The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is refusing to back away from its position that Telstra still needs to be treated as a monopoly and its shareholders should keep propping up competitors.
The ACCC says competing networks are "starting to emerge", but it's not sure how vast they are, so it will start to do a survey to find out…. Oh and by the way, it will retain onerous regulations for another three years.
Read the story here:
Sadly the ACCC refuses to recognise the evidence put forward in Telstra's own survey which found that the majority of Australian homes and businesses have a vast array of competing networks they can access. In Sydney, 84 percent of homes and businesses have access to competing networks. In Melbourne 82 percent, Brisbane 67 percent, Adelaide 83 percent and Perth 92 percent. (See coverage maps (PDF - 3,850KB))
It's not surprising that Australians are starting to wake up to this humbug and are speaking out.
Here's a selection of recent letters published in major newspapers:
From the Herald Sun, June 23rd:
DEAR ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel, please get your regulatory paws off Telstra.
You are meant to be a champion of fair competition, not a handicapper weighting the local champion in the mounting yard so the overseas nags have a chance at winning.
If Telstra's competitors don't like what Telstra charges for access to their copper network they can build their own. That is free enterprise at work. If that is not economically viable, they can get out of the market.
Roger Gotch,
Scoresby
From the Australian Financial Review, June 21:
I believe that if you own an asset no government, or agency of the government, should be able to tell the owner of the asset how to use or price the use of that asset. This is a conflict of interest matter where a government holds a financial interest in a public company like Telstra.
If an ACCC ruling about pricing was responsible for sending a business like Telstra bankrupt, or to become less profitable for shareholders, would the ACCC be under some form of legal liability for its actions?
To compete on equal terms with Telstra, competitors should provide their own infrastructure or be prepared to pay whatever Telstra asks for the use of Telstra's infrastructure assets. That would be sound business policy, and anything contrary to this and in line with the ACCC's draft decision would be highly suggestive of "price control".
Enforced competition, where otherwise competition would not exist, would set a dangerous precedent.
Peter Manuel,
Toowoomba, Qld.
And from The Age, June 19:
To the ACCC, that interest lies solely in one thing - competition at all costs, no matter how irrational and no matter if the quest for competition precludes companies such as Telstra making much needed investments in a new fibre optic network.
This has seen little more than a squandering of technological gains to line the pockets of resellers who do nothing to create real wealth.
In the interim, Australia has slid in terms of telecoms' performance at considerable cost to the consumer and the national interest.
Kevin Morgan,
North Fitzroy, VIC
Given that the Government sets policy based strongly on advice from competition 'experts' at ACCC and the regulator clearly has its head buried deep in sand, it will probably take a lot more people speaking out before we see any move to accept commonsense reforms.
Top