Concentrate on the fact that their own customers are treated differently. That is the crux of the matter.
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:54:16 +1300 Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC) wrote: > See below my reply to the reply from the commerce commission...... > > Thank you for your reply. > > Please explain how it could be acceptable that a "disconnection" and a > "reconnection" cannot be organised concurrently? > > For example, do you think it realistic for a supplier to say that they will > not order a new item until the old one is taken away? > > Kind regards, > > Robert Fisher > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Patricia Painter" > Sent: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:32:41 +1300 > To: > Subject: Commerce Commission Enquiry > > > CAWN105073 > > Dear Mr Fisher > > We have considered your e-mail under section 36 of the Commerce Act > 1986. Section 36 prohibits a person with a substantial degree of market > power from taking advantage of that power for the purpose of preventing, > restricting, deterring, or eliminating competition in a market. > > You suggest that Telecom is deliberately delaying connections and > switching of customers to broadband services supplied by ISPs other than > Xtra. We are aware that customers have been experiencing delays in > getting services connected and switched. However, we have no evidence > that Telecom is deliberately causing such delays. Our understanding is > that delays are due to large volumes of requests for connection and > switching, coupled with the time, steps and actions required to process > each request. With no evidence that Telecom has an anti-competitive > purpose, it is unlikely to be contravening the Act. > > Yours sincerely > > Patricia Painter > Contact Centre Adviser > Commerce Commission > P O Box 2351 > Wellington > Tel. 0800 94 3600 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Nick Rout Barrister & Solicitor Christchurch <http://www.rout.co.nz> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
