Worst case regulation to cost Telstra $1.6 billion

 

Telstra CFO projects potential cost of NBN competition.

Telstra chief financial officer John Stanhope has warned shareholders the impact of the Federal Government's NBN-focused regulatory review could cost the carrier up to $1 billion upfront and up to $100 million a year for six years.

At Telstra's annual results release this week, Stanhope spoke of the considerable risk the carrier faces, depending on what level of intervention in the regulatory environment the Government chooses to take.

Stanhope said that the preferred model suggested by Telstra in its submission to the regulatory review (No. 2 in the graphic below) would replace ACCC with a new 'adjudicator' with the same degree of operational separation that exists today. This, the graph suggests, could even be earnings positive for Telstra and only take six months to implement.

The introduction of internal contracts between Telstra business units (No.3 on the graph below) would have a negligible impact on earnings, but would distract Telstra for nine months.

Stanhope said that a "light touch" version of functional separation, similar to what was imposed upon Telecom New Zealand, would cost four cents per share to Telstra shareholders and take up to a year.

Stanhope warned a more strict form of functional separation would involve severe consequences for the carrier.

"It would require an unwinding of our IT transformation," he warned.

The IT transformation, which consolidates many hundreds of IT and network systems across the company, has taken four years to date.

Stanhope said at worse, a BT-style form of functional separation would cost Telstra between $800 million to $1 billion initially, plus $50 million to $100 million annually for the "next five to six years."

"The more extreme separation would be enticing for our competitors - but it could take five years or more to implement," Stanhope said. "It would be a major disruption in us serving our customers."

Stanhope also suggested that distracting Telstra with new regulations would only hamper its capacity to provide productive input into the national broadband network.

"Any changes or remedies to the current [approach] must assist and not impede the NBN," he said.

 click to view full size image


Worst case regulation to cost Telstra $1.6 billion
"Thank you, RDEFCON1, its always good to get due recognition. But you seem a little confused, which is understandable given your apparent preference for monopoly rip-offs. Point one - strong ..."
By anonymous
 
 
 
Comments: 4
anonymous
Aug 15, 2009 7:30 PM
Some people might say that stripping the great monopolist of its ability to rip off end-users is the only acceptable policy for the government to apply.

Since there has never been a monopoly that couldn't think of a score of reasons to keep its monopoly, its hardly surprising that we are getting the current pitch.

The government has to decide now whether it is better to allow Telstra to keep making monopoly profits at our expense, or to mandate a competitive comms market with independent NBN that will benefit all Australians.
eponymous
Aug 16, 2009 9:34 AM
Don't know if it was the author or an editor who concocted the headline but the expression is "Worst Case Scenario".
RDEFCON1
Aug 17, 2009 1:29 PM
@ anonymous

You're a genius! The answer to a monopoly situation is to replace the monopolist with a government-mandated monopoly!

I can certainly see how that encourages a competitive comms market, and with the government running the show, it's bound to be efficient too! If we spend $42bn of taxpayer funds to destroy an iconic Australian company mainly owned by Australian citizens, that doesn't really costs us anything - does it?

I think all public policy in future should incorporate the principle of using billions of dollars of taxpayers money to compete with and replace incumbent corporations owned by private citizens and shareholders. That will teach all those pesky capitalists a lesson.
anonymous
Aug 17, 2009 4:17 PM
Thank you, RDEFCON1, its always good to get due recognition.

But you seem a little confused, which is understandable given your apparent preference for monopoly rip-offs. Point one - strong preference and support for more competition is not anti-capitalism.

Point two - suggesting that the great monopolist should start to have some network competition might cause it to be less anti-competitive but will not "destroy an iconic (?) Australian company".

And not only is it desirable to have sound public policy to control monopolies, it's sometimes essential in the national interest, as the only effective measure available.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Vito Forte: A CIO for tough times
Fortescue Metals CIO talks vendor management and innovation.
 
Tech staff spared in ANZ's 1000 job cuts
Cost cutting hits middle management.
 
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Would you be concerned about your business' email data being hosted offshore?

   |   View results
Yes
  83%
 
No
  17%
TOTAL VOTES: 245

Vote