Telstra stands firmly opposed to "unjust" split

 

Rejects the Government's regulatory reform bill.

Telstra will not cooperate with Federal Government efforts to split the company, describing Senator Conroy's regulatory reform legislation as "unjust".

In a late response to a Senate Inquiry into the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, Telstra said it will refuse to structurally separate "while ever proposals fail to give fair value to shareholders".

In sum, Telstra has argued:

  • That Telstra's 63 percent share of the market does not equate to market "dominance".
  • That the "unjust" threat of being denied access to future mobile spectrum will reduce mobile competition, deny Telstra customers an upgrade path and reduce the amount of finance the Government can raise from spectrum auctions.
  • That there is little incentive for Telstra to structurally separate while ever Senator Conroy still has the capacity to deny it mobile spectrum.
  • That any regulatory reform legislation should be delayed until after the Federal Government's NBN Implementation Study is complete, giving the company more time to negotiate its position with the Government.
  • That the most likely buyers of Telstra's stake in Foxtel would be News Corp and Consolidated Media Holdings, reducing competition in the media sector.
  • That the regulator reform bill allows the ACCC to wield power in an unaccountable fashion.

On structural separation

Telstra argued that the Government should delete Section 33 of the proposed changes to the Telecommunications Act, in which it was threatened with exclusion from future mobile spectrum auctions unless it structurally separated or sold off its investments in its HFC cable network and Foxtel.

Telstra argued that the Government has given it no guarantees around access to mobile spectrum should it choose to structurally separate, which subsequently gives it little incentive to cooperate.

"There is no certainty that - if Telstra submits a structural separation undertaking, the ACCC accepts that undertaking and Telstra then implements that undertaking - Telstra will be allowed to bid for LTE/4G spectrum," the submission said. "The Minister retains the power to exclude Telstra from LTE spectrum when it becomes available."

On functional separation

Telstra made a veiled threat to refuse to take part in the NBN process should functional separation be forced upon it.

"One outcome is certain, functional separation will, for many years, divert Telstra management and resources away from migration to the NBN," the submission said.

Telstra used the example of British Telecom's functional separation - which took nine years to complete - to argue against this option.

Functional separation "doubles the risk of customer service and billing problems, and, with millions of lines involved, doubles the potential for service chaos," the carrier said.

Most delays, Telstra added, would be due to "the requirement to re-engineer and/or duplicate IT systems".

On being denied mobile spectrum

Telstra warned that exclusion from mobile spectrum for 4G/LTE services would create "a potential 4G duopoly between Singtel Optus and Vodafone Hutchison Australia".

The carrier argued that Australia enjoys a competitive mobile network market, as proven by the ACCC's approval of the Vodafone/3 merger.

On forced divestments

Telstra said its shareholders had "invested significant sums" in its Foxtel and HFC cable assets.

"To require them to divest their interests in these assets just as they are becoming profitable is unjust and raises questions of sovereign risk," the submission said.

Telstra also warned that any sell down in its interests in Foxtel would likely result in News Ltd and Consolidated Media Holdings stepping in to take its place, reducing competition in the media sector.

Further, Telstra said any concerns about a lack of competition in the HFC cable market was bunk.

"The competition arguments for the divestiture of the HFC network have always foundered on the simple fact that there is an alternative network - the Optus HFC cable - in place," the submission said. "The imminent arrival of the NBN surely suggests that changing the ownership structure of the Telstra HFC will in no way affect the competitive dynamics on the ground."

On new ACCC powers

Telstra argued that the legislation affords competition watchdog the ACCC (Australian Consumer and Competition Commission) greater powers without the required amount of accountability with it.

"This Bill is highly unusual in that it gives the regulator significant powers without setting out very careful prescriptions on how those powers should be used," the submission said.

Proposed changes

While standing firm on structural separation, divesture of assets and threats to deny it access to mobile spectrum, Telstra was careful to leave the door open to further negotiation.

"I want to stress that while Telstra continues to support the Government's vision for the NBN, we believe the Bill to be unnecessary," Telstra CEO David Thodey said in a statement to the ASX.

"Telstra continues to negotiate with the Government in a positive and constructive manner on the NBN," he said.

The carrier also included its own proposed changes to the regulation reform bill in its submission.

Of particular interest are Telstra's proposed changes related to functional separation - which implies that the company is not prepared to take any voluntary action to separate or divest, leaving it to the Federal Government to decide whether to enforce functional separation upon it.

Telstra asked that the functional separation section be amended to included the following principles:

  • that functional separation must not be unduly burdensome on Telstra;
  • that functional separation must not degrade retail or wholesale service quality;
  • that functional separation must not impede Telstra's ability to compete on a fair and efficient basis;
  • that Telstra is not required to physically separate information systems or networks and that the retail business unit and network/wholesale business units may utilise common customer agnostic information and network operations systems directly through equivalent interfaces;
  • that Telstra may establish internal non-customer facing network units which can provide insourcing of services on an arm's length basis to the functionally separate retail business unit and the network/wholesale business unit; and
  • that Telstra may continue to use across the company, on an arm's length basis, support services such as human resources, legal, technology and network planning.

Telstra stands firmly opposed to "unjust" split
"@ adavion LOL. Too right. Telstra should sell it's copper back to the government, take it's funds and expertise, and go play in a country that wants them! That might make everyone happy!! ;)"
By RDEFCON1
 
 
 
Comments: 11
mjc130
Oct 9, 2009 3:45 PM
Well nobody expected Telstra not to argue as they have their monopoly at stake and we are talking big numbers.

Telstra has problems and our company is the classic case. Due a CEO directive, we have to bring our communications back to Telstra. Being only small ($15k per month) it has been 3 weeks since we were promised a visit from Telstra and they have been no show. No wonder people do not like them.
umbria
Oct 9, 2009 4:03 PM
Telstra has a one-off golden opportunity to create much-needed shareholder value. The NBN Co needs unfettered access to infrastructure, most of which comprises Telstra assets. So Telstra hands them over for a huge cash windfall, and gets on with its highly profitable retail business without having to maintain ageing assets. Rhetoric aside on both sides, that is the obvious outcome. Will it happen this year or next, Sportsbet?
horst
Oct 9, 2009 4:32 PM
i have no time for telstra,the rotten service that the company delivers, is no longer funny.all you do is talk
to the answer service and wait and wait .........
and this is 2009 service ? divide the company,
also the high cost on the internet charges !what a australian company !
horst in wollongong
Oldsniper
Oct 9, 2009 4:42 PM
One could have bet the house on telstra opposing it.
It must be done tho for the sake of Australia and consumers.
Telstra WILL NEVER do whats required unless forced to do so.
Hell BT( BRITISH TELECOM ) was forced to split and its going guns, sure does put the nuke under Telstra's argument too.
singo79
Oct 9, 2009 5:22 PM
I don't know if anyone else picked it up, but I am concerned with the alternate options pitched by Telstra in response to the Government's ultimatum.

"Telstra asked that the functional separation section be amended to included the following principles:

that Telstra is not required to physically separate information systems or networks and that the retail business unit and network/wholesale business units may utilise common customer agnostic information and network operations systems directly through equivalent interfaces;"

I take this as, 'we still want to keep all of the same systems and processes in place but we sort of want to appear as though we are operating at arms length of each other. But we really won't be and we will be doing all within our power to continue to gouge prices and sell wholesale access to ourselves cheaper and continue to overcharge our competitors that want to access our network'.

If Conroy has any clue or balls, he will refuse to cop Telstra's list of options. But I do believe that if Telstra do agree to functional separation, then the Government should give Telstra assurances that they will be able to access new wireless spectrum when available.

If the opposition and Telstra try to say that their shareholders and services will be affected, then one would have to think that Telstra are just trying to be manipulative and that the opposition are just brain-dead and clueless. As Oldsniper has clearly pointed out, BT was forced to split and their shareholders have profited greatly as a result.

Let's just get on with it and start this whole shebang, it's going to take a good part of 10 years, therefore the longer it is delayed the longer it is going to take to be completed.
Maxxi
Oct 9, 2009 6:44 PM
Whinge and whine, whinge and whine,
Tesltra's spots don't change, they hold the line...

"We never did, nuthin' wrong!"
Telstra sings the same old song...

"Splitting us up is just not fair,
It's only for the public that we care..."

Broke some laws? What a fuss,
Australian laws, just don't apply to us!

Telstra's the nice guys, can't you see,
We are simply victims of the A-Triple-C...

"We've never been guilty!", shuffling their feet,
"It's only the other guys that ever cheat!"

What's a monopoloy? Doesn't exist!
It's just those losers Optus, who won't be missed...

If the split happens, listen closely again,
We'll take out bat home, and not play NBN...

So try what you want, do what you dare,
But it's only for Telstra shareholders
That we really care...

Yes Conroy's a menace, old Rudd's a dud,
Telstra's best friend though, is a serving of FUD!

So dear Australians, after much Telstra pain,
If they had half a chance, they'd screw you again...
anonymous
Oct 10, 2009 8:47 AM
@Maxxi, ROFL, if you ever want to change jobs you could become the Poet Laffiate. Now see what you've done:

Corporate Telstra, which believes in its own spin and FUD
And monopolist 'tudes, (so all their offerings are a dud)
We the fair folk of Austral
Have had more than a gutful
So we simply seek salvation now, oh please Mr Rudd!
FLashy
Oct 10, 2009 2:53 PM
I am sick of this Kruddy government forcing this NBN yolk upon us, spending our tax dollars in this NBN scheme.
It was only a vote winner in the last Federal election, just admit the fact it can be built, but for a cost we cannot afford.
Customers surely will understand the their beloved PM KRudd has more deserving priorities for our tax dollars, like housing, the aged and health, rather than high speed Internet which only business will be able to afford.

Bob
Oct 12, 2009 9:26 AM
If you look through he list of submissions the majority are supportive of Telstra, the one's opposing are competitors wishing to continue or expand the free ride. There is no monopoly in the communications industry in this country. Any organisation without proving capability can buy a licence and lay cable anywhere they choose. Unfortunately they only choose CBD areas which is where the low fruit is found. Telstra went from zero market share to 40% or more of the 3G network by building a network that covers 99% of the population in a year. It is the best and fastest in the world. Why would they want to co-operate in sharing another network with lazy contenders.

As BT Management say in their submission, picking up and becoming a US company like Murdoch did may be an option for Telstra. At the end of the day, does Telstra need Australia or Australia need Telstra.
adavion
Oct 27, 2009 4:16 PM
Hmm gimme my $33bn.... Here's your CAN.... Go kick it where you like..... I'm sodding off to the USA.

Separation plan B: Step 1: Buy a chainsaw.....
RDEFCON1
Oct 28, 2009 5:11 PM
@ adavion

LOL. Too right. Telstra should sell it's copper back to the government, take it's funds and expertise, and go play in a country that wants them! That might make everyone happy!! ;)
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Windows 8: Under the hood
Part One of iTnews' enterprise guide to Windows 8.
 
iTnews on tour: The Executive Summit Series
Join us in Sydney and Melbourne to meet Australia's tech leaders.
 
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
  90%
 
No
  10%
TOTAL VOTES: 62

Vote