Posts for category ‘Communication’

Communication is the lifeblood of business, and telecommunications are at the heart of all business communication. Companies know that they need reliable, quality service of sufficient capacity to handle their needs and they are often intrigued by the latest service or technology; but the billing structure remains a mystery to most. Telephone service is taken for granted at the same time that it is grossly misunderstood. And, while businesses have historically been at the mercy of a monopoly regarding phone service, the phone company has done a pretty good job of connecting businesses to their customers. The problem with former monopolies is that they continue to think and act like monopolies.

 

With quality and reliability issues fairly well resolved, businesses are focusing their attention on the cost of service. However, many companies rely on the phone company to advise them on the most cost effective services available and to insure that they are being billed properly. Others rely on their internal telecommunications personnel who were trained to think like the phone company. It is important to understand that in the course of trying to improve its bottom line, the phone company may not be looking for ways to help you reduce your phone service costs. Is it coincidence that 80% of billing errors favor the phone company?

 

In 1934, the Federal Communications Commission was created to regulate the interstate aspects of telecommunications. However, local phone service and in-state long distance issues were left to the states to regulate.

 

In 1975, in response to public outrage about soaring utility bills and a telephone company scandal, the State of Texas established the Public Utilities Commission to represent and protect the public interest in regard to public utility rates, operations, and services. The Public Utilities Commission regulates the phone company (and other utilities) through tariffs that define the operations of the utility, the services it can provide and the rates it is allowed to charge.

 

Until 1984, telecommunications was the exclusive domain of monopolies, though it was regulated in the State of Texas by the PUC. The monopoly was so tightly held that companies had a phone room in their own buildings that was off limits to everyone but the phone company. Many businesses did not even own their own phones.

 

After the breakup of AT&T in 1984, businesses had to take on some of the responsibility of managing their telecommunications internally. Businesses now had to acquire their own phone systems and integrate them with the available service from the regional Bell operating companies, who still maintained a monopoly on service. With no internal expertise available, the obvious answer was to hire former phone company employees to manage internal telecommunications issues.

 

As complicated as the technology was, billing for phone service was even more complicated. Though these former phone company employees were, in fact, technicians, businesses increasingly (and unfairly) relied upon these technicians to manage not only their telecommunications technology issues, but phone service billing issues as well. Ironically, it is often a company’s internal telecommunications experts that prevent a company from getting the best possible rates for the services they use.

 

Business phone service is subject to two distinct types of billing errors: 1) usage errors based on the volume and duration of calls, and 2) rate errors based on the costs and fees the phone company is authorized to charge for phone service. Companies can themselves detect usage errors, but because billing structures are so highly complex, companies need specialized help to detect rate errors.

 

Tariff regulations are particularly complicated and are subject to frequent change. The current tariff schedule for SBC alone is made up of over 8,000 pages, with some 250,000 pages of retired tariffs no longer in effect. These rules are first interpreted by the phone companies and summarized into billing, operational and service policies that are interpreted a second time by phone company employees implementing the policies. With two levels of interpretation, there is no surprise that the rates businesses pay for phone service varies greatly from the language of the tariffs.

 

Tariff regulations are well outside the knowledge and skill set of telecom, IT and MIS personnel; and individuals with experience in telecommunications billing (usually former phone company employees) are typically trained to think like the phone company and rely on the phone company billing policies to resolve billing issues. To summarize, telecommunications personnel are simply not qualified to handle tariff and rate issues. However, because most businesses rely on their telecommunications personnel to handle billing issues, some telecom managers may avoid bringing in outside help for fear that if long-standing large errors are found, they will get the blame.

 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 introduced competition in the telecommunications marketplace. Various companies popped up to provide alternative local phone service. A few of these companies provided their own hardware and infrastructure, but the vast majority were simply resellers of Bell service.

 

While one would expect that competitive pressures would have caused the industry to operate more efficiently with fewer billing mistakes, a number of factors actually caused billing errors to increase. In fact, for the seven largest phone companies, excluding cell phone companies, consumer billing complaints rose 95% from 2002 to 2003. Many of the problems that existed with the Bells prior to deregulation remained in place after deregulation and may have even been exacerbated by budget cuts and high turnover. Most competitive local exchange carriers were merely resellers of Bell service, who simply passed through any billing errors on the underlying service while adding yet another layer of bureaucracy. Additionally, newer carriers were prone to internal billing errors because they were not yet familiar with their own billing systems.

 

Rather than improve operational efficiency in order to be more competitive, some telecom companies tried to trick consumers into giving them their business, according to an article by CBS News. Even some of the most reputable phone companies have been accused of “competing by cheating” including continuing to send bills after service is terminated, and billing for services never ordered.

 

In one published example from Direct Marketing News, AT&T was accused of incorrectly billing 200,000 to 300,000 non-customers as well as 800,000 of its customers purportedly in an effort to draw inbound calls so it could pitch them on phone services while getting around national and state do-not-call lists. Consumers who called to complain were allegedly told by AT&T agents that they would have to sign up for a calling plan in order to get the incorrect fees refunded.

 

In another published example, a phone company in New Jersey, after paying out over $25,000,000 in refunds, decided it would only pay refunds for overcharges back for three months. Their argument was that by paying the overcharge, the customer was agreeing to the overcharge. While regulators repeatedly rejected that argument, it continued to be used. The phone company further complicated the issue by prematurely and illegally destroying customer service records that could be used to document how far back overcharges extend.

 

It is hard to imagine that the phone company could be capable of such tactics. If you wonder what gives them the audacity to treat their customers that way, consider how they have reportedly treated the regulators according to an article by Forbes:

 

For the first time, the FCC auditors… traveled the country and spot-checked telephone buildings to verify the existence of equipment carried on the books. [T]hey looked at only 25% of the Bells’ gear… at central switching offices. They discovered $5 billion in assets was missing outright. At least another $5 billion was impossible to audit, although federal law explicitly requires otherwise. Assets carried at erroneously (or intentionally) inflated costs on the books naturally lead to higher regulated prices. FCC Auditors were intent on levying large fines and seeking billions in refunds. “When the audit team started getting huge numbers, the Commission started getting very, very nervous.” “The dollars were so huge that there was no way the FCC would pursue them.” [T]he FCC negotiated with the Bells and a few long-distance titans in a series of secret meetings ending in early 2000. The resulting deal was officially named Calls, for the Coalition of Affordable Local and Long-distance Service. [T]he Baby Bells… slash[ed] the access fees they charge long-distance carriers for routing calls to their local lines, [saying] it would save customers $3.2 billion a year. [T]hey also won the right to offset that reduction by boosting flat monthly fees… $5 billion a year. The little-noticed shift in fees… also was a way for the Bells to bury what could have become a multibillion-dollar accounting scandal.

 

Today, there are a variety of telecommunications options for businesses, but phone service has essentially become a commodity. Price of service has become a major factor in selection of service and service provider. And, while most businesses believe that they are taking steps to insure that they are receiving the best rates available for services, very little is actually being done to hold the phone companies to the regulated rates.

 

In a recent survey by Communications Convergence Magazine, 55% of businesses said that their phone bills are audited regularly for billing inaccuracies. Amazingly, 50% said that the phone company provided the audit, with only about 5% of respondents saying they used the services of a third party auditing firm. In no other area of a business would a company ever allow vendors to audit themselves.

 

In the same survey, 73% of businesses said they believe that there are few or no incorrect charges on their phone bill. However, the FCC and independent industry analysts have determined that more than 80% of all phone bills contain errors and that 30% of all telecommunications charges are incorrect .

 

The largest users of telecommunications service often justify the creation of a custom tariff that provides special pricing or they otherwise qualify for pricing on an individual case basis (ICB). These organizations are the most likely to believe that there are few or no inaccuracies on their bills. However, statistics show that due to the size and complexity of these accounts, they are actually more likely to have a billing error.

 

Businesses and consumers tend to give the phone company the benefit of the doubt, but overwhelming evidence shows that the phone company does not proactively recommend packages or services that would reduce costs.

 

Bilbiography:

 

“Connecticut AG Slams Telecom Companies”, CBS News, December 18, 2001.

 

“History and Regulation of the Telephone Industry”, Fundamentals of Telecommunications: History, The International Engineering Consortium.

 

Jill Andresky Fraser, “Cost Control: It Pays to Audit Phone Bills”, Inc.com, Gruner %2B Jahr USA Publishing, June 1995.

 

Jozef Hand-Boniakowski, PhD., “Business Report: Telephone Bill Auditing”, Champlain Business Journal, August 2003.

 

Michelle Kessler, “Telecom Billing Complaints Increase”, USA Today, September 1, 2003.

 

Scott Hovanyetz, “AT&T Bills, Upsell Draw Lawsuits and Suspicions”, DM News, May 14, 2004.

 

Scott Woolley, “Shortchanged”, Forbes.com, May 12, 2003.

 

“The AT&T Breakup – 20 Years of Confusion”, ConsumerAffairs.com, http://consumeraffairs.com/news04/att20.html#top.

 

Tim Green, “Finding Cash in Bad Bills”, Netflash!, Network World Fusion, May 20, 2000.

 

Tracy Anders Greenlee, “PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION”, The Handbook of Texas Online.

 

“What Subscribers Want In Telecom Services”, Communications Convergence Magazine, May 4, 2004.

 

Other Sources:

 

Federal Communications Commission

 

The Public Utilities Commission of Texas.

 

Teletruth

Telecommunication

The applications that demand high bandwidths and fast switching speeds Telecom transformers are utilized. It is used to isolates the signal between primary and secondary windings.

There are several types of telecom transformers normally used. Few of transformer options include DSL, xDSL, E1, T1, ISDN, LAN, WAN & ATM transformer models. A lot of Modern transformers are also available. A DSL or xDSL transformer uses the digital subscriber loop (DSL) or extended digital subscribe loop (xDSL) for telecommunication protocols (Broadband). A T1 or E1 type of transformer is designed to use along with a T1 line or an E1 line. An ISDN type of transformer is the usual telecommunications transformer used for integrated tele-services digital network (ISDN), ISDN is an international standard for the digital transmission of voice and data.

A LAN type of transformer is designed for use in a local area network (LAN), while a WAN type is used in a wide area network (WAN). An ATM type of transformer works with asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) Performance specifications for any telecom transformers include the range of operating frequency, direct current resistance, insertion loss, high potential (hipot) level, 3-decibel (dB) bandwidth, operating temperature, and maximum dimension.

Direct current resistance or commonly known as DCR is the resistance of the telecom transformer’s winding as measured with DC current. It is commonly specified as a maximum rating. Insertion loss is the measured loss through the device excluding the power division factor. It is measured in dB and calculated as the ratio of output power to input power. HIPOT level is the maximum voltage a telecom transformer can take without breaking the winding. 3 dB bandwidth is the frequency range.

Telecom transformers usually differ in terms of package type and method of packing. Integrated circuit (IC) package types include flat pack, single in-line package, dual in-line package, and small outline integrated circuit.

Board-level telecom transformers can employ either surface mounted technology or through hole technology. SMT adds components to a PCB by soldering component leads on to the top surface of the board. Through-hole technology fixes the components by inserting leads through holes and then soldering the leads in place on the other side of the board.

Monish is a Copywriter of electronic transformer. He written many articles in various topics.For more information visit: www.coupons4sale.com discounts avalible.

www.coupons4save.com.

When people hear the words “Information Technology,” the first things that come to mind are computers and the Internet. It may also bring up words like “network,” “intranet,” “server,” “firewall,” “security,” as well as more arcane expressions such as “router,” “T-1,” “Ethernet,” or the mysterious and exotic-sounding “VoIP” (pronounced “voyp”).

In fact, information technology is all of these things, and more. It’s hardly new, however. Information technology is as old as the brain itself, if you think of the brain as an information processor. As far as I.T. being a science, even that goes back as far as the earliest attempts to communicate and store information.

And that is essentially what information technology is: the communication and storage of information, along with the ability to process and make use of the information stored. In this chapter, we’ll begin with a brief history of I.T., what it comprises today, and the different major types of I.T. systems available today.

A Short History of Information Technology

As human societies have grown in size and complexity, so has the need to collect, store and transmit information. While it could be argued that brains represent a form of “bio-information technology,” Greek word “Tektra” – from which we get the word “technology” – really refers to scientific or mechanical knowledge, particularly that which involves the use of tools. Therefore, we’ll begin our journey with humans first attempts to record and transmit knowledge through mechanical means.

The Neolithic Period and the Bronze Age

We might not have thought of it as “information technology” several thousand years ago when we as a species were painting animals on cave walls. But in fact that may be exactly what it was.

Using a combination of tools that included manganese “crayons” and clay that was colored with various pigments, early humans left these images on the walls of a cave near Lascaux, France and on cliffs in the Algerian Sahara.

These have been dated as being approximately 18,000 and 8,000 years old respectively. Unfortunately, there is no way to be certain exactly what message was being communicated (a problem our own descendants 15,000 years from now may very well encounter from what we leave behind!)

Since the images depict animals that were commonly hunted at the time, and given the importance of game animals to a hunting-gathering culture, it’s possible that such images were attempts to present information about such game, or part of a rite designed to ensure a successful hunt.

The invention of writing systems – including pictograms such as hieroglyphics, alphabetic writing and “syllabic” systems – seems to have taken place almost at the same time as the development of agriculture. Agriculture introduced such formerly unknown concepts as land ownership, advanced trade and the accumulation of wealth, which in turn led to more complex societal structures.

As you might expect, this necessitated more detailed and efficient record-keeping. Alphabetic writing has a substantial advantage over pictograms (hieroglyphs), because a relatively limited number of symbols (letters) can be used over and over in infinite combination to communicate nearly anything. (As you will see later, modern I.T. uses only two of these symbols!)

Preserving and storing such information posed certain challenges; information either had to be inscribed on stone or clay tablets (which were heavy) or animal skins, wax tablets or papyrus (which weren’t durable).

The Hellenistic World

The Classical Greeks were the first people of record to attempt to find scientific, rational explanations for natural phenomena. Some of the earliest proto-computers known were mechanical devices developed by the Greeks. One of these was a form of abacus (which also developed and was used in ancient China). The device facilitated and simplified mathematical calculation.

Consider REALLY early Greco-Roman Abacus

Another early computational device was the antikthera, greek in origin. An antikthera was discovered by a Greek sponge diver over a century ago, it was only recently that this 2100-year-old device was reconstructed and shown to be an early form of computer designed to chart the movements of the sun, moon and five planets known at the time.

Early Programmable Devices

By the time the gradual break-up and fall of the Roman Empire was complete in the year 476 C.E., scientific and technological advances in the Western world had ground to a halt. While much of the scientific knowledge of the Greeks was preserved by Irish monks and Arab scholars, it wasn’t until the fourteenth century that principles of engineering were rediscovered and applied to information. The first of these was of course the printing press.

Although the concept of movable type printing had been developed in China some four hundred years earlier, it was Gutenberg’s device in 1447 that revolutionized communications, making it easier and faster to record and disseminate information than ever before. The first truly programmable device would not come along for another 354 years, however.

The Jacquard Loom of 1801 was a product of the Industrial Revolution. This invention used a series of specially punched paper cards that functional as templates, allowing for the automatic weaving of highly intricate patterns. Those punch cards became very significant to computing in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s.

The next development was Charles Babbage’s “Analytical Machine” – a fully-programmable computer that unfortunately was never actually built. Babbage worked on designs from 1837 until his passing in 1871. This steam-powered mechanism would have also utilized punch cards, with a central processing unit (CPU) and a form of memory storage in the form of a system of pegs inserted into rotating barrels.

The Analytical Machine would have been capable of storing 1,000 numbers of up to fifty digits each, and perform six different mathematical operations, including the calculation of square roots. Babbage’s ideas were incorporated into early electronic computing devices being developed in the late 1930’s and 1940’s, although not all of these were actually programmable. The first truly programmable computers – able to store and use information – did not come into common use until the 1950’s, and yes – made use of punch cards (those born before 1965 may remember playing with them).

Of course most people born in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s just take for granted that the Information Technology we have today is from fairley recent developments in science, mechanics and electronics. But we know different now don’t we. And therefore can better appreciate what we have available to us now.

For the entire 20th Century and for some years before, the world’s fixed line telecommunications networks, public and private, were built using technologies designed for voice communications, referred to as telephony.

In the 1960s, the use of computers grew rapidly and heralded the era of digital communications to the present day, during which time data communications in all its guises has become the dominant use of telecommunications networks certainly in terms of expenditure.

The history of mobile (cellular) networks has followed a similar pattern, but over a much compressed timescale of just 20 years.

Telephony-based telecommunications is far from ideal when it comes to data communications, resulting in much compromise, the necessity of additional equipment (and, hence, expenditure) and the inefficient use of telecommunications resources generally.

Starting in the 1970s, the data communications industry, driven by the computer industry, developed its own communications technologies and standards that have stood the test of time. These include Ethernet and IP (Internet Protocol). They have continued to be developed right up to the present day to match the explosive demand for speed and bandwidth required not just by computer applications and particularly the Internet, but increasingly video communications including broadcast TV.

In parallel, the telecommunications industry has been developing new high speed access technologies to its networks including DSL (commonly known as “broadband”). Wireless broadband is also now becoming available to access the mobile networks in support of “triple play” applications delivered to a single end-user device (telephone, Internet and TV).

All these developments are often collectively referred to as “convergence” with Fixed Mobile Convergence (FMC) being one of the most significant commercial developments in the industry at this time.

Medium and larger commercial and public organisations have typically built their own private communications networks over the years to complement the services of public networks. These have invariably been separate voice and data networks, albeit sharing common basic resources where possible.

We are now witnessing the final major piece of the convergence jigsaw. This is the re-engineering of core infrastructures of public and private telecommunications networks to support real time multimedia communications (voice, data & video) natively. This is being achieved through the deployment of pure IP switching and routing over very high speed optical, “copper” and radio transmission systems that are application independent (transparent).

These new fully converged networks are referred to as “Next Generation Networks” (NGNs). They require substantial investment. Between 2005 and 2015 national public network operators will be spending up to $40 billion each (typically $5bn-$15bn) and larger corporations up to $20 million each (typically $5m-$10m).

Rarely will such change be implemented as a one-shot project. For most, migration over several years is the only practical approach to achieve a “pure IP” communications infrastructure.

However, once achieved, the benefits to all are considerable and centred around corporate efficiencies, business agility and customer responsiveness through the:

lowering the overall Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of communications up to 50% annual savings on a like-for-like basis;

introduction of flexible working for the entire workforce as required;

rationalisation and consolidation of premises anywhere and everywhere;

improvement in customer service by enabling all staff (and customers themselves) to access any type of information or undertake any form of transaction from wherever they are at any time;

facilitation of fundamental process re-design and optimisation including “right shoring”; and

optimisation of supply chain / demand chain management.

If one were to distil all the above down to, say, just two crucial enablers, they would be:

the use of IP (and its associated standards) for all types of communications; and

the advent of true mobility (the “Martini effect”: any service, any time, any where).

It is clear then that supply side businesses in the communications marketplace, with the skills, technologies, products and services that address the needs of migration to convergent communications solutions, especially in the areas of IP and wireless, have

every possibility of becoming highly successful over the coming decade.

IIHSIndia.com is proud to announce the new report “The Italian Enterprise Telecommunications Market, Forecasts to 2013 (Interactive Model)” from its vast collection of informative market research reports.

The interactive model provides the most complete and current guide to enterprise telecommunications spend in Italy. The model covers fixed line services, mobile services, internet connectivity services, managed data services and hosting services.

Key reasons to read this report

·         Provides insight into growth opportunities within the telecommunications market in 11 vertical markets.

·         Estimates and forecasts revenues for 24 telecommunications services.

·         Comprehensive technology growth predictions based on end-user investment surveys, analyst research, and macro-economic factors.

Table of Contents:-

OVERVIEW

CATALYST

SUMMARY

ANALYSIS

Fixed line voice revenues are declining in Europe

The market for mobile voice is saturating

Mobile data revenues are increasing rapidly

There is a growing adoption of IP-enabled services

Enterprise telecommunications expenditure in Western Europe is set to grow, albeit slowly

APPENDIX

Definitions

Calls to mobiles

Fixed local

International

Special voice services

Voice over internet protocol (VoIP)

Mobile voice

Short message service (SMS)

Mobile data

Digital subscriber line (DSL)

Cable

FTTx



 

Or contact us at:

International Information Handling Services

207, Hermes Atrium, Sector 11, PO Box.54,

CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614, India.

Phone : +91 22 2757 8668 / 2757 9438

Fax : +91 22 2757 9131

E-mail : iihsindiaseo@gmail.com

Website : www.iihsindia.com

The telecommunications sector in Australia is predominantly saturated by telecoms provider, Telstra. But despite this, space is also a playing ground for  other telephone carriers which include Optus, AAPT and Powertel, Soul, Vodafone and Hutchison 3G.

According to BBG Communications, the main telephony network in Australia is connected through optical fibre networks, with households tapped to the network through copper lines that are linked in local exchanges. For mobile telephony, Australia runs on the GSM platform, like those in Europe and majority of its neighboring countries in the Asia-Pacific. In 2003, 3G mobile phone services were introduced, adding another plus to the generally considered good domestic and international telecommunications services in the country.

Primarily the Optus satellites C1 D1 and D2, are the domestic satellite systems in use for very remote areas.

Telstra, Optus, Nextgen Networks, PowerTel and AAPT are the main Intercity Networks with a collection of other providers having regional networks or Eastern Coast links.

Telstra is the main user of microwave links in remote areas; WIN Television provides a network of microwave towers for distributions of Television, and provides common carrier services. Other providers such as Agile Communications provide backhaul services in South Australia.

Section 51(v) of the Australian Constitution gave the new national government power over all postal, telegraphic, telephonic and ‘other like services’. The last clause embraced future developments in the telecommunications front, which from then meant radio, television and the internet.

The colonial telecommunications network infrastructure (staff, switches, wires, handsets, buildings etc) were handed over to the Commonwealth and became the responsibility of the first Postmaster-General (PMG).  The PMG position is a Federal Ministerial post,  overseeing the Postmaster-General’s Department that was in charge of all domestic telephone, telegraph and postal services. With 16,000 staff, it accounted for 90% of the new federal bureaucracy. That figure went up to over 120,000 staff (around 50% of the federal bureaucracy) by the late sixties.

Public phones were then available only in few post offices. Other limited phones installations were made available to major businesses, government agencies, institutions and among propertied residences. There were around 33,000 phones across Australia, with 7,502 telephone subscribers in inner Sydney and 4,800 in the Melbourne central business district. A trunk line ran between Melbourne and Sydney starting 1907, with extension to Adelaide established in 1914, Brisbane in 1923, Perth in 1930 and Hobart in 1935.

Meanwhile, overseas cable links to Australia remained to be privately owned and managed by then, reflecting the dynamics of imperial politics, demands on the new government’s resources and the allocation of responsibilities at that time. The PMG department became responsible for some international shortwave services – particularly from the 1920s – and for a new Coastal Radio Service in 1911, with the first of a network of stations operational in February 1912. Australia and New Zealand had ratified the 1906 Berlin Radio-telegraph Convention in 1907.

During the 1930s the PMG became responsible for the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC). PMG’s management of the telecommunications network ABC echoed BBC’s own story.

As privatization has been changing the landscape of all service and utility providers, many tend to romanticize and era when enterprises were supposedly ran not for profit but for service.  It has become fashionable for some quarters to praise those times when PMG was supposedly an enlightened technocratic management, moved only for the national interest, and public service, over and above profit.

The image of a benevolent PMG is not without problems, as it is apparent that decisions on location and management of facilities were reflections of local political demands and the ‘Australian Settlement’ first articulated by Alfred Deakin.  The PMG was, after all, a major employer in rural areas, the Minister generally came from the Country Party and there was an emphasis on in-house development and local manufacturing.

The observation then was that governments of whatever party affiliation benefited from the organisation’s revenue generating nature.  Many would say that PMG was not a discrete statutory body, with no power on its own to retain its revenues, and was captive to national political dynamics.

In 1982, a Davidson Enquiry on Australia’s telecommunications services sector, made a recommendation to end Telecom Australia’s monopoly. In the following year, Aussat Pty Ltd, another government agency, had been established to operate domestic satellite telecommunication and broadcasting services.  But  Aussat’s charter did not allow it to be a direct competitor to Telecom.  A case in point is its charter’s prohibition on interconnecting public switched traffic with Telecom’s network. Aussat’s viability as a telecommunications player was greatly undermined by difficulties in raising capital, tepid government support and spiraling operation costs.

It wasn’t until 1985 that Australia’s first geostationary communications satellite was operational; by late 1990, however, it was saddled with debts amounting to about $400 million.

The Australian Telecommunications Commission was restructured, giving way to the Australian Telecommunications Corporation.  The new entity traded as Telecom Australia, in 1989. It was also the same year which saw the last domestic telegram handled by Telecom, as responsibility for telegram operations was handed over to Australia Post.

There were proposals floating for a merger of Aussat and OTC, but all were rejected in favor of the disposal of the satellite operator to a non-government entity that would be allowed to compete with Telecom.

Immediately after, Optus Communications – a private sector entity owned by a consortium that included BellSouth – was given Australia’s second general carrier licence.  Optus proceeded to purchase the Satellite assets with many of the Non Satellite Assets remaining with the Government as part of Telstra.  Cable & Wireless, privatized after several decades of UK government ownership, took a controlling stake in Optus in 1998 before control passed to SingTel in 2001.

Optus was initially allowed to cater the national long distance and international telephone calls service in the Australian telecommunications market. The restrictions on  players that can enter the general telephone market until 1997 and ‘pro-competition’ mechanisms under the Trade Practices Act 1974, among which guaranteed access to Telecom’s existing infrastructure on reasonable terms, meant to ensure Optus’ viability.

Competition in long distance corporate voice and data service operations was so steep. It was also felt by Telstra versus AAPT which was active from 1991, MCI Communications, later absorbed by the ill-fated WorldCom, was an early major shareholder of AAPT but got out in 1994. New Zealand’s Todd Corporation took a 24.5% stake in AAPT in 1992. In 1995 AAPT launched a mobile phone service, using Vodafone as its network supplier, acquired a 50%  share of the Australian ISP connect.com.au Pty Ltd and bought NewsNet ITN. In the same year SingTel acquired a 24.5% shareholding in AAPT.

AAPT went on to muscle up. In 1996, it bought 40% of Cellular One Communications, followed by QNET Communications. In the same year it gained a carrier licence, offering long distance services to the residential market and building communications networks for the South Australian and Victorian governments.  Subsequently, it moved to 100% of CorpTEL Communications, its AAPT Sat-Tel satellite joint venture, connect.com.au and Cellular One. US-operator Primus acquired Axicorp in 1997, gaining a carriers license and expanding into internet services.

AOTC had a brand makeover as Telstra Corporation in 1993, trading internationally as Telstra starting the same year and domestically from 1995. Its attempts for expansion to Indonesia and other Asian markets did not live up to the company’s expectations, with the group winding back overseas involvements in 1997-98. In 1996 Telstra recorded the largest profit in Australian corporate history, some $3.8 billion and was partly privatised in November 1997 through sale by the Commonwealth of around 33.3% of its shareholding.

After Australia’s telecommunications market was fully opened up to full competition in July 1997, privatization followed. A further 16.6% was sold by the Commonwealth in September 1999 bringing the shares sold to a total of 49.9%.  This figure is safely below 50.1%, at which rate, any sale of government-owned properties involves legislation. With the new regime came the adoption of a single national phone numbering scheme and any-to-any connectivity requirements.  Mobile phones, fixed-line phones and other devices was designed to communicate with each other irrespective of whether the service was provided by Telstra or one of its competitors. In November 2006, an additional 33% was sold by the government. The remaining 17% was placed in a Future Fund to provide full separation from government and regulations. This followed to avoid many possible conflicts of interest with the government being primary shareholder and competition regulator.

By July of 1997 the Australian telecommunications sector was fully liberalized for full competition with removal of restrictions on the number of licensed operators and anti-competition mechanisms.

By the end of 1998, there were over 20 licensed telecommunications carriers in Australia, with several hundred other entities using those carriers’ facilities to provide services. By May 2002, this figure climbed to 99 licensed telecommunications carriers.  The Australian Communications Authority estimated that the benefits to consumers of telecommunications services from competition in 2000/1 were between $5.5 billion and $12 billion.

HTML clipboard

The Israel Telecommunications Report has been researched at source in 2007 and features latest-available data covering all headline indicators; 5-year industry forecasts through end-2012; company rankings and competitive landscapes covering leading multinational handset manufacturers and equipment vendors, domestic fixed-line and mobile operators, and analysis of latest industry news, trends and regulatory developments. ( http://www.bharatbook.com/Market-Research-Reports/Telecommunications-Report-Israel.html )

Israel Telecommunications Report provides industry professionals and researchers, operators, equipment suppliers and vendors, corporate and financial services analysts and regulatory bodies with independent forecasts and competitive intelligence on the telecommunications industry in Israel.

Independent 5-year telecommunications forecast for Israel.

Original telecommunications market research and telecommunications sector trend analysis for Israel’s telecommunications industry.

Competitive intelligence, regional telecommunications company rankings and SWOT analyses on international and domestic telecommunications companies in Israel.

Key Benefits of Report

* Benchmark It’s Independent 5-Year Telecommunications Industry Forecast for Israel to test other views – a key input for successful budgeting and strategic business planning in the Israeli telecommunications market.

* Target Business Opportunities & Risks in Israel ’s Telecommunications Sector through our reviews of latest industry trends, regulatory changes, and major deals, projects and investments in Israel .

* Exploit Latest Competitive Israeli Telecommunications Intelligence & company SWOTS on your competitors and peers through company rankings by sales, market share, investments and leading products and services.

Contact us at :

Bharat Book Bureau

Tel: +91 22 27578668

Fax: +91 22 27579131

Email: info@bharatbook.com

Website: www.bharatbook.com

Blog: http://bharatbookresearch.blogspot.com