 years with Qantas.

On the ABC's (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) documentary program Four Corners, Telstra's COO Greg Winn was revealed to have stated "We run an absolute dictatorship and that’s what’s going to drive this transformation and deliver results... If you can’t get the people to go there and you try once and you try twice... then you just shoot ‘em and get them out of the way..."

”

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)

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)

Controversy and criticism

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)

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)

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)

Australia’s largest telco stored data for FBI

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)

Recent changes

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)

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)