[LINK] You want *more* lines?

[Adam Todd]

><sigh> Telstra's (or other local loop carriers(!)) obligations only apply 
>to the first/one phone per site?

Nope.  Only to the first POINT per line.  That is the first socket.  Or to 
the first 17 meters upon a property, so make sure your MDF is no more than 
17 meters!

>And even if they don't have to pay a penalty, it's still been 4 years to 
>finish a job.

No surprise.

>And to top it off, after the 4 years wait, it's been adjourned to next year.

Why not!  Telstra LOVE to delay things.  Been running around like 
irresponsible children the last few months with me.  And I thought I'd 
ditched them six months ago.

>There's so many things going wrong here.

Everywhere, every-where.

Just some legal comments on the details in the article:

>The black pipe still sticks out of the wall and the matter has landed in 
>the Supreme Court. The monastery is suing Telstra for $2.1 million in 
>punitive damages for breaching its own Universal Service Plan.

Wrong.  USP doesn't cover compensation.

>The monastery's counsel Robert Montgomery, said that under the plan 
>Telstra could be fined $40 a day for failing to connect a line within five 
>days in city and regional areas.

This is "Customer Service Guarantee" and is only available to a person or 
company that has less than FOUR services.

>The Communications Minister had set down strict guidelines for maintaining 
>performance standards, he said, and Telstra could be fined if they were 
>breached.

No, Telstra can only be fined if there are less than FOUR services.  84 
lines is OVER the limit by 80 services.  No you can't hit them for four 
lines and not worry about the other 80.  Worse off, there is no "If we fail 
we'll ..."  It's BLANK.

>The monastery had arrived at the $2.1 million figure for damages by 
>multiplying 84 phone applications by the $40-a-day penalty.

So what.  It only applies to orders or in places accounts with less than 4 
services.

If the 84 lines were ordered in 84 different names, that's a different story.

>Telstra is saying it has carried out its side of the contract because the 
>monastery already has a phone connection.

Correct.  It's only obligation is to provide CSG on the first four lines 
that existed.  Not the new 84 lines that exceed the CSG.

>It says it is not obliged under the customer service plan to guarantee 
>more than that.

That is correct.  It has NO obligation to meet any deadlines or time frames 
for any of the services held by an entity of greater than four.

>The dispute has come before Justice William Windeyer in the NSW Supreme Court

Great Judge!  I've given him professional evidence before.

>for an interpretation of Telstra's obligations under the 
>telecommunications regulations for connecting telephone handsets.

No confusion in the interpretation here.  Even I can't find a sneaky way 
into that one.

>The parties could not agree on the facts in court - in particular, who the 
>customer is.

Whomever the name the order is in!

>The monastery claims there are 84 customers - all students who are paying 
>to be connected to their own phones in their own rooms.

Nope, that would mean the Monastery is ONSELLING the services and then 
they'd need a carrier licence.  However if 84 students each placed an 
individual order, that's a different story.

>Telstra maintains that the customer is the monastery, which has a phone.

That's a bit weak.  The dispute isn't over any existing services!

>A Telstra spokesman said last night: "It's a complicated story. Telstra 
>had already provisioned many lines into that premises, and it is 
>disappointing that the matter is before the court."

No surprise.  Telstra might be disappointed to find more cases in court 
this year.

>He understood the company had connected about 30 lines at the monastery in 
>the past.

Well!  There you go!  Way outside the CSG!

>Justice Windeyer said he needed further information before he could make 
>the interpretive ruling.

Hmm, wonder what that might be?

>He wanted to know more about the students who needed the telephone lines.

If the students order the lines individually then telstra has a case, if 
the services were ordered by the Monastery then too bad.

>The matter has been adjourned to be heard in the Supreme Court next year.
>In the interim, when the 84 boarders at the monastery want to use the 
>phone, they queue up at the office.

Ahhh, the 1900's :)

>It is unclear what they do when they want to use the Internet.

Well with 30 lines already installed, that's easy!  All share the same 286!



----------
For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/