Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Tower trouble for Hutchison

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Charlie Wong - 22 Mar 2005 04:44 GMT
Tower trouble for Hutchison
Andrew Colley
MARCH 22, 2005  
<http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,12615101%5E15320%5E%5Enbv%5E1530
6,00.html
>

HUTCHISON Australia's 3G mobile network will face greater resistance
from South Australian local councils after being dealt a legal blow in
the state's Supreme Court.

Hutchison had established 3G transmission towers by installing its
equipment on the power poles of electricity provider ETSA Utilities,
without council approval.
Earlier this month, however, a group of South Australian local
councils led by the City of Mitcham won a crucial stage of a legal bid
to bring Hutchison to heel, when the full bench of the SA Supreme
Court ruled that use of the power poles required council development
approval.

Hutchison had argued that its installations were low-impact facilities
that didn't require development approval under the federal
Telecommunications Act.

However, the court found that the towers qualified as developments
subject to local planning rules.

The court's decision would allow councils to steer the towers away
from residential areas, Mitcham City Council manager Ron Malcolm said.

The council was concerned about the size of the towers, some of which
had been built in heritage areas, he said.

"We encourage them under our planning scheme to be located in
commercial and industrial areas of the city," Mr Malcolm said.

Other councils that provided the City of Mitcham with financial
backing to mount the legal challenge were reserved about the decision
late last week.

"We note the decision with interests and we'll be preparing a report
for consideration by elected members at their next meeting," Charles
Sturt Council city services general manager Sandie Starr said.

Adelaide Hills Council planning services general manager Marc Salver
said the decision provided "welcome clarity".

City of Burnside and Port Adelaide Enfield were unable to comment.

However, Phillip Nolan, a Melbourne solicitor who specialises in
telecommunications litigation, said the court's decision had given
councils a "big stick" to hold over carriers.

"It won't be a matter of them having to do anything. They'll just be
saying to carriers that this decision's pretty clear: don't do it in
future – simply apply for a permit," Mr Nolan said.

Parts of the ruling could make it difficult for Hutchison to install
its equipment on public infrastructure, he said.

The case will go back before the Supreme Court trial judge who
referred the matter to the full bench. The judge will have to decide
what to do with the existing towers.

The Australian
Michael - 24 Mar 2005 04:36 GMT
> Tower trouble for Hutchison
> Andrew Colley
> MARCH 22, 2005

<http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,12615101%5E15320%5E%5Enbv%5
E15306,00.html>

> HUTCHISON Australia's 3G mobile network will face greater resistance
> from South Australian local councils after being dealt a legal blow in
> the state's Supreme Court.

Stupid South Australians.
All this means is that Hutch redirect their $$$ to other states and we get
better coverage and SA people get sh.t

Dickheads
The Family - 28 Mar 2005 17:26 GMT
>> Tower trouble for Hutchison
>> Andrew Colley
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Dickheads

Wrong.  The case is precedent-setting and has implications nation-wide for
all mobile telcos.
Hutchison is, of course, appealing the decision so the game is not yet over.
Michael - 29 Mar 2005 02:11 GMT
> >> Tower trouble for Hutchison
> >> Andrew Colley
> >> MARCH 22, 2005

<http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,12615101%5E15320%5E%5Enbv%5
> > E15306,00.html>
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Wrong.  The case is precedent-setting and has implications nation-wide for
> all mobile telcos.

Crap.

Its a determination by the SA Supreme Court - state based decision

> Hutchison is, of course, appealing the decision so the game is not yet over.

Of course
The Family - 29 Mar 2005 18:36 GMT
>> >> Tower trouble for Hutchison
>> >> Andrew Colley
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Its a determination by the SA Supreme Court - state based decision

Time to go back and do Law 101 Mikey.

I repeat:  The case is precedent-setting and has implications nation-wide
for
all mobile telcos.

>> Hutchison is, of course, appealing the decision so the game is not yet
> over.
>
> Of course

Incidentally, where would you think Hutchison is lodging its appeal?  I'll
pre-empt your answer - Not so knowledgeable about these things after all,
are you?
Rod Speed - 29 Mar 2005 19:34 GMT
>>> >> Tower trouble for Hutchison
>>> >> Andrew Colley
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>>
>> Its a determination by the SA Supreme Court - state based decision

> Time to go back and do Law 101 Mikey.

You in spades.

> I repeat:  The case is precedent-setting and has implications nation-wide for
> all mobile telcos.

You can repeat that sh.t till the cows come
home, changes absolutely nothing at all.

The detail on what requires council approval
aint national, its state based, fuckwit.

>>> Hutchison is, of course, appealing the decision so the game is not yet over.

>> Of course

> Incidentally, where would you think Hutchison is lodging its appeal?  I'll
> pre-empt your answer - Not so knowledgeable about these things after all, are
> you?

Wota terminal fuckwit...
The Family - 31 Mar 2005 19:54 GMT
>>>> >> Tower trouble for Hutchison
>>>> >> Andrew Colley
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> The detail on what requires council approval
> aint national, its state based, fuckwit.

That is not the basis of the Hutch appeal.

>>>> Hutchison is, of course, appealing the decision so the game is not yet
>>>> over.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Wota terminal fuckwit...

Clearly out of your depth, matey.
Rod Speed - 01 Apr 2005 00:03 GMT
>>>>> >> Tower trouble for Hutchison
>>>>> >> Andrew Colley
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>> The detail on what requires council approval
>> aint national, its state based, fuckwit.

> That is not the basis of the Hutch appeal.

Bullshit.

>>>>> Hutchison is, of course, appealing the decision so the game is not yet
>>>>> over.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Clearly out of your depth, matey.

Couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, gutless cocksucker.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.