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

[Andrew Jones]

Thanks Bevan,
As a PIPE colo customer, it's certainly a worrying development.

On 15.01.2014 10:01, Bevan Slattery wrote:
> That is certainly their argument Andrew.
>
> Problem 1
> Schedule 3 doesn't mention "occupier" 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 "occupier rights" related to effectively
> to "squatting" rights hence the following wording relating to
> easements and licences. I should know what the intention was :) 
> PIPE's
> actions in accepting LAAN's 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 it's 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 that's 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
> "as advertised" for the past decade. We saw what happened to all of
> (the old) AAPT's 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 facilties…
>
> 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 [1]
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog