Telecommunications is a national issue and therefore requires government involvement; this is not unique to Australia but applies to all jurisdictions. Unfortunately over the past 10 years, policies have been concentrated on getting the government out of telecommunications.
However, governments have now accepted that there are two issues in relation to telecoms:
- A commercial issue (looking after the shareholders); and
- A national interest issue (national infrastructure).
In countries with proper broadband networks we see that elderly people are linked to a video-nurse system, allowing them instant live video contact with a nurse to discuss problems or with their family and friends when they feel lonely; they get the service, as it should be, from the health service, not from the telco.
Access to education, smart energy meters, e-government as well as e-commerce and entertainment are all functions that can be serviced through broadband infrastructure, as long as this infrastructure is open so that these parties can use them in the most efficient way and not through telco gateway keepers.
Of the roughly 2000 fibre-to-the-home projects currently under way around the world, 70 per cent are driven by local municipalities all keen to improve their citizens' lifestyle, social welfare and economic development.
So to see the Labor Party addressing the social and economic importance of this infrastructure issues is a good thing.
But the implementation of such an infrastructure is not that easy as there are two opposing standpoints. As Telstra has been arguing, they will do this as long as the government gives them a monopoly (regulatory holiday, or whatever they want to call this). The rest of the country argues you need an open network so that all these different services can be delivered independently of the infrastructure provider. For that reason, operational separation of the infrastructure from the services is essential. This is also what Labor says it wants: open networks, and it is a strong supporter of operational separation.
While Telstra reacted positively to Labor's plans, I find it difficult to reconcile its very aggressive actions against regulations that would force it into operational separation and open up its network with its positive view on Labor's plans.
Under its current position, I find it hard to believe that Telstra will accept an open network policy, but if it does so, I would be the first to applaud and to welcome that move. I have always argued that Telstra should be our preferred national infrastructure provider. However, if the telco sticks to its current position it will be difficult for Telstra to accept Labor's open network plans and that would most probably lead to a continuation of the current Mexican stand-off.
That would be a real problem, similar to my analyses of the Broadband Connect policy from the current Government. There is a great risk that if Telstra boycotts these initiatives we could easily see a repeat of the cable TV rollout debacle of the mid 1990s where Optus started to roll out new infrastructure with Telstra overbuilding them street by street; this in the end led to the loss of $7 billion. But if this is repeated with Broadband Connect or the new Labor policy, it will this time be taxpayers' money that will be wasted.
So in order to safeguard these government investments, the Government will have to overhaul the regulatory system and empower the regulator to swiftly enforce operational separation. Until the Government does so, one could argue that it is in the interests of the shareholders for Telstra to utilise the current regulatory system that allows it to maximise its monopolistic situation. It was not until the Government and/or the regulator stepped in, in a very forceful way, before BT in Britain, KPN in the Netherlands and Telecom New Zealand - just to cite a few - started to change their behaviour in the marketplace.
So as the Labor plan indicates, they will swiftly address the regulatory situation before they will execute their plans which will involve $4.7 billion of government funds. What we now need from them is some clarification on their plan of action here. I am sure the ACCC will have some independent and good advice on how to do this. At the recent Broadband Mission to the Netherlands, DCITA was well represented and all of these issues were addressed so the department is well aware of what needs to be done.
The situation in Australia is not unique: everybody else is struggling with the same issues. However, without strong government policies on open networks and a powerful regulator which can enforce this, both the Broadband Connect money and the $4.7 billion from a Labor government could be totally wasted.
Autor(en)/Author(s): Paul Budde
Quelle/Source: The Australian, 23.03.2007
