[AusNOG] Megaport Suspends Accepting New Orders in PIPE DC's

[Bevan Slattery]

That is certainly their argument Andrew.


Problem 1
Schedule 3 doesn¹t mention ³occupier² nor is it a test from memory.

.
> [5] Section 1.3, definition of in-building subscriber connection
> equipment
> 
> omit the definition, substitute
> 
> in-building subscriber connection equipment means a facility installed within
> a building:
> 
> 1.
> (a) with the aim of managing and maintaining the supply of carriage services
> to a customer of a carrier; or

Problem 2

When that clause was drafted ³occupier rights² related to effectively to
³squatting² rights hence the following wording relating to easements and
licences.  I should know what the intention was :)  PIPE¹s actions in
accepting LAAN¹s to customers for the past decade reinforces this fact.

As for the reality PIPE/TPG provide customers a service in which they give
the customer the right to occupy space and it¹s nonsense to consider
otherwise.  They provide customers the right to install equipment in a
secure dedicated area, provide 24/7 access (mostly unescorted) with an
access card, provide dedicated power circuits to your dedicated space as
well as cooling to your occupied space - oh and they charge a fee for same
and provide reimbursement of fees if they fail to provide.

In summary, If PIPE wants to change its mind then that¹s their prerogative,
but the intent of the clause is still the same as drafted by PIPE in 2002/3.
Perhaps it should let its customers know that the rules have changed and
that they now consider they no longer have the right to obtain
telecommunications services from competing providers ³as advertised² for the
past decade.  We saw what happened to all of (the old) AAPT¹s facilities
around Australia when that last happened in 2006/7.  The only AAPT
facilities that remain now are the Powertel facilities (with the exception
of East Melbourne which has always struggled).

A cautionary tale for other carriers who maybe contemplating on restricting
carrier access to their faciltiesŠ

Cheers

[b]

On 15/01/2014 8:09 am, "Andrew Jones" <aj at jonesy.com.au> wrote:

> On 14.01.2014 17:03, Matt Palmer wrote:
>>  On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:34:22AM +0800, Damian Guppy wrote:
>>>  I would think it is a lot more clear if a renter / owner of an
>>>  apartment or
>>>  leaser of office space is an occupier than if a colo customer is an
>>>  occupier, for one apartment renters / office leasers are covered
>>>  under
>>>  tennency laws which would provide the legal 'precedent' however colo
>>>  customers are not covered by these laws (IANAL)
>> 
>>  Oooh, next legal battle: get colo customers covered by commercial
>>  tenancy
>>  agreements...
> 
> PIPE's colo service schedule (at least the one I've seen) has a clause
> specifically stating that the contract does not create a tenancy between
> PIPE and the customer and does not give the customer occupation rights,
> license, easement etc.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20140115/67f5fab8/attachment.html>