[AusNOG] Fibre run between Buildings

[Peter Tiggerdine]

How about to stop any shadey character just going into a street pit and
laying cable?


On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Sam Sarkis-UIP <ssarkis at unitedip.net.au>
wrote:

>  I can understand this if they were reselling the service to other
> companies and profiting from it.
>
>
>
> So why do Australians still need licenses before they can install cables?
>
>
>
> I don’t think it is fair if they own both buildings and if it is for their
> own internal use and not to resell.  I still believe they need to adhere to
> certain standards but don’t believe you should be a carrier for your own
> internal purpose.
>
>
>
> SS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> Newton
> *Sent:* Thursday, 16 October 2014 5:15 PM
> *To:* Paul Brooks
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Fibre run between Buildings
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>  We have laws pertaining to licensed carriers. What purposes are those
> laws supposed to be serving, are the purposes legitimate, are the laws
> actually serving them in practice, and are there any less-impactful laws
> which could serve them at least as well?
>
>
>
> Following some offline discussion:
>
>
>
> The *original* purpose of carrier licensing laws was to enable the
> government to control the rate at which competition was introduced to the
> Australian telco marketplace.
>
>
>
> Previously, the only company permitted to provide telco services was
> Telecom/Telstra.
>
>
>
> When the Government commenced the re-regulation* process, they rewrote the
> Telecommunications Act so that anyone with a carrier license could provide
> telco services.  Initially the only carrier license in existence was the
> one held by Telstra, so the initial state of the new law was essentially
> the same as what was previously in existence.
>
>
>
> Then the Government auctioned carrier licenses to Optus (if and only if
> they were granted a deed to Aussat) and Vodafone (which almost pulled out
> at the last minute due to concerns over competition, and was only convinced
> to remain in the game at the last minute when the Government said they’d
> force Telstra to close down the AMPS mobile phone network).
>
>
>
> A significant amount of time passed before they started offering carrier
> licenses to other organizations.
>
>
>
> The Government has used licensing as a place to hang a bunch of other
> stuff (e.g., USO payments, Telecommunications Interception requirements,
> etc;  Telstra also uses the lack of a license as an excuse to decline to
> engage with someone on a wholesale basis).  But there’s no specific reason
> why they can’t be achieved differently, like they are in virtually every
> other advanced Western economy.
>
>
>
> But the use of licenses to prevent the “premature” entry of new market
> players is clearly obsolete.
>
>
>
> So why do Australians still need licenses before they can install cables?
> Does this legislative prevention from entering a market continue to serve a
> useful purpose?
>
>
>
>    - mark
>
>
>
>
>
> [*] they called it de-regulation, but we all know how that turned out
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141016/136486a9/attachment.html>