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

[Damian Guppy]

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)

--Damian


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:23 AM, John Lindsay <johnslindsay at mac.com> wrote:

> Imagine how good it will be for TPG's FTTB strategy if they win this?
>
> Every building owner in Australia will say "sod off" when they try to gain
> access.
>
> You win and you lose.
>
> John Lindsay
>
> > On 14 Jan 2014, at 2:18 pm, Luke Iggleden <luke+ausnog at sisgroup.com.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > My point was its a carrier to carrier dispute, I would have thought the
> TIO would be powerless for this. Time will tell.
> >
> > What's more interesting is what will pan out as a result of this and
> possibly set a precedent. Are co-located clients, who lease a space from a
> datacenter "occupiers" or not.
> >
> > By my definition of occupied they would be, but who knows, I'm not from
> legal counsel. Has this been tested in the past? @bev?
> >
> >
> >> On 14/01/2014 2:11 pm, Patrick Cole wrote:
> >> Luke,
> >>
> >>
> http://www.tio.com.au/about-us/policies-and-procedures/objections-to-land-access-activity
> >>
> >> The TIO seems to be the place to go with objections to land access
> notices
> >> that cannot be resolved by other means.
> >>
> >> Pat
> >>
> >> Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:07:15PM +1100, Luke Iggleden wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not sure what the TIO will do with this.
> >>>
> >>> Numerous items listed in their constitution seem to exclude them from
> >>> looking into this:
> >>>
> >>> 4.3 The functions of the TIO do not extend to complaints relating to:
> >>>
> >>> (i)
> >>> matters which may involve anti competitive behaviour or restrictive
> >>> practices potentially in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974;
> >>> (j)
> >>> matters which are specifically under consideration by the Australian
> >>> Communications and Media Authority, the Australian Competition and
> >>> Consumer Commission or any court or tribunal, or which have been
> >>> considered by any of those bodies previously;
> >>> (k)
> >>> the content of a content service (as defined in The Telecommunications
> >>> Act 1997); and
> >>> (l)
> >>> an alleged breach of an industry code or industry standard by a member
> >>> of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Limited, where the
> >>> complaint is made by a member of the Telecommunications Industry
> >>> Ombudsman Limited or another industry participant
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't handle inter-member disputes, doubt megaport is obliged to be a
> >>> member of the TIO which may exclude them in l.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 14/01/2014 12:40 pm, Bevan Slattery wrote:
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> As the subject line says?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://www.megaport.com/blog/entry/megaport-temporarily-suspends-new-megaport-orders-from-pipe-networks-datacentres-1.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Email Friendly
> >>>> http://bit.ly/1hkC82e
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>>
> >>>> [b]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> AusNOG mailing list
> >>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> >>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> AusNOG mailing list
> >>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> >>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140114/10719742/attachment.html>