Cornered!
Cornered! is a blog devoted, most of the time anyway, to telecommunications: local and global issues, technology, people and trends from the perspective of someone who's been reporting, analysing and commenting on the industry since the dark ages (BC - before competition). Sometimes serious, sometimes flippant, sometimes frivolous. Controversial, analytical, informative, amusing, but never boring; a vehicle for examinations of important issues and observations on my encounters and experiences in an industry where polarised views and hyperbole are the norm.
Follow the Australian Telecommunications scene NEWSLETTER- FREE TRIAL

Blog

Technology news and Jobs arrow Cornered! arrow Minchin's attack on Samuel unwarranted
Minchin's attack on Samuel unwarranted E-mail
by Stuart Corner   
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Shadow communications minister senator Nick Minchin has launched an extraordinary attack on ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel accusing him of "spruiking the Rudd Government's NBN proposal and its planned telecommunications regulatory reforms" in a way that "threatens to undermine the ACCC's role as an objective regulator."

The occasion of these supposed transgressions was an interview Samuel gave to the ABC's Lateline programme on 13 October.   According to Minchin "Mr Samuel quite frankly has overstepped his role and responsibility by publicly promoting the Government's NBN policy and also its plans to force the structural separation of Telstra."

On the contrary, when asked if he agreed with the Telstra view that splitting up Telstra would: "impede the vision of the national broadband network, reduce competition, harm consumers and upset shareholder value," Samuel replied: "It's not for me to do that, that's up to the [Senate enquiry] committee to consider the presentations made by Telstra, shareholders and many other parties."

The point he did make, and one that it is perfectly appropriate for the chief regulator to make, is that he believes separation of Telstra to be the only way to solve the perennial problem of ensuring fair competition in the telecoms sector. "The view of the ACCC for many years is that the reforms proposed in the legislation...are long overdue, are necessary, are reforms that infuse the whole concept of competition into the telecommunications sector, an infusion that itself, is long overdue, since about 1992."

Samuel was asked again if he saw separation as the only solution. "Telstra's argument today was that the IT system of Telstra was already being upgraded so the company can prove all its customers are being treated equally. Can you see any commercial negotiated solution to this, or the only solution in your view from a competitive standpoint is structural separation?"

Again, his answer was that, from the ACCC's standpoint as regulator the answer is no. "We have been debating this issue for years and years and years...The fact of the matter is we have plugged holes in the dam wall in the sense of we have had in place a series of legislative attempts to deal with competition which have shown to have been deficient in so many different areas.

"The ACCC, the National Competition Council, many experts in the area have said the only way to infuse true competition into Australian telecommunications is to remove that vertically integrated structure existing with Telstra, and to structurally separate."

Minchin's view on this is that "Samuel's continued public commentary runs the risk of providing evidence of bias against a company he is entrusted to regulate and reducing public confidence in the ACCC as an impartial competition regulator."

If he really wants to attack Samuel he should try and counter Samuel's central argument: that the ACCC's experience over many years trying to regulate Telstra using the legislative powers available to it has led to the conclusion that the only solution is separation of Telstra. And perhaps suggest another means of solving the problem.

There are arguments against Samuel's view of how the problem of regulating Telstra should be solved. According to Telstra the claims that it is able to exploit the current regulatory regime are false. Telstra says in its submission to the Senate enquiry that: "The Explanatory Memorandum claims, without any supporting evidence, that ... 'the use of regulatory and legal processes appears to be one way in which Telstra maintains [its] dominance'. In reality the problems with the current regulatory regime are far more complex than the simple view that it is 'all Telstra's fault'." I'm sure if Minchin wanted to debate that question with Samuel, Telstra would be happy to provide him with some ammunition.

This article first appeared in ExchangeDaily, iTWire's daily newsletter for telecommunications professionals. Register here for your free trial.
Register for ExchangeDaily


Powered By Joomla Tags

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to post your comment!

 
< Next story in category   Previous story in the category >
iTWire user statistics Visitors last 30 days
694,279
Subscribers 15,210
#1 independent technology news advertise here
  •   *  
  • Search
  • AdvSeach
  • Login
  • Events
  • FreeStuff

- Advertisement -

Featured Whitepapers

Cornered! - Telecoms blog
Cornered! is a blog on all things tele-communication from the perspective of one who has observed, analysed commented and reported on the industry since the dark ages (BC - before competition).
Follow iTWire on Twitter

About iTWire

iTWire is all about technology news, information, jobs and community for the IT and telecommunications industry professional. Subscribe to our free ICT daily newsletter