CooperMills
|
Posts Tagged ‘telecommunications law’iiNet acquires InternodeThursday, December 22nd, 2011 National ISP iiNet has today announced the acquisition of competitor Internode in a $105 million deal. The acquisition will see iiNet add a further 190,000 broadband DSL subscribers and 260,000 active services. Internode has forecast FY12 earnings of $180 million. Internode founder and MD Simon Hackett will remain as part of the executive team at Internode. The acquisition by iiNet will solidify its position as the second largest Australian ISP in the residential broadband DSL market. The acquisition is due to be completed on 29 February 2012.
 Tags: iiNet, Internode, isp law, ISP Lawyers, telecommunications law TIO Releases Annual ReportTuesday, November 8th, 2011 The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman today released its annual report, which highlighted a spike in the number of complaints received, with mobile phone services leading the rise in complaints. Of particular note there was a 26 per cent increase in disputes about internet charges on a mobile service. According to the Report:
The TIO figures have been controversial in the past, with critics claiming that the TIO double and triple counts complaints, which results in the high headline number of complaints. The TIO data will not doubt be seized on my the ACMA, who is looking at reform of the Telco industry following the release of its Reconnecting the Customer report. Tags: ACMA, ISP Lawyers, telco lawyer, telecommunications law, telecommunications lawyer, TIO Communications Authority launches new regulatory pushTuesday, September 13th, 2011 Retail internet and voice service providers are about to see the next wave of regulation from the Australian Government. This time, it is the Australian Communications and Media Authority (‘ACMA’) that is driving the changes. ACMA is demanding a series of major changes to advertising and sales practices, as well as billing and complaint handling. It is allowing the industry a short time to adopt the changes ‘voluntarily’ via an updated Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code. If that does not happen, it will enforce its requirements using its own powers. Quoting ACMA: The ACMA is giving industry five months in which to develop a revised code dealing with the matters that it considers must be changed. If those changes cannot be made within that time, the ACMA will intervene directly to implement its proposals by way of a standard. Unless the industry adopts the ‘proposals’ in its Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code (‘TCP Code’) , ACMA will mandate them. Chris Chapman has now been reported as saying: “The industry [is] ‘formally on notice’ to reflect the proposed changes in the new TCP code. If the industry doesn’t develop a code that addresses ACMA’s concerns, the ACMA will mandate changes through direct regulation.” ACMA’s new ‘proposed’ rules
Comment Initially, it will be up to the industry (through Communications Alliance) to redesign its TCP Code to satisfy ACMA. If that fails, a mandatory new industry standard is inevitable. What should service providers be doing now? First, it is important to realise that the main points are all locked in – as far as ACMA is concerned. Consultation on the changes is finished. There is room to refine the details, but the headline elements listed above are not negotiable for ACMA. Second, you should consider whether you want to engage with Communications Alliance about any changes to the TCP Code. These changes will affect you and your sales and delivery processes. If you want to influence the TCP Code process, you’ll need to be prepared. There are only five months left for Communications Alliance to produce a document that satisfies ACMA. Third, you should start to think about how your business will comply with requirements along the lines of those outlined above. What will your marketing / sales / delivery / complaints handling look like in 2012? Will you be well positioned to prosper in the new environment? How? Tags: ACMA, IT Lawyers, technology lawyers, Telco Lawyers, telecommunications law, Telecommunications Lawyers Optus hit with $5.26 million fineMonday, July 11th, 2011 Optus has been hit with a $5.26m penalty in the Federal Court, for falsely advertising broadband download quotas. The decision heralds a new level of risk in communications advertising in Australia. The clear rule is that high-powered headlines plus small print equals advertising danger. This bulletin explains:
What Optus advertised (a) In April 2010, Optus campaigned for a new range of ‘Think Bigger’ broadband plans. (b) Each plan included a large data allowance (120/150/170GB) divided into ‘peak’ and ‘off-peak’ entitlements eg the 120GB plan was advertised with 50GB peak usage and 70GB off-peak usage allowance. (c) The disclaimers stated: ‘Speed limited once peak data exceeded’. How the advertised plans really worked (a) When peak allowance was used, entire service was shaped to 64kbps for rest of month. (b) Shaping applied to remaining off-peak allowance as well. (c) So, for instance, if customer used whole 50GB peak allowance first, then entire 70GB off-peak allowance shaped to 64kbps. (d) But if off-peak was exhausted first, further off-peak MBs were deducted from peak allowance, and shaping applied when that was exhausted. How Optus defended the plans Optus said that ‘Speed limited once peak data exceeded’ was a sufficient explanation: Once your peak allowance is reached, speed is limited. Why ACCC took action ACCC disagreed that the disclaimer was a clear and proper explanation. It argued: (a) Public would assume that peak and off-peak entitlements were independent. (b) Public would not understand that exhausting peak use would result in off-peak speed shaping to non-broadband speed. What the court said and did in 2010 (a) The court agreed with ACCC. (b) Court said that ordinary people simply wouldn’t understand the full rules of the plans, based on the advertising. (c) Court particularly attacked ‘headline advertising’ where a powerful headline told one story and small print told a different story. (d) Said there was:
(e) 29 October 2010: Court ruled that advertising was deceptive. (f) 2 November 2010: Court banned Optus from repeating that kind of advertising for 3 years[1]. (g) 19 November 2010: Court ordered Optus to write to all affected customers offering remedies. (h) 8 December 2010: Court held a penalty hearing. What the court did on 7 July 2011 Announcing the result of the penalty hearing, the court ruled that Optus must pay the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty of $5.26m. Why a $5.26m penalty is now possible (a) Before 2010, no financial penalty was possible under the law in a case like this. (b) In 2010, the Competition and Consumer Act[2] (‘CCA’) was amended to allow the court to impose penalties on a company of up to $1.1m per breach of certain sections of the CCA. That includes breaches of the law against misleading about ‘the quantity of services’. Other provisions that can attract penalties The new penalties are available for a wide range of breaches that communications providers should keep in mind. Here’s a non-exhaustive list: (a) misrepresentations that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model (b) misrepresentations that services are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade (c) misrepresentations that a particular person has agreed to acquire goods or services (d) misrepresentations that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits (e) misrepresentation that the person making the representation has a sponsorship, approval or affiliation (f) misrepresentation with respect to the price of goods or services (g) misrepresentation concerning the availability of facilities for the repair of goods or of spare parts for goods (h) misrepresentation concerning the need for any goods or services. Summary Obviously, communications advertising has just become more challenging. It’s a strong argument for having every advertisement checked by an expert in the area. [1] That doesn’t make it legal in three years. It means that, should Optus break the ban, it will incur even higher penalties. [2] As it is now called … it was then the Trade Practices Act. Tags: Federal Court of Australia, ISP, isp law, ISP Lawyers, MIsleading and Deceptive Conduct, Optus, telecommunications law, Telecommunications Lawyers, Trade Practices Law Cooper Mills Bulletin on ACMA DNCR Industry StandardWednesday, June 8th, 2011 The Australian Communications and Media Authority foreshadows changes to telemarketing rules contained in the Telecommunications (Do Not Call Register) (Telemarketing and Research Calls) Industry Standard 2007. Some of the proposed changes include:
For more detail on the proposed changes, you can download the Cooper Mills Bulletin here.
Tags: ACMA, Do Not Call Register, IT Law, technology law, Telco Law, telecommunications law, telecommunications lawyer ‘Max Cap’ lands Optus in Hot WaterThursday, May 19th, 2011 The ACCC has fined Singtel Optus Pty Ltd $178,000 for misleading conduct arising out of its ‘Max Cap’ marketing campaign. The ACCC’s view is that the Optus’ Max Cap advertisements:
The advertisements at issue contained the Max Cap $49, which wasn’t a cap, but rather the minimum a customer would need to spend. In commenting on the conduct of concern to the ACCC, acting ACCC Chairman Mr Peter Kell said: “If you advertise a service as a ‘$49 Max Cap’ when $49 is the minimum that consumers have to pay, then you risk breaching the law by misleading consumers about the cost of the service,” and “Claims that a service allows consumers to call ‘anyone’ are likely to be misleading if the reality is that some types of calls are excluded“. All ISPs and Telcos should have a process in place to review advertisements, not only to ensure compliance with the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 but also the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code. Tags: Competition and Consumer Act 2010, technology lawyers, Telco Law, Telecom Lawyers, telecommunications law, Telecommunications Lawyers Microsoft to Buy Skype for $8.5 BillionThursday, May 12th, 2011 In one of the largest acquisitions in recent history Microsoft is set to acquire Skype for $8.5 billion. Microsoft hopes to use the acquisition to bolster its real time communications strategy to supplement Lync, Outlook, Messenger, Hotmail and Xbox LIVE In 2010 Skype was reported to have ’170 million connected users and over 207 billion minutes of voice and video conversations’. According to Microsoft, ‘Skype will support Microsoft devices like Xbox and Kinect, Windows Phone and a wide array of Windows devices, and Microsoft will connect Skype users with Lync, Outlook, Xbox Live and other communities. Microsoft will continue to invest in and support Skype clients on non-Microsoft platforms‘. While Microsoft has pledged to continue supporting non Microsoft platforms, critics have claimed that the acquisition could eventually lead to Skype only being supported on Microsoft platforms. Tags: IT Law, IT Lawyer, Microsoft, Skype, technology law, technology lawyer, telecommunications law iiNet wins appealThursday, February 24th, 2011 The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has today dismissed the appeal by AFACT against iiNet’s earlier win the in Federal Court. We will bring you more analysis of the decision shortly. Tags: iiNet, isp law, ISP lawyer, ISP Lawyers, IT Law, Telco Law, telecommunications law More Posts Coming SoonTuesday, December 7th, 2010 We have more IT Law, Domain Law and Telecommunications Law posts coming soon. Watch this space. Tags: domain law, domain name law, IT Law, IT Lawyer, IT Lawyers, telecommunications law Fixed Line Wholesale Pricing Under ReviewSaturday, September 18th, 2010 The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) has released a draft report into the pricing model of fixed line telephony services, proposing radical price reductions, which is likely to see Telstra’s fixed line revenues fall even further. The ACCC has suggested a move away from the traditional wholesale pricing model based Retail Price less Retail Cost, instead the ACCC has suggested an alternative model:
The new model has suggested an across the board charge of $20 per month for line rental down from the two consumer and business rates that exist, while the ACCC has suggested a reduction of wholesale local call costs from 17c to 7c, a massive drop, which is likely to anger Telstra. Below we have extracted the draft pricing for the period 2011 to 2014: Draft indicative pricesFor ULLS services, the Bands relate to different geographical areas.
Tags: ACCC, Declared Service, telecommunications law, telecommunications lawyer, Wholesale Call Costs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Home | About us | Our expertise | Latest News/Articles | Links | Contact us | Testimonials | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Comments (RSS) | Entries (RSS)
Copyright © 2007 All rights reserved