Competitors call on Conroy to rein in Telstra with new legislation UPDATED

by Stuart Corner

Tuesday, 12 August 2008

Page 2 of 3 In attempting to determine if the price being demanded by Telstra, $30 per month in urban areas, is fair, the ACCC has  to use and understand the application of the mode; and in pushing for a lower price, so do Telstra's competitors. The problems surrounding this model have brought to the fore long simmering resentment among Telstra's competitors that Telstra is gaming the undertaking process simply to delay an outcome and tie up industry resources. The current crisis has its origins in July  when the ACCC discovered what it claimed were serious flaws in the TEA model. It wrote to Telstra demanding it to fix the problem and threatening to ignore the model entirely in its assessment of th undertaking. Now according to the CCC Telstra has produced an amended version of the model but has circulated this only to some of its competitors involved in making submissions to the ACCC on the undertaking, has not identified what changes it has made, and has done so only a day before the deadline for submissions to the ACCC were due, 12 August. Telstra, however claims that "While the CCC suggests something sinister - the ACCC and access seekers knew this update was coming - the ACCC in its letter  of 22 July  asked when the new version of the model would be available, together with associated documentation." It claimed that the amended version had been sent to "the access seekers who registered for the model." In a letter to Michael Cosgrave, Group general manger of the ACCC's communications group, CCC executive director, David Forman said partial distribution of the new model 24 hours before submissions are due to the ACCC process "makes a mockery of any claims from Telstra that it is attempting to do anything other than game the undertakings process. It means that there is no opportunity for the CCC or other interested parties to consider this version before submissions close." He added: "Even if the ACCC was to extend its deadline for submissions, the CCC submits that interested parties can have no confidence that the Telstra is engaged in anything other than a sham designed to distract resources and attention of the industry and the regulator...The CCC has long argued that Telstra’s motivation in presenting serial undertakings to the Commission has been directed at gaming regulatory processes rather than seeking to legitimately provide prices, terms and conditions that can resolve disputation in the industry." Telstra has responded by claiming that there are no material changes to the model and accusing the CCC of gaming the regulatory process in order to secure a more favourable price for the ULL. Spokesman Jeremy Mitchell, said: "The CCC doesn't need an extension because the changes to the model were immaterial. It is Foreman once again, who is trying to game the political system seeking an extension for his clients, dragging out the time that they can pay just $16 for ULLS - substantially below cost." However, according to Cosgrave the materiality of the errors/change is not the main issue. CONTINUED << First page <   1 2 3 Next page > Last page - Post your comment >>

 

< Next story in category		Previous story in the category >

Visitors last 30 days Suscribers

904,266 13,751