[AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"

Tue Apr 12 12:55:33 EST 2016

Hey David,

We have been testing the waters with low-impact ourselves recently.
Practically we have had no issues with scenario 4. Building manager use the
basic test of "will this interfere with my commercial activities?". If the
answer is "no" they've been happy to give us everything, including comms
rooms space, riser access and roof space. Sometimes they ask about power
consumption and potential remuneration for that. No one has pushed the
matter when they've realised the cost is negligible.

Ben Thompson

*3**Play Networks*
*p:* 1300 301 946
<jarrod at 3playnetworks.com.au>

ben.thompson at 3play.com.au

 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
for use by the Addressee only. The confidential nature of the information
contained in the email and/or file is not waived, lost or destroyed if it
is sent in error to other than the Addressee. Use or dissemination of the
information contained in the email and/or files by a recipient other than
the Addressee may cause commercial damage to both/either the Sender and/or
Addressee.If you are not the Addressee of this email/files please
immediately contact the Sender and delete this email/files.

On 12 April 2016 at 12:00, <ausnog-request at lists.ausnog.net> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Hughes [mailto:david at hughes.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:14 AM
> To: Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net) <
> ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
>
> Hi
>
> True.  At this stage I'm trying to get a good understanding of the
> "Powers" that are provider for by the act.  Based on my original post, I'm
> trying to determine which of the 4 situations is covered by the act as a
> low-impact facility and which would require an agreement with the building
> owner.  Clearly option 1 is covered, but that looks like it's about it.
> Clarification from anyone who utilises those provisions of the act would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> David
> ...
>
> On 12/04/2016, at 10:01 AM, Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Guess, it depends if you want to enforce carrier "Powers" or enter
> commercial terms. Commercial agreements have preference and we used to
> prefer amical commercial terms than enforce rights.
> >
> > I guess it all depends on what exact problem you are looking to solve?
> >
> >
> > Stephen Carter
> > Working Technology
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Hughes [mailto:david at hughes.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:52 AM
> > To: Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> > Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> > <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I've read through that previously and unless I'm misreading it there's
> basically no mention of co-location of any gear other than that required to
> terminate the incoming circuit.     "Parts 1, 5, 6 or item 3 from Part 4"
> relates to radio kit and termination of fibre (and unrelated stuff like pay
> phones).   From my interpretation (which clearly is lacking) there's no
> mention of any other gear that may be required to provision the end
> customer service.
> >
> > I'm clearly missing something here.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > David
> > ...
> >
> >
> > On 12/04/2016, at 9:43 AM, Stephen Carter <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> This is pretty specific
> >>
> >> https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012C00177
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen Carter
> >> Working Technology
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> James McMillan
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:33 AM
> >> To: Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au>; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> Depends on if it's a government agency serving the notice.
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> Joseph Goldman
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:27 AM
> >> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> "Multi-rack server room with redundant power, cooling and fire
> suppression, roof mounted genset and limited keycard+biometric access with
> security patrolling 24h"
> >>
> >> Surely we could get away with that! :D
> >>
> >> On 12/04/16 09:20, David Hughes wrote:
> >>> Morning all,
> >>>
> >>> The telco act is a bit fuzzy on the definition of a low-impact
> >>> facility so I'd appreciate a definition from real-world experience.
> >>> Is a low-impact installation limited to something like :-
> >>>
> >>> 1. A small antennae on roof space of a highrise building.
> >>> 2. An antennae plus associated riser cabling 3. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement 4. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement and kit on each floor
> >>>
> >>> At what stage above does the definition of "low impact" max out and
> the building owner has the right to say no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au" <
> paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au>
> To: "'David Hughes'" <david at hughes.com.au>, "'Stephen Carter'" <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> Cc: "'(AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)'" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:26:59 +1000
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> Hi David, we have had to push on a couple of occasions when doing low
> impact installs, sometimes strata can be painful, however they can't stop
> you from delivering a service to a customer unless they have some pretty
> damn good reasons, and the law is on the carriers side and the TIO are
> pretty good about it too.
>
> My take on it is that low impact is basically whatever you need within
> reason to deliver a service to a client.
> You need to keep things as simple as possible, keep them as compact as
> possible, and with antennas as low as possible.
>
> For our installs we install in the MDF room, we install a 6RU rack
> typically, some installs are fibre to there, some are wireless backhaul.
>
> So for us a low impact install would often consist of a 6RU rack, some
> power from house power, cabling to Main Distribution Frame, some CAT6 to
> the roof and a compact antenna mount with an antenna on it, smallest size
> possible.
>
> As Stephen said, being nice and having a simple agreement is by far the
> best way to approach the situation.
> We have only had one major problem where the strata group contacted the
> TIO and complained about our approach, but we did everything correctly and
> tried to be amicable and the TIO ended up telling them they couldn't do
> anything and we had the right to install the gear, which we did, then they
> charged us for power LOL, nothing we could do about that though as they can
> actually charge you for that.
> We later found out that there was a company in that building who didn't
> like the competition and they were the ones trying to stop us coming in
> there.
>
> At the end of the day approach the building, talk to them, serve them your
> notice of intention to install, provide thorough details on what you
> propose to install, where, and when and give them a chance to come back to
> you, it's definitely the easiest way.
>
> Regards
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of David
> Hughes
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:13 AM
> To: Stephen Carter
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
>
> Hi
>
> True.  At this stage I'm trying to get a good understanding of the
> "Powers" that are provider for by the act.  Based on my original post, I'm
> trying to determine which of the 4 situations is covered by the act as a
> low-impact facility and which would require an agreement with the building
> owner.  Clearly option 1 is covered, but that looks like it's about it.
> Clarification from anyone who utilises those provisions of the act would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> David
> ...
>
> On 12/04/2016, at 10:01 AM, Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Guess, it depends if you want to enforce carrier "Powers" or enter
> commercial terms. Commercial agreements have preference and we used to
> prefer amical commercial terms than enforce rights.
> >
> > I guess it all depends on what exact problem you are looking to solve?
> >
> >
> > Stephen Carter
> > Working Technology
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Hughes [mailto:david at hughes.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:52 AM
> > To: Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> > Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> > <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I've read through that previously and unless I'm misreading it there's
> basically no mention of co-location of any gear other than that required to
> terminate the incoming circuit.     "Parts 1, 5, 6 or item 3 from Part 4"
> relates to radio kit and termination of fibre (and unrelated stuff like pay
> phones).   From my interpretation (which clearly is lacking) there's no
> mention of any other gear that may be required to provision the end
> customer service.
> >
> > I'm clearly missing something here.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > David
> > ...
> >
> >
> > On 12/04/2016, at 9:43 AM, Stephen Carter <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> This is pretty specific
> >>
> >> https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012C00177
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen Carter
> >> Working Technology
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> James McMillan
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:33 AM
> >> To: Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au>; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> Depends on if it's a government agency serving the notice.
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> Joseph Goldman
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:27 AM
> >> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> "Multi-rack server room with redundant power, cooling and fire
> suppression, roof mounted genset and limited keycard+biometric access with
> security patrolling 24h"
> >>
> >> Surely we could get away with that! :D
> >>
> >> On 12/04/16 09:20, David Hughes wrote:
> >>> Morning all,
> >>>
> >>> The telco act is a bit fuzzy on the definition of a low-impact
> >>> facility so I'd appreciate a definition from real-world experience.
> >>> Is a low-impact installation limited to something like :-
> >>>
> >>> 1. A small antennae on roof space of a highrise building.
> >>> 2. An antennae plus associated riser cabling 3. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement 4. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement and kit on each floor
> >>>
> >>> At what stage above does the definition of "low impact" max out and
> the building owner has the right to say no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Hughes <david at hughes.com.au>
> To: "paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au" <paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au
> >
> Cc: "(AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:45:21 +0000
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
>
> On 12/04/2016, at 10:26 AM, paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au wrote:
>
> > At the end of the day approach the building, talk to them, serve them
> your notice of intention to install, provide thorough details on what you
> propose to install, where, and when and give them a chance to come back to
> you, it's definitely the easiest way.
>
>
> Hi
>
> Absolutely, and that's the intention.  I was trying to get a more clear
> understanding of what could be achieved using the low-impact provisions
> prior to negotiations commencing.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> David
> ...
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>
> To: David Hughes <david at hughes.com.au>, Stephen Carter <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)" <
> ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:48:42 +1000
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> Dave -
>
> I assume the land you are considering is just private land &  therefore
> not special circumstances as might be (rarely) protected under the Act
> (such as public utilities land).
>
> The first thing you should do Dave is to serve a formal inspection notice,
> relying on the related provisions under Schedule 3 of the Act.
>
> It's still called a "LAAN" however provision is made (and in nearly all
> cases you'll wanna do this anyway) to attend for the purposes of an
> inspection only.
>
> It's basically impossible for them to deny you access at this stage.
>
> That will put the Landowner on notice that you're aware of your powers but
> still leaves the door open to negotiate a mutually satisfactory outcome.
>
> Works well- I've done it plenty of times - will do it again in the future
> - nothings perfect though so if it doesn't perfectly work out in your
> desired way then you can always serve the full formal LAAN after that. You
> can withdraw the LAAN even after that if the Landowner THEN decides he'd
> like to sit down with you instead of quarrelling.
>
> Cheers
> -P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of David
> Hughes
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:14 AM
> To: Stephen Carter
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
>
> Hi
>
> True.  At this stage I'm trying to get a good understanding of the
> "Powers" that are provider for by the act.  Based on my original post, I'm
> trying to determine which of the 4 situations is covered by the act as a
> low-impact facility and which would require an agreement with the building
> owner.  Clearly option 1 is covered, but that looks like it's about it.
> Clarification from anyone who utilises those provisions of the act would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> David
> ...
>
> On 12/04/2016, at 10:01 AM, Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Guess, it depends if you want to enforce carrier "Powers" or enter
> commercial terms. Commercial agreements have preference and we used to
> prefer amical commercial terms than enforce rights.
> >
> > I guess it all depends on what exact problem you are looking to solve?
> >
> >
> > Stephen Carter
> > Working Technology
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Hughes [mailto:david at hughes.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:52 AM
> > To: Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> > Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> > <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I've read through that previously and unless I'm misreading it there's
> basically no mention of co-location of any gear other than that required to
> terminate the incoming circuit.     "Parts 1, 5, 6 or item 3 from Part 4"
> relates to radio kit and termination of fibre (and unrelated stuff like pay
> phones).   From my interpretation (which clearly is lacking) there's no
> mention of any other gear that may be required to provision the end
> customer service.
> >
> > I'm clearly missing something here.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > David
> > ...
> >
> >
> > On 12/04/2016, at 9:43 AM, Stephen Carter <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> This is pretty specific
> >>
> >> https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012C00177
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen Carter
> >> Working Technology
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> James McMillan
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:33 AM
> >> To: Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au>; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> Depends on if it's a government agency serving the notice.
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> Joseph Goldman
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:27 AM
> >> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> "Multi-rack server room with redundant power, cooling and fire
> suppression, roof mounted genset and limited keycard+biometric access with
> security patrolling 24h"
> >>
> >> Surely we could get away with that! :D
> >>
> >> On 12/04/16 09:20, David Hughes wrote:
> >>> Morning all,
> >>>
> >>> The telco act is a bit fuzzy on the definition of a low-impact
> >>> facility so I'd appreciate a definition from real-world experience.
> >>> Is a low-impact installation limited to something like :-
> >>>
> >>> 1. A small antennae on roof space of a highrise building.
> >>> 2. An antennae plus associated riser cabling 3. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement 4. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement and kit on each floor
> >>>
> >>> At what stage above does the definition of "low impact" max out and
> the building owner has the right to say no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Brooks <paul.brooks at tridentsc.com.au>
> To: "David J. Hughes" <bambi at hughes.com.au>
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:13:52 +1000
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> Licensed carrier or unlicensed carriage service provider?
>
> Low-impact is more about outdoor structures. Trenches, cables in the
> ground, pillars,
> and ground pedestals/road-side cabinets less than a certain size.
>
> If you are talking a tower attached to a building, then less than 5 metres
> high is
> low-impact.
> overhead cabling is not low-impact, nor is any tower that isn't attached
> to a building.
>
> For indoor rules, I suspect you aren't looking for low-impact facilities,
> but rather
> you might find some answers in
> the Telecommunications Code Of Practice
> (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2004C01081)
> G571 Building Access Operations and Installation
> (
> http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/2328/G571_2002.pdf
> )
>
> You *have* looked at the actual Low Impact Determination I hope!
> https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012C00177
>
>
>
> On 12/04/2016 10:45 AM, David Hughes wrote:
> >
> > On 12/04/2016, at 10:26 AM, paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au wrote:
> >
> >> At the end of the day approach the building, talk to them, serve them
> your notice of intention to install, provide thorough details on what you
> propose to install, where, and when and give them a chance to come back to
> you, it's definitely the easiest way.
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Absolutely, and that's the intention.  I was trying to get a more clear
> understanding of what could be achieved using the low-impact provisions
> prior to negotiations commencing.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > David
> > ...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au>
> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:14:43 +1000
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 09:26 +1000, Joseph Goldman wrote:
> > "Multi-rack server room with redundant power, cooling and fire
> > suppression, roof mounted genset and limited keycard+biometric access
> > with security patrolling 24h"
>
> "It was the twin roof-mounted fully-automatic swivel guns that became a
> sticking point."
>
> Regards, K.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
> http://twitter.com/kauer389
>
> GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
> Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au" <
> paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au>
> To: "'Paul Wallace'" <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>, "'David Hughes'" <
> david at hughes.com.au>, "'Stephen Carter'" <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> Cc: "'(AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)'" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:16:29 +1000
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> Totally agree with this approach, it works well 99% of the time.
>
> Ultimately low impact I reckon is just the absolute essentials that you
> need to install to provide a service to a client, the act really doesn't
> and can't define it fully as there are too many variables.
> If you are just doing a wireless link like Bigair or something then you
> will need cabling, maybe a box to inject POE in the MDF and an antenna on
> the roof, if it's a FTTB install you will need a rack and stuff in the MDF
> room, it will all depend on what you are delivering, but keep it simple and
> you shouldn't have any issues.
>
> We are always respectful of the environment we work in with others as
> well, I recently had a Telstra tech comment on how neat my cabling was in
> an MDF room, when I said that it was important to keep things neat and tidy
> so that others would find it easier to share the space I think he just
> about had a heart attack, if more people considered others in such shared
> environments it would be so much easier.
>
> Often people who give you trouble when you want to install something are
> the ones who have been burnt by other providers in the past, installing
> stuff they didn't agree to, leaving a mess, not locking doors after them,
> etc, etc, these people make it harder for the majority of people who do the
> right thing.
>
> Regards
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul
> Wallace
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:49 AM
> To: David Hughes; Stephen Carter
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
> Dave -
>
> I assume the land you are considering is just private land &  therefore
> not special circumstances as might be (rarely) protected under the Act
> (such as public utilities land).
>
> The first thing you should do Dave is to serve a formal inspection notice,
> relying on the related provisions under Schedule 3 of the Act.
>
> It's still called a "LAAN" however provision is made (and in nearly all
> cases you'll wanna do this anyway) to attend for the purposes of an
> inspection only.
>
> It's basically impossible for them to deny you access at this stage.
>
> That will put the Landowner on notice that you're aware of your powers but
> still leaves the door open to negotiate a mutually satisfactory outcome.
>
> Works well- I've done it plenty of times - will do it again in the future
> - nothings perfect though so if it doesn't perfectly work out in your
> desired way then you can always serve the full formal LAAN after that. You
> can withdraw the LAAN even after that if the Landowner THEN decides he'd
> like to sit down with you instead of quarrelling.
>
> Cheers
> -P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of David
> Hughes
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:14 AM
> To: Stephen Carter
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
>
> Hi
>
> True.  At this stage I'm trying to get a good understanding of the
> "Powers" that are provider for by the act.  Based on my original post, I'm
> trying to determine which of the 4 situations is covered by the act as a
> low-impact facility and which would require an agreement with the building
> owner.  Clearly option 1 is covered, but that looks like it's about it.
> Clarification from anyone who utilises those provisions of the act would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> David
> ...
>
> On 12/04/2016, at 10:01 AM, Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Guess, it depends if you want to enforce carrier "Powers" or enter
> commercial terms. Commercial agreements have preference and we used to
> prefer amical commercial terms than enforce rights.
> >
> > I guess it all depends on what exact problem you are looking to solve?
> >
> >
> > Stephen Carter
> > Working Technology
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Hughes [mailto:david at hughes.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:52 AM
> > To: Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> > Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> > <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I've read through that previously and unless I'm misreading it there's
> basically no mention of co-location of any gear other than that required to
> terminate the incoming circuit.     "Parts 1, 5, 6 or item 3 from Part 4"
> relates to radio kit and termination of fibre (and unrelated stuff like pay
> phones).   From my interpretation (which clearly is lacking) there's no
> mention of any other gear that may be required to provision the end
> customer service.
> >
> > I'm clearly missing something here.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > David
> > ...
> >
> >
> > On 12/04/2016, at 9:43 AM, Stephen Carter <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> This is pretty specific
> >>
> >> https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012C00177
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen Carter
> >> Working Technology
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> James McMillan
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:33 AM
> >> To: Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au>; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> Depends on if it's a government agency serving the notice.
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> Joseph Goldman
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:27 AM
> >> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> "Multi-rack server room with redundant power, cooling and fire
> suppression, roof mounted genset and limited keycard+biometric access with
> security patrolling 24h"
> >>
> >> Surely we could get away with that! :D
> >>
> >> On 12/04/16 09:20, David Hughes wrote:
> >>> Morning all,
> >>>
> >>> The telco act is a bit fuzzy on the definition of a low-impact
> >>> facility so I'd appreciate a definition from real-world experience.
> >>> Is a low-impact installation limited to something like :-
> >>>
> >>> 1. A small antennae on roof space of a highrise building.
> >>> 2. An antennae plus associated riser cabling 3. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement 4. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement and kit on each floor
> >>>
> >>> At what stage above does the definition of "low impact" max out and
> the building owner has the right to say no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>
> To: "paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au" <paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au>,
> "'David Hughes'" <david at hughes.com.au>, "'Stephen Carter'" <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> Cc: "'(AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)'" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:26:04 +1000
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> If by "charge" you for "power then that's not perfectly accurate.
>
> You do need to compensate them to a greater or lesser degree (see NBN Co v
> Pipe Networks in the Federal Court of Australia).
>
> -P
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:27 AM
> To: 'David Hughes'; 'Stephen Carter'
> Cc: '(AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)'
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
> Hi David, we have had to push on a couple of occasions when doing low
> impact installs, sometimes strata can be painful, however they can't stop
> you from delivering a service to a customer unless they have some pretty
> damn good reasons, and the law is on the carriers side and the TIO are
> pretty good about it too.
>
> My take on it is that low impact is basically whatever you need within
> reason to deliver a service to a client.
> You need to keep things as simple as possible, keep them as compact as
> possible, and with antennas as low as possible.
>
> For our installs we install in the MDF room, we install a 6RU rack
> typically, some installs are fibre to there, some are wireless backhaul.
>
> So for us a low impact install would often consist of a 6RU rack, some
> power from house power, cabling to Main Distribution Frame, some CAT6 to
> the roof and a compact antenna mount with an antenna on it, smallest size
> possible.
>
> As Stephen said, being nice and having a simple agreement is by far the
> best way to approach the situation.
> We have only had one major problem where the strata group contacted the
> TIO and complained about our approach, but we did everything correctly and
> tried to be amicable and the TIO ended up telling them they couldn't do
> anything and we had the right to install the gear, which we did, then they
> charged us for power LOL, nothing we could do about that though as they can
> actually charge you for that.
> We later found out that there was a company in that building who didn't
> like the competition and they were the ones trying to stop us coming in
> there.
>
> At the end of the day approach the building, talk to them, serve them your
> notice of intention to install, provide thorough details on what you
> propose to install, where, and when and give them a chance to come back to
> you, it's definitely the easiest way.
>
> Regards
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of David
> Hughes
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:13 AM
> To: Stephen Carter
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
>
> Hi
>
> True.  At this stage I'm trying to get a good understanding of the
> "Powers" that are provider for by the act.  Based on my original post, I'm
> trying to determine which of the 4 situations is covered by the act as a
> low-impact facility and which would require an agreement with the building
> owner.  Clearly option 1 is covered, but that looks like it's about it.
> Clarification from anyone who utilises those provisions of the act would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> David
> ...
>
> On 12/04/2016, at 10:01 AM, Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Guess, it depends if you want to enforce carrier "Powers" or enter
> commercial terms. Commercial agreements have preference and we used to
> prefer amical commercial terms than enforce rights.
> >
> > I guess it all depends on what exact problem you are looking to solve?
> >
> >
> > Stephen Carter
> > Working Technology
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Hughes [mailto:david at hughes.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:52 AM
> > To: Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> > Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> > <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I've read through that previously and unless I'm misreading it there's
> basically no mention of co-location of any gear other than that required to
> terminate the incoming circuit.     "Parts 1, 5, 6 or item 3 from Part 4"
> relates to radio kit and termination of fibre (and unrelated stuff like pay
> phones).   From my interpretation (which clearly is lacking) there's no
> mention of any other gear that may be required to provision the end
> customer service.
> >
> > I'm clearly missing something here.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > David
> > ...
> >
> >
> > On 12/04/2016, at 9:43 AM, Stephen Carter <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> This is pretty specific
> >>
> >> https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012C00177
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen Carter
> >> Working Technology
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> James McMillan
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:33 AM
> >> To: Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au>; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> Depends on if it's a government agency serving the notice.
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> Joseph Goldman
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:27 AM
> >> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> "Multi-rack server room with redundant power, cooling and fire
> suppression, roof mounted genset and limited keycard+biometric access with
> security patrolling 24h"
> >>
> >> Surely we could get away with that! :D
> >>
> >> On 12/04/16 09:20, David Hughes wrote:
> >>> Morning all,
> >>>
> >>> The telco act is a bit fuzzy on the definition of a low-impact
> >>> facility so I'd appreciate a definition from real-world experience.
> >>> Is a low-impact installation limited to something like :-
> >>>
> >>> 1. A small antennae on roof space of a highrise building.
> >>> 2. An antennae plus associated riser cabling 3. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement 4. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement and kit on each floor
> >>>
> >>> At what stage above does the definition of "low impact" max out and
> the building owner has the right to say no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>
> To: Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>, "
> paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au" <paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au>,
> "'David Hughes'" <david at hughes.com.au>, "'Stephen Carter'" <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> Cc: "'(AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)'" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:27:40 +1000
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> Sorry - it was in the Supreme Court of NSW
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul
> Wallace
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 11:26 AM
> To: paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au; 'David Hughes'; 'Stephen Carter'
> Cc: '(AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)'
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
> If by "charge" you for "power then that's not perfectly accurate.
>
> You do need to compensate them to a greater or lesser degree (see NBN Co v
> Pipe Networks in the Federal Court of Australia).
>
> -P
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:27 AM
> To: 'David Hughes'; 'Stephen Carter'
> Cc: '(AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)'
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
> Hi David, we have had to push on a couple of occasions when doing low
> impact installs, sometimes strata can be painful, however they can't stop
> you from delivering a service to a customer unless they have some pretty
> damn good reasons, and the law is on the carriers side and the TIO are
> pretty good about it too.
>
> My take on it is that low impact is basically whatever you need within
> reason to deliver a service to a client.
> You need to keep things as simple as possible, keep them as compact as
> possible, and with antennas as low as possible.
>
> For our installs we install in the MDF room, we install a 6RU rack
> typically, some installs are fibre to there, some are wireless backhaul.
>
> So for us a low impact install would often consist of a 6RU rack, some
> power from house power, cabling to Main Distribution Frame, some CAT6 to
> the roof and a compact antenna mount with an antenna on it, smallest size
> possible.
>
> As Stephen said, being nice and having a simple agreement is by far the
> best way to approach the situation.
> We have only had one major problem where the strata group contacted the
> TIO and complained about our approach, but we did everything correctly and
> tried to be amicable and the TIO ended up telling them they couldn't do
> anything and we had the right to install the gear, which we did, then they
> charged us for power LOL, nothing we could do about that though as they can
> actually charge you for that.
> We later found out that there was a company in that building who didn't
> like the competition and they were the ones trying to stop us coming in
> there.
>
> At the end of the day approach the building, talk to them, serve them your
> notice of intention to install, provide thorough details on what you
> propose to install, where, and when and give them a chance to come back to
> you, it's definitely the easiest way.
>
> Regards
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of David
> Hughes
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:13 AM
> To: Stephen Carter
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
>
> Hi
>
> True.  At this stage I'm trying to get a good understanding of the
> "Powers" that are provider for by the act.  Based on my original post, I'm
> trying to determine which of the 4 situations is covered by the act as a
> low-impact facility and which would require an agreement with the building
> owner.  Clearly option 1 is covered, but that looks like it's about it.
> Clarification from anyone who utilises those provisions of the act would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> David
> ...
>
> On 12/04/2016, at 10:01 AM, Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Guess, it depends if you want to enforce carrier "Powers" or enter
> commercial terms. Commercial agreements have preference and we used to
> prefer amical commercial terms than enforce rights.
> >
> > I guess it all depends on what exact problem you are looking to solve?
> >
> >
> > Stephen Carter
> > Working Technology
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Hughes [mailto:david at hughes.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:52 AM
> > To: Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> > Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> > <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I've read through that previously and unless I'm misreading it there's
> basically no mention of co-location of any gear other than that required to
> terminate the incoming circuit.     "Parts 1, 5, 6 or item 3 from Part 4"
> relates to radio kit and termination of fibre (and unrelated stuff like pay
> phones).   From my interpretation (which clearly is lacking) there's no
> mention of any other gear that may be required to provision the end
> customer service.
> >
> > I'm clearly missing something here.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > David
> > ...
> >
> >
> > On 12/04/2016, at 9:43 AM, Stephen Carter <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> This is pretty specific
> >>
> >> https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012C00177
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen Carter
> >> Working Technology
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> James McMillan
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:33 AM
> >> To: Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au>; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> Depends on if it's a government agency serving the notice.
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> Joseph Goldman
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:27 AM
> >> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> "Multi-rack server room with redundant power, cooling and fire
> suppression, roof mounted genset and limited keycard+biometric access with
> security patrolling 24h"
> >>
> >> Surely we could get away with that! :D
> >>
> >> On 12/04/16 09:20, David Hughes wrote:
> >>> Morning all,
> >>>
> >>> The telco act is a bit fuzzy on the definition of a low-impact
> >>> facility so I'd appreciate a definition from real-world experience.
> >>> Is a low-impact installation limited to something like :-
> >>>
> >>> 1. A small antennae on roof space of a highrise building.
> >>> 2. An antennae plus associated riser cabling 3. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement 4. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement and kit on each floor
> >>>
> >>> At what stage above does the definition of "low impact" max out and
> the building owner has the right to say no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Dylan Chidgey <dylan.chidgey at cirruscomms.com.au>
> To: Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>, David Hughes <
> david at hughes.com.au>
> Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)" <
> ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:38:45 +0000
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> Hi David
>
> This document released by the TIO should help you as ultimately they may
> be the ones standing in the way of a LAAN proceeding or not.
>
>
> https://www.tio.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/168227/Guidelines-on-the-installation-and-maintenance-of-low-impact-facilities-APRIL-2015.pdf
>
> Kind regards
>
> Dylan.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Carter
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:17 AM
> To: David Hughes <david at hughes.com.au>
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net) <
> ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
> Under Schedule 4 if you have a commercial agreement this has precedence. I
> will have to pull out the act if you want the ref?
>
>
>
> Stephen Carter
> Working Technology
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Hughes [mailto:david at hughes.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:14 AM
> To: Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net) <
> ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
>
>
> Hi
>
> True.  At this stage I'm trying to get a good understanding of the
> "Powers" that are provider for by the act.  Based on my original post, I'm
> trying to determine which of the 4 situations is covered by the act as a
> low-impact facility and which would require an agreement with the building
> owner.  Clearly option 1 is covered, but that looks like it's about it.
> Clarification from anyone who utilises those provisions of the act would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> David
> ...
>
> On 12/04/2016, at 10:01 AM, Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Guess, it depends if you want to enforce carrier "Powers" or enter
> commercial terms. Commercial agreements have preference and we used to
> prefer amical commercial terms than enforce rights.
> >
> > I guess it all depends on what exact problem you are looking to solve?
> >
> >
> > Stephen Carter
> > Working Technology
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Hughes [mailto:david at hughes.com.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:52 AM
> > To: Stephen Carter <Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com>
> > Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net (AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net)
> > <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I've read through that previously and unless I'm misreading it there's
> basically no mention of co-location of any gear other than that required to
> terminate the incoming circuit.     "Parts 1, 5, 6 or item 3 from Part 4"
> relates to radio kit and termination of fibre (and unrelated stuff like pay
> phones).   From my interpretation (which clearly is lacking) there's no
> mention of any other gear that may be required to provision the end
> customer service.
> >
> > I'm clearly missing something here.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > David
> > ...
> >
> >
> > On 12/04/2016, at 9:43 AM, Stephen Carter <
> Stephen.Carter at workingtech.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> This is pretty specific
> >>
> >> https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012C00177
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen Carter
> >> Working Technology
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> James McMillan
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:33 AM
> >> To: Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au>; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> Depends on if it's a government agency serving the notice.
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of
> >> Joseph Goldman
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2016 9:27 AM
> >> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> >> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Practical definition of "low impact"
> >>
> >> "Multi-rack server room with redundant power, cooling and fire
> suppression, roof mounted genset and limited keycard+biometric access with
> security patrolling 24h"
> >>
> >> Surely we could get away with that! :D
> >>
> >> On 12/04/16 09:20, David Hughes wrote:
> >>> Morning all,
> >>>
> >>> The telco act is a bit fuzzy on the definition of a low-impact
> >>> facility so I'd appreciate a definition from real-world experience.
> >>> Is a low-impact installation limited to something like :-
> >>>
> >>> 1. A small antennae on roof space of a highrise building.
> >>> 2. An antennae plus associated riser cabling 3. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement 4. An antennae plus
> >>> associated riser cabling plus kit in basement and kit on each floor
> >>>
> >>> At what stage above does the definition of "low impact" max out and
> the building owner has the right to say no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160412/41b5acd7/attachment-0001.html>