After much optimistic hype and almost equally as much pessimistic speculation, the debut of Facebook on the NASDAQ stock exchange turned out to be a bit of an anti-climax, with shares closing at almost the same level as the US$38 IPO.
read more
Stuart Corner
Tuesday, 17 January 2012 06:59
The ACCC has received three submissions: from AAPT, Optus and on behalf of Adam Internet, iiNet, Internode and TransACT all similarly critical of the revised structural separation undertaking submitted by Telstra to the ACCC last month.
The level of opposition threatens the timetable for Telstra's separation and its participation in the NBN. In December communications minister senator Stephen Conroy extended until 31 March 2012 the deadline by which Telstra must complete its structural separation, taking the total extensions to 12 months. The legislation permits only a further six months of extensions. If Telstra fails to meet this deadline the government will instead impose functional separation.
In its discussion paper the ACCC said it intended to move straight to the issue of a final decision on whether to accept or reject the undertaking by mid February. It suggested that it was prepared to accept the SSU, saying: "Provided that the outstanding price equivalence concerns around wholesale ADSL services are resolved [which are being addressed by the ACCC in a separate enquiry] the ACCC is minded to accept Telstra's revised SSU, subject to any new issues of real substance or drafting matters arising from this consultation process."
A major issue identified by the ACCC with the initial SSU - as set out in the ACCC's August 2011 discussion paper - was the lack of "a clear and enforceable commitment to an 'equivalence of outcomes' - which would enable wholesale customers and Telstra's retail businesses to access key input services of equivalent quality and functionality," during the transition to the full implementation of the NBN.
The ACCC's concerns were shared by Telstra's competitors in their responses to that first discussion paper and the revised SSU was designed to address these concerns by including an Overarching Equivalence Obligation (OEO).
Think again. Most businesses only have PART of a DR plan - and this spells business disaster in the event of an IT disaster.
Download The Seven Sins of Disaster Recovery White Paper now and find out how you can prevent this happening to you.