Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

Telstra's Falsified SVT Report

https://www.pmc.gov.au › accountability-and-reporting

Corruption, misleading and deceptive conduct plagued the COT with the government's sanctions, which endorsed the arbitrations. Learn the names of those who participated in these horrendous crimes that equally corrupted arbitrators who covered up these atrocities 

Corruption and misleading and deceptive conduct.

The Service Verification Testing (SVT process) is a story about corruption and misleading and deceptive conduct by the Australian government and their once-owned telecommunications carrier Telstra. A battle that has twisted and turned, since 1992, through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra, or Telecom, as it was known when this story started. Read about these corrupted and unscrupulous government bureaucrats who have committed horrendous crimes that equally corrupted lawyers and crooked arbitrators have covered up. How many have similar arbitration processes around the globe have been subjected to the same type of corruption?

It is clear from my understanding that when Telstra used the known false Cape Bridgwater Holiday Camp SVT report as defence documents when they knew it was funamentally flawed this was corruption and misleading and deceptive conduct. Telstra has never been charged for committing this offence. 

 The arbitrator ignored this corruption and deliberate misleading and deceptive conduct.  Why has this unlawfulness been investigated?

It is clear from the following report dated 15 December 1994 prepared by Michael Rumsewicz PhD on behalf of the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA) states that the current Service Verification Testing process being used by Telstra should under any circumstances be used in the COT arbitrations in determining the validity of Telstra's SVT process. So why did AUSTEL inform the Hon Michael Lee MP Minister for Communications that the SVT process for the first six COT Cases (which included my case) had met all of the government's mandatory requirements (refer to Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 - Absent Justice Part 1 - Chapter 8 - An Honest Arbitrator?)lure

On 15 December 1994, due to the many complaints raised by me and various other COT Cases concerning the many deficiencies in Telstra’s SVT process AUSTEL appointed Dr Rumsewicz’s a prominent technical consultant ito investigate these complaints. In this report Dr Rumsewicz notes at point 5 and 12:

 (P5) – It is important to note that these dropout rates refer only to switch related causes and do not take into account the possibility of transmission facility failure (for example, due to high error rates or cable cuts). Such factors would need to be considered in the final specification of call continuity grade of service targets.”

(p12) – We believe that given the stated purpose of the Service Verification Tests supplied in the Telecom Australia Customer Fault Procedures document (000 8410 and that of the AUSTEL Cot Cases Report, the statistical test being applied to the collected data is inappropriate. We believe that the analysis of collected data should be expanded to include an examination of call failures broken down by originating exchange, time of day and type of fai. In the event that correlations in the failures are found, further investigations, as appropriate, should be undertaken”.

IMPORTANT ISSUE

The COT arbitrations were facilitated by the Government Regulator AUSTEL.  Before the COT arbitrations began AUSTEL had already confirmed in the AUSTEL Cot Cases Report as the many exhibits in our download files show that when previously dealing with COT claimants, Telstra’s conduct had been “…less that which might be expected of a model corporate citizen.” Therefore, AUSTEL should never have allowed Telstra during their arbitration procedure as the defendants (under any circumstances), to provide Dr Rumsewicz with the raw SVT data before it had been scrutinised by either the TIO-appointed technical consultants and/or arbitrator.

PLEASE NOTE 1: , Garry Dawson is another of the COT Difficult Network Fault (DNF) customers used by Mr Rumsewicz to determine the validity of Telstra’s Service Verification Testing process, yet exhibits in our download files admits that Telstra and Bell Canada International had to abandon the SVT process at Garry Dawson’s premises because of equipment failure. The same equipment failure at my business on 29 September 1994.

I reiterate, it is clear from the many exhibits attached to my report here that as my SVT process had been conducted before Mr Rumsewicz prepared this report that AUSTEL should never have advised the government on 2 February 1995, the testing at all six COT Cases premises to date had met the required government statndard.s. 

Absent Justice - Government

Please click onto the following Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report link which was sent, in April 2016, to

(1) the Government, and
(2) the two Telstra executives that are identified below.

Absent Justice - Government + Telstra Executives

Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report

The other six links that are listed below are more documents that were also sent with the original SVT report and, while the report itself appears, at first, to be too technical for most people, it does show quite clearly that, with the assistance of a number of radical Government communications regulatory bureaucrats, Telstra knowingly perverted the course of justice during my 1994/95 arbitration. 

Since then though, no-one has investigated this matter, regardless of the damage
that Telstra’s perversion of the course of justice caused me.

My prepared SVT report is as follows: AUSTEL’s Govt/Telstra/SVT Report 23 April 2016

The exhibits to support my SVT report are attached below

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 1-A to 10-B

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 23-H to 30-A

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 30-B

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibit 31-A to 46-E

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 46-F to 62

To verify the evidence which is numbered you can do so by sourcing the numbered exhibit and then locating the number
in the filing system either above or below.

The matters discussed on this website absentjustice.com are said according to my interpretation of the  Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

ACMA Australian Government

Download Attachments

AUSTEL’s Govt/Telstra/SVT Report 23 April 2016

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 1-A to 10-B

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 23-H to 30-A

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 30-B

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibit 31-A to 46-E

Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 46-F to 62

© 2021Absent Justice

Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan's book

How can one publish a true account of what happened during various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations without attaching exhibits to support the facts, as we have been forced to do due to the rampant corruption within the government bureaucracy? How can the author prove that government public servants fed privileged information to the then Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) but also concealed the same documentation from the claimants, their fellow Australian citizens?

Additionally, how can one tell a story so unbelievable that even the author doubts the authenticity of what they are writing until they check their records before continuing with the story? How can one expose collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed government watchdogs (umpire), and the defendants? How can one also expose that the defendants in an arbitration process (the once government-owned telecommunications carrier) used equipment connected to their network to screen faxed material leaving your office? 

Moreover, how can one expose that the defendant's advisors stored the screened material without the author's knowledge or consent before redirecting it to its intended destination, where, in some cases, the more relevant information was never forwarded? The defendants (the Telstra Corporation) were using this screened material to benefit their arbitration defence to the detriment of the claimants.

Quote Icon

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

The Hon David Hawker MP

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”

Sister Burke

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

Hon David Hawker

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
 Contact Us