[AusNOG] Office Link Needed (Fibre or alike) Sydney

[Bevan Slattery]

Ok here¹s how it goes.

1.  Carriers can use their carrier powers to ignore cross-connects from DC
operators and install all the way to the customer premises.  Caveats to this
is where the carrier has come to a commercial arrangements with the DC
operator which over-rides Schedule 3 rights.  Also some DC operators make is
a condition of colo that the customer can only accept interconnects from the
DC operator.  This doesn¹t stop the carrier from installing, but it may stop
the customer from accepting.  There is also some issues for DC operators
aiming to restrict customers around ³bait and switch² and possibly third
line forcing that can come into play from an ACCC perspective, but that¹s
for another day.
As a carrier we always leave ³nothing in this agreement limits the our
Schedule 3 rights² for example.  I generally use the DC operators cabling,
but this is there in case they go feral and we need to go to war.

2.  Carriers have rights to enter buildings for the delivery of in-building
subscriber purposes.  Carriers have rights to use risers (not just telecom),
MDF rooms, building basements and now even have rights to access power.
This could even have a flow on effect to DC operators (interestingly).  Some
issues around heritage and native title.
Court Case between NBN Co v PIPE is here:
http://ipblog.tglaw.com.au/case-study-nbn-co-v-pipe-networks-2015-nswsc-475

PIPE v 101 Collins St in which PIPE won -
http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/23_may_2013/20130523/faciliti
es_access_case_sets_precedent_that_could_help_carriers_avoid_costs.page
PIPE won the case BUT the NBN was happy with that decision ­ because now the
NBN can rollout their FttN Nodes in the building MDF at no cost, access
their power and point the building owner to this case law as a way to shut
down the owner from trying to extort money from them.

3.  If a carrier incorrectly installs a service across a room without either
notification or approval and it is delivering a telecommunications service
the building owner does not have the right to interupt that service
unilaterally.  That is a Federal offence under the Crimes Act.

4.  Notify ­ order removal (sometimes involves trespass) and if not then go
to court.  BUT the interference of a telecommunications service is a Federal
crime.

5.  Normally under Schedule 3 there is a notification process to go into a
building and install services.  The only caveats to that are if it is for
the supply of services for someone like Defence, the service is down or at
risk of breaking service level.  Yes ­ in some very limited cases carriers
probably do have the right to run a 100m patch lead across a DC floor
without notice to the DC operator if there is an SLA issue.  Keep that in
the back pocket for a rainy dayŠ

Cheers

[b]

From:  Jonathan Brewer <jon.brewer at gmail.com>
Date:  Friday, 23 October 2015 7:29 am
To:  Christopher Pollock <cpollock at twitch.tv>
Cc:  "ausnog at ausnog.net" <ausnog at ausnog.net>
Subject:  Re: [AusNOG] Office Link Needed (Fibre or alike) Sydney

Questions & comments, if the audience pleases, to help me better understand
Australian law.

On 23 October 2015 at 06:31, Christopher Pollock <cpollock at twitch.tv> wrote:
> 
> Now, to explain a little about how public datacentres often work, generally
> the colo provider would charge you an exorbinant amount to install cabling
> between racks or to run patch leads, in the thousands.

This is how exchanges are run in NZ. You don't get to cross connect by
yourself. But that's commerce, isn't it? The hotel owner makes the rules. If
they don't want you partying in the hallways, you don't do it, or you get
thrown out of the hotel. Or is it different in Australia?
 
> However, anyone with a carrier license & cabling license and the right tools
> could run up their own in 15 minutes. This happened many times. Thousands of
> times. I would not be underestimating it to say that there were at least 5,000
> unregulated, unregistered cables in that datacentre floor.

This sounds like madness to me. It happens at Sky Tower Auckland, which is
just hideous - and the last place one would want to run a non-radio
production service. How does a carrier license and cabling license allow you
to treat private property any way you want? Does your carrier license allow
you to cross connect to another carrier in my back-yard? Can you just string
cables anywhere in Australia you want? These are serious questions.
> 
>> 
>> Me: WHAT ARE YOU DOING STOP
>> DC Tech: I¹m removing the inactive and unauthorised patches. I have an order
>> from management to do it.
>> Me: ARE YOU A F**KING IDIOT? DO YOU REALISE THAT THESE ARE ACTIVE
>> TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND THAT INTERFERING WITH OR DISCONNECTING THEM
>> IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE UNDER THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997!?

What happens in the case an "Active Telecommunications Service" is run in a
way that impinges on property rights? Or is run in a way that compromises
the safety of a facility? Or a street? Is there some legal precedence? Has
anyone ever been prosecuted under this Telecommunications Act 1997 for
removing bad cabling?

Finally, I had the unique opportunity to help out at bdNOG in Dhaka earlier
this year. Hats off to Bangladesh, who in six years have gone from 0.5m
Internet users to 43m Internet users. But the cabling... it's like your data
centre. Local ISPs just do whatever they want. Unregulated, unregistered
cables everywhere. And it looks like this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rsh3kt3muuj8q5f/2015-05-19%2008.40.29.jpg?dl=0

-JB
_______________________________________________ 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/20151023/f9976aea/attachment.html>