I noticed a news article on Whirlpool this weekend talking about Telstra’s new lower-priced plans for its 3G wireless service (‘Telstra cleans up NextG data plans’, 22 August 2008).

However, right in the middle of the report was this comment:

But the prices are still astronomical compared to other providers such as 3 and Vodafone.

(emphasis on astronomical is mine).

Seems to me the reason Telstra has so much market share is that people are so unaware of alternative providers. Their market dominance seems much more attributed to their huge advertising budget than anything else.

Worse — in the new plans, excess data charges have jumped a whopping 67 percent, from 15c per Mb to 25c per Mb. That’s $250 per Gb, up from $150.

To me, this is where most users understand little about the massive sting in their monthly bill, when they exceed the limit of what are often minimal data allowances.

For example, if you were on an entry level 400Mb per month plan, and downloaded the Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 3 update via the download centre, the file size — according to Microsoft — is typically 580Mb.

So, in one single click you have not only used up your ENTIRE monthly data allowance, but will have a bill of $45 for the extra 180Mb. That’s just ONE CLICK on a SINGLE day of the month! That extra cost MORE THAN DOUBLES your monthly $39.95 cost!

Telstra aren’t the only provider guilty of small data allowances, but many alternative plans simply restrict your usage speed rather than have an excess data option. When I looked at Telstra’s announcement I found NO option for a reduced-speed plan, just the excess data cost. It looks quite innocent when you see “Additional usage charged at $0.25/MB” until you realise — with the examples above — just what that might mean.

It’s not surprising some users find their first monthly bill — whether wireless or regular broadband — to be 10, 20 or 30-times the cost they were expecting! I do know friends who have been very shocked when they’ve had bills arrive well in excess of $1,000 for a $40 monthly plan — sometimes as much as a few thousand dollars.

What confuses me most is that my web hosting provider charges just US$1.99 per GB of overusage data per month (less than 1 cent per Mb) — in comparison to Telstra’s 25 cents per Mb. How can Telstra justify $250 per Gb when I get charged US$1.99 per Gb? It’s all data.

At today’s exchange rate, the comparison is:

Telstra $250 vs $2.30 in Australian dollars from my web host (Pair Networks)

So I pay less than 1 percent of Telsta’s price!

If we just look purely at a web hosting comparison, my provider gives me 240Gb of free data in my plan (costing US$49.95 (AUD$57.80)). Telstra’s data allowance in their comparable web hosting plan — their AUD$65.95 per month Premium Hosting 500 plan — is just 20Gb — less than 10 percent of my 240Gb allowance. They tell you there’s an excess data charge, but it’s not disclosed on the pricing page I found.

With data charge policies like this, is it any wonder that none of our mobile, fixed line and internet accounts are with Telstra?

I’m stunned that in 2008 a federal politician can still be so wrongly advised (and accept that advice) about the internet!

Here’s the article in today’s Herald Sun:

1.8m Check Out Grocery Price Site

It starts off with this:

THE new GROCERYchoice website received 1.8 million hits in its first four days, showing consumers are interested in the information it provides, federal Assistant Treasurer Chris Bowen says.

1.8m HITS does NOT mean 1.8m VISITORS! Idiots!

In fact, I checked out the grocery site and noticed on the home page alone there are 22 hits — without me visiting a single other page on the site.

So 1.8m divided by 22 equals less than 82,000 visits — assuming only looking at a single page (which has no useful info).

If an average visitor looked at 2 pages — that means no more than 41,000 visitors (I clicked on my state — Victoria — and that page had 21 hits) … and at 2 pages, I’ve still not got any useful info.

So that 40,000 figure is more likely no more than 20,000 — if that — and I’m not even allowing for use by the government and public servants!

So 1.8m eh, Mr Assistant Treasurer? The real number of visitors is more likely to be no more than 20,000 or so … a massive difference.

That’s also forgetting that unit pricing has ALWAYS been around — if you’re smart enough to be able to do some basic maths in your head. Whether it’s on the shelf or not, it’s not that hard to work out.

Is the federal Assistant Treasurer really that stupid and ignorant about the internet? Based on this “news” he has no idea what he is talking about!

The Victorian Labor Government’s decision to deepen the Port Phillip Bay shipping channels through dredging doesn’t make sense.

In an article on theage online, key factors are noted:

• “The project will see 23 million cubic metres of sand, silt and rock ripped from Port Phillip Bay and dumped in two spoil grounds in the middle of the bay. At least 2 million cubic metres of it will be heavily contaminated silt from the Yarra River mouth.”
• “The heads will take a minimum of five years, and could take up to 30 years, to recover from damage caused by to the dredging.”
• The Federal environment minister is not expected to release the full details of his decision until 18 January, but the project is already scheduled to go ahead in just 3 weeks time.
• “Dredging opponents the Blue Wedges Coalition … say Mr Garrett relied on a smaller 2002 application to deepen the channel in his decision, rather than the far larger 2007 project approved by the Victorian State Government.”
• “Opponents of the project believe it will be an environmental disaster that will cause toxic algal blooms that could poison swimmers and contaminate seafood, and destroy unique marine life.”

Pretty damning facts against the government’s proposed project. But, I have saved the best until last:

Port of Melbourne Corporation chief executive Stephen Bradford has said current trade volumes were too small to warrant larger vessels.

A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts container numbers will be the same whether or not the project goes ahead. Either way, trade is expected to jump from 2.1 million containers in 2010 to 7.1 million by 2035.

Just what damage will the Brumby Government be doing with $1 billion of our money?

Edit: check out this damning opinion piece also appearing in The Age on 12 January 2008.

I still wonder whether it is Pravda or The Age operating out of Spencer Street.

How is it that an election campaign announcement by the Howard/Costello government for $34 billion in tax cuts — the biggest in Australia’s history — doesn’t even make front page news online? It’s only when you click-through to the election coverage area, or the National news, that you discover this announcement.

Speaking of the federal election dedicated page, the choice of photo used in the banner showing the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader has obviously been made by someone with a left-leaning anti-Howard bent — the use of a the low angle, sideways-glancing shot is a deliberate anti-Howard political statement.

No wonder The Age is referred to as the Spencer Street Soviet!