Dear Optus, please show us where
To describe the Optus standard customer contract as a dog’s breakfast is unkind to dogs. We know many canines that can at least keep their food inside the bowl.
In this case, the clarity (or otherwise) of the contract documents matters more than most. Optus is basing a controversial decision to deny Timeless or Cap plan customers access to cheap VoIP calls on a claim that its standard contract is quite clear about it.
December 31, 2008 | Filed in Trade Practices Act | Leave a Comment
Pulling the plug on features: Understand your risks
Optus and Crazy John’s have delivered unwelcome Christmas news to many customers. Features are being withdrawn from plans, at the same time as Optus’ web site proclaims it is ‘delivering more this season’.
Almost every internet and phone contract says the provider can withdraw or limit customer entitlements. Many even comply with the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code and allow affected customers to cancel contracts if that happens.
But allowing cancellation rights may not be the end of the matter.
Dodo advert pushes limits
2008 hasn’t been a good year for Dodo, legally speaking.
In February, the company received the rare ‘distinction’ of an ACMA direction to comply with the complaints handling and billing codes after the TIO noted a rising number of complaints.
In October it broke the record for a Do Not Call Register Act fine.
It ends the year tempting fate with an online advertisement that makes an unqualified and untrue ‘free’ offer.
TPG does it (wrong) again
Just a few weeks after TPG featured a plainly unlawful advertisement on its home page – which it thankfully later corrected – the company has committed another consumer protection faux pas.
This time the problem is the way that two advertisements with plenty of small print cycle every three seconds, making it nearly impossible to read anything but the headlines.
We think it’s a clear breach of clause 4.1.3 of the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Code.
Oxygen8 Communications signs stupid enforceable undertaking
ACMA has accepted an enforceable undertaking from Oxygen8 Communications, following Spam Act complaints that SMS commercial electronic messages were sent by content providers using Oxygen8′s platform.
Reading ACMA’s media release, we can see how Oxygen8 was at risk of action if it didn’t offer ACMA an undertaking – effectively the same as submitting to court injunctions.
But will somebody please explain why Oxygen8 agreed to some crazy promises ?
ACMA moves on VoIP’s widespread Numbering Plan non-compliance
It’s simple. The Telecommunications Numbering Plan says that you must not allocate a standard telephone number to a VoIP service that can be simply relocated by the customer.
And you mustn’t allocate a standard telephone number to a service that doesn’t terminate in the local area the number is intended for.
It’s also simple for customers to bypass both rules, since the majority of VoIP providers couldn’t care less about breaking them.
A new ACMA discussion paper suggests that enforcement action may be on the way.
December 23, 2008 | Filed in Telecommunications Act | 2 Comments
CSP Central survey: Most copyright infringement notices are invalid
Australian ISPs receive vast numbers of copyright infringement notices headed ‘Commonwealth of Australia’. That is the official heading of the notices contained in Australia’s Copyright Regulations as part of the ‘safe harbour’ rules. A document with that heading is clearly intended to be one of the official notices.
CSP Central recently analysed notices received by some Australian ISPs and found that the majority were legally invalid. Copyright owners and representatives are simply getting it wrong.
December 20, 2008 | Filed in copyright | 3 Comments
Game on: AFACT and iiNet in court
The movie industry’s copyright breach claim against ISP iiNet saw the inside of a courtroom for the first time today.
As usual for a preliminary hearing, the court only made procedural orders to advance the case to the next stage.
December 17, 2008 | Filed in iiNet Case | Leave a Comment
Copyright safe harbour is for losers
A lot of industry people think that obeying the copyri
ght ‘safe harbour’ rules means a CSP won’t breach copyright. That’s not so.
In fact, the safe harbour rules only become relevant if a CSP has already been found ‘guilty’ of copyright breach. Even though the CSP is ‘guilty’, as long as it has operated inside the safe harbour it cannot be ordered to pay damages.
So safe harbour is truly just for ‘losers’. But if you do lose an infringement case, you’ll feel like a winner if your safe harbour claim holds up and damages aren’t awarded.
December 16, 2008 | Filed in iiNet Case | Leave a Comment
AFACT v iiNet court documents online
Debate about the landmark copyright litigation rages on, and it seems thousands have opinions – many of them grounded in rather offbeat idea of the facts.
As a service to the debate, CSP Central has launched a ‘just facts’ page. No commentary. No analysis. Just facts. Bookmark it for access to a growing library of reliable information about the case and copyright law.
We’ve begun by posting the applicants’ court documents, and explaining what an ‘applicant’ is.
December 14, 2008 | Filed in iiNet Case | Leave a Comment