Alex Zaharov-Reutt
Thursday, 06 March 2008 11:38
IT Policy -
Regulation
Page 2 of 4
Telstra says that “Australians lost an opportunity to enjoy more broadband investment when the High Court today upheld a regulatory regime that rewards Telstra's competitors who ride on Telstra's network rather than invest in Australia.”
Telstra says they argued in court that “regulations compelling the company to offer network access at loss-making wholesale prices breach the Constitution because they amount to the acquisition of shareholders' property without just compensation.”
Unfortunately for Telstra, the High Court did not agree, with more on the Court’s thoughts on page 4.
But Telstra's Group General Counsel, Mr Will Irving, was quick to claim that a Telstra victory would have been the right decision for the future of Australian broadband, saying that: "A victory today would have meant more investment, more infrastructure and more competition for Australia, all of which would have been good for Australian consumers and businesses."
Irving noted that Telstra has reluctantly accepted the Court’s verdict, saying that: "We accept the decision, but we are disappointed because it means Australians lose an opportunity for more investment, more competition, more innovation and more choices in broadband.”
Blasting Telstra’s competitors, Irving noted that: "Our competitors now have little reason to invest in their own networks, knowing instead they can simply resell Telstra services. The can now 'buy' rather than 'build' - a perverse outcome, by any measure.”
So, why does Telstra say the ACCC’s has enabled ‘compulsory acquisition’ of Telstra’s assets, and what are the other reasons that Telstra challenged the ACCC, the Commonwealth of Australia and 11 competing Internet Service Providers in the highest court in the land? Please read onto page 3.
