Federal Court of Australia
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
Application by Optus Mobile Pty Limited & Optus Networks Pty Limited [2006] ACompT 8 TRADE PRACTICES – application pursuant to s 152CE(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – application for review of decision of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to reject access undertaking – mobile terminating access service – whether terms of the undertaking are reasonable – efficiency of costs – allocation of costs – application of Ramsey‑Boiteux pricing – network externality surcharge – international benchmarking – whether terms of the undertaking are retrospective. Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth): ss 4E, 152AA, 152AB, 152AH, 152AL, 152AQA, 152AR, 152BS, 152BU, 152BV(2), 152BX, 152CE(1), 152CF, 152CGB, 152CN, 152CQ(5), 152DN, 152DNA(1), 152DO, Pt XIC Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth): s 7 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Act 1999 (Cth): Schedule 1, Item 74 Acts Interpretation Act 1991 (Cth): ss 8, 8A Trade Practices Amendment (Telecommunications) Bill 1996 Telstra Corporation Limited [2001] ACompT 4, applied Telstra Corporation Limited [2006] ACompT 4, applied Power New Zealand Ltd v Mercury Energy Limited and Commerce Commission [1996] 1 NZLR 686, cited Re Seven Network Limited (No 4) [2004] 187 FLR 373, considered W Baumol and J Sidak, Towards Competition in Local Telephony, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994. J Sandbach, "Ramsey Pricing –vs.‑ EPMU for Regulation of Firms Operating in Competitive and Non‑Competitive Markets", paper presented at Conference on The Economics of Electronic Communication Markets, Toulouse, 15‑16 October 2004. File No 3 of 2006 RE: FINAL DECISION BY THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION DATED 3 FEBRUARY 2006 PURSUANT TO SECTION 152BU(2) OF THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT IN RESPECT OF AN ORDINARY ACCESS UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY OPTUS NETWORKS PTY LIMITED AND OPTUS MOBILE PTY LIMITED FOR THE DOMESTIC GSM TERMINATING ACCESS SERVICE BY: OPTUS MOBILE PTY LIMITED and OPTUS NETWORKS PTY LIMITED Applicants GOLDBERG J, MR R DAVEY and MR R SHOGREN 22 NOVEMBER 2006 MELBOURNE IN THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate