[AusNOG] Avoiding the NBNco

[Andrew Cox]

There is only one valid reason I'm aware of to do this that doesn't just
involve earning yourself money and/or providing a different type of service.

In some locations where a business space or accommodation can be taken for
short time periods, the current business/resident may opt to sign up for a
3 (or more) year contract to get a cheap service for their business/room.
They then leave just a few weeks or months later and the service is now no
longer being paid for and the line is still connected and registered under
that person's name (who has either gone back overseas, or skipped town etc
etc etc). Someone else wants to come in and either a) they can't hook up
their own service as there is now an connection under contract that's not
been paid for on the existing line and can't be cancelled because no-one at
the location is able to speak on the users behalf or b) in some cases the
telco decides to bar the line from being utilised for any alternative
service until the outstanding bill has been paid.

If a centre operator / accommodation provider wants to protect themselves
against things like this then they have to prevent it and bring in
something they have more fine grained control over.

Just my 2c.

- Andrew


On 2 September 2014 16:55, Mark Currie <MCurrie at laserfast.com.au> wrote:

> Some shopping centre operators (such as some DFO sites) like to operate as
> a mini-isp/telco, and basically provision an Ethernet tail/direct dial PBX
> into the shop, and charge the shop for the privilege. We have a customer
> with a some shops in DFO's and some are basically forced to connect using
> the onsite PBX / Ethernet and they are a pain in the bum as the rest of the
> network is MPLS, so we have to put a VPN tail back to corporate firewall
> for them. Also, can you say "Price gouging", but because it is part of the
> rental "package", you cannot complain.. I know one DFO site was running on
> a 4Mb EoC tail (may have upgraded to 10Mb) to cover all the shops, it was
> bloody slow...
>
> Mark Currie
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Brad
> Gould
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 4:42 PM
> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Avoiding the NBNco
>
> Apart from protecting the commercial interests of the landlords/incumbent
> telco, why would that be a good idea?  Seems to be rather detrimental to
> the consumer?
>
> "Dislike" does not equal either a valid reason or lawful excuse to refuse
> a low impact facility.
>
> Brad
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul
> Wallace
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 16:02
> To: curtis at bayne.com.au
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> Subject: [AusNOG] Avoiding the NBNco
>
> 'Noggers -
>
> Does anyone know whether a shopping centre operator is able to bar the
> NBNco from building in to the shops therein?
>
> Sounds odd I know however, interestingly, some operators dislike the idea
> of the NBNco coming in!
>
> Thanks
> -P
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140903/42c8481f/attachment.html>