Why hasn’t the Telstra board and senior management officially advised the Australian government that the Bell Canada International (BCI) tests, supposedly performed at the Cape Bridgewater unmanned telephone exchange that my business was trunked through, could not have possibly facilitated the equipment BCI alleged it used to capture the incoming test calls? This must have been secretly revealed to the arbitrator by his technical consultants, as I discussed this in my claims; why did the arbitrator not disclose this in his official findings? The BCI report gave the exchange I was connected to a 99.8 per cent approval rate.
If the arbitrator’s two technical consultants, one from Canada and the other from Australia, did not investigate my official arbitration claims that the BCI Cape Bridgewater tests could not have been performed at Cape Bridgewater in the manner the BCI report stated, then these consultants did not perform their professional duties as they were commissioned to. Regardless of the government owning Telstra, the government communications regulator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of the process) both assured the COT cases that independent TIO-appointed consultants would vigorously investigate our technical claims against Telstra.
It is clear, certainly in my case, that the arbitrator and his technical consultants did not investigate my claims that the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were fundamentally flawed, because there is no mention in the arbitrator’s technical findings (in his award) that I officially challenged the BCI tests. Does this mean he believed his technical consultants disproved of my claims? Prologue page/Chapter One shows the two technical consultants, DMR (Canada) and Lane Telecommunications (Australia), officially advised the arbitrator in their draft technical report that they had still not investigated my billing faults and needed extra weeks to do so. This wording, concerning unaddressed billing claims, was removed from the draft report dated 30 April 1995, then submitted into the formal arbitration as the final DMR technical report, still dated 30 April 1995.
We have proved this happened and this lends weight to our claim that it appears DMR and Lane also advised the arbitrator the BCI tests were flawed and should be removed from the arbitration process.
On 23 May 1995, two weeks after my arbitration concluded, Telstra, under FOI, released its own BCI documents, originally dated August and September 1994. These documents showed Telstra admitting, internally, that my June 1994 arbitration claims were correct. This admission happened EIGHT MONTHS before the arbitrator brought down his award on 11 May 1995.
The TIO and arbitrator refused to reopen my case to allow me to have this issue assessed on the grounds it was withheld from the arbitration process.
Please click onto the following link >Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and form your own opinion as to the authenticity of the BCI report
The evidence which supports the report are attached as BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46