Domestic Intercarrier Roaming - ACCC inquiry today
Tom Worthington
I just noticed that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC) was conducting a public inquiry into whether to "declare" services
allowing intercarrier roaming between existing and new digital mobile
networks.
"...roaming can enable the customers of a new mobile carrier in the 1.8
GHz band in a metropolitan area to use an existing GSM network where the
new network has no presence, such as in regional or country areas."
According to the ACCC media release 14 January 1998:
http://www.accc.gov.au/media/mobile.htm
The public hearing was to be in Melbourne on Tuesday 20 January at 2pm.
Does anoyone know how it went?
There is also supposed to be discussion paper on "Domestic Intercarrier
Roaming" available at the ACCC's home page, but I couldn't find it:
http://www.accc.gov.au.
Tom Worthington http://www.acslink.net.au/~tomw PO Box 13
Immediate Past President to...@acslink.net.au Belconnen ACT 2617
Australian Computer Society Fax: 0419 499422
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACS President's Final Report: http://www.acslink.net.au/~tomw/twcl97c.htm
Thompson Family
Tom Worthington wrote:
> The public hearing was to be in Melbourne on Tuesday 20 January at 2pm.
> Does anoyone know how it went?
No, but the Financial Review had a preview, I think it was in today's paper.
I would expect the AFR to report tomorrow 21 Jan. I suspect, given the
complexities, that the hearing will last more than a day and the decision
will take some time. Today's hearing was supposed to receive submissions
from each of the incumbent carriers (T, O and V). Presumably the aspiring
carriers (eg AAPT, Primus, Northgate and so forth) get the floor too. I
can't see all of that happening in just one day!
The ABC also previewed the hearing this morning. Transcript:
QUOTE
ACCC to review mobile phone market
Tuesday 20 January, 1998 (9:38am AEDT)
Moves are under way to loosen the stranglehold Optus,
Vodafone and
Telstra have on Australia's multi-billion dollar mobile
phone market.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
launches hearings in Melbourne today aimed at removing
barriers to new
players entering the market.
ACCC spokesman Chris Pattas says with the big three
reluctant about
competition, arbitration may yet be needed to settle
future access
disputes.
"There is a concern that they have invested billions of
dollars in these
facilities in mobile facilities and in other facilities,
and that these
newcomers coming in are paying dirt cheap prices for it,"
he said.
"It's something that will be looked at in due course.
"It's not something that we are concerned with right now."
UNQUOTE
> There is also supposed to be discussion paper on "Domestic Intercarrier
> Roaming" available at the ACCC's home page, but I couldn't find it:
> http://www.accc.gov.au.
Try http://www.accc.gov.au/contact/domestic.htm
Peter Bowditch
Tom Worthington <to...@acslink.net.au> wrote:
>I just noticed that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
>(ACCC) was conducting a public inquiry into whether to "declare" services
>allowing intercarrier roaming between existing and new digital mobile
>networks.
>
>"...roaming can enable the customers of a new mobile carrier in the 1.8
>GHz band in a metropolitan area to use an existing GSM network where the
>new network has no presence, such as in regional or country areas."
So now if I spend a couple of billion dollars building a GSM network,
someone else can come along, put up one tower, and I am forced to let
them use my infrastructure to say they have universal coverage?
Is this the same ACCC which would not let someone buy Australis
because it would reduce the number of pay TV operators in the country,
so it let them go broke and there are fewer pay TV operators in the
country?
Is this the same ACCC which would not let Wattyl (an Australian
company) buy Taubmans but was happy for a South African company to buy
Taubmans?
Have we gone mad?
........................................................
Peter Bowditch Mobile: +61-419219659
Gebesse Computer Consultants pet...@gebesse.com.au
Parramatta NSW Australia http://www.gebesse.com.au/
PB's book is at http://www.gebesse.com.au/books/internet.htm
Damien
yes
Spence
I think it's mad that regardless of which carrier I choose there are places
where my carrier has no coverage but my phone would work fine with another
carrier if roaming were allowed. No carrier has perfect coverage everywhere
even in the cities.
And the competition argument is nonsense. Telstra and Optus had plenty of
competition on the analogue network which they shared. Most customers
neither knew nor cared whose network it was.
I say that if you put up a couple of billion dollars of Australian
government funds to build a network it should be open to all Australians.
Peter Bowditch wrote in message <34c505cb...@news2.pegasus.com.au>...
>Tom Worthington <to...@acslink.net.au> wrote:
>
>>I just noticed that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
>>(ACCC) was conducting a public inquiry into whether to "declare" services
>>allowing intercarrier roaming between existing and new digital mobile
>>networks.
>>
>>"...roaming can enable the customers of a new mobile carrier in the 1.8
>>GHz band in a metropolitan area to use an existing GSM network where the
>>new network has no presence, such as in regional or country areas."
>
>So now if I spend a couple of billion dollars building a GSM network,
>someone else can come along, put up one tower, and I am forced to let
>them use my infrastructure to say they have universal coverage?
>
>Is this the same ACCC which would not let someone buy Australis
>because it would reduce the number of pay TV operators in the country,
>so it let them go broke and there are fewer pay TV operators in the
>country?
>
>Is this the same ACCC which would not let Wattyl (an Australian
>company) buy Taubmans but was happy for a South African company to buy
>Taubmans?
>
Nick Andrew
>I say that if you put up a couple of billion dollars of Australian
>government funds to build a network it should be open to all Australians.
Yep. That's what it comes down to. It's more efficient to have a single
infrastructure in things like 'phone networks and lease the infrastructure
out to companies who will sell it to end-users. No duplicate cable
rollout (cost *= 2), no duplicate base stations, etc. etc.
The total cost of rolling out 2 independent cable networks is obviously
higher than the cost of one, which means that the end user price is going
to be higher also.
Nick.
--
Zeta Internet Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9837-1397
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
Tom Worthington
Thompson Family wrote:
> Tom Worthington wrote:
>
> > The public hearing was to be in Melbourne on Tuesday 20 January at 2pm.
> > Does anoyone know how it went?
>
> No, but the Financial Review had a preview, I think it was in today's paper.
> I would expect the AFR to report tomorrow 21 Jan...
Yes, see: "Call to regulate telco giants" By Stan Beer, Australian
Financial Review: http://www.afr.com.au/content/980121/inform/inform1.html
Tom Worthington http://www.acslink.net.au/~tomw PO Box 13
Immediate Past President to...@acslink.net.au Belconnen ACT 2617
Australian Computer Society Fax: 0419 499422
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VALA98 Melb 28-31 Jan: http://www.acs.org.au/president/1997/vala98.htm
Scott
Peter Bowditch wrote:
> So now if I spend a couple of billion dollars building a GSM network,
> someone else can come along, put up one tower, and I am forced to let
> them use my infrastructure to say they have universal coverage?
This is basically true, yes. Which would suit me fir to overlay all
three
carriers coverage maps to make my usable-area map.
The idea is that when you are roaming, be it local or internationl,
you
pay a surcharge on the call. It works fine for international roaming.
This is what has been happening in the US for 10 years or so.
If there was a company who just covered Melbourne, then you would not
have
to pay for them to roll out country towers when you pay your monthly
bill,
you only pay extra when you roam, but it might be too late now, although
there is a lot of area still to cover, and when the new 1880MHZ PCN
lands
there might be such a thing.
Regrads
Scott.
Martin Gleeson
In article <34c505cb...@news2.pegasus.com.au>,
pet...@gebesse.com.au wrote:
>Tom Worthington <to...@acslink.net.au> wrote:
>>I just noticed that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
>>(ACCC) was conducting a public inquiry into whether to "declare" services
>>allowing intercarrier roaming between existing and new digital mobile
>>networks.
>>"...roaming can enable the customers of a new mobile carrier in the 1.8
>>GHz band in a metropolitan area to use an existing GSM network where the
>>new network has no presence, such as in regional or country areas."
>So now if I spend a couple of billion dollars building a GSM network,
>someone else can come along, put up one tower, and I am forced to let
>them use my infrastructure to say they have universal coverage?
What's the big deal so long as they pay you for it? I haven't heard anyone
saying that they have to provide _free_ access to other network providers.
The only thing they're complaining about is losing their oligopoly.
[...]
Cheers,
Marty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gleeson <URL:http://www.unimelb.edu.au/%7Egleeson/>
Webmaster, The University of Melbourne. ** Personal opinion only **
Imagine, if you will, a world without hypothetical situations...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Moffatt
In aus.comms.mobile Spence <Spe...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> I say that if you put up a couple of billion dollars of Australian
> government funds to build a network it should be open to all Australians.
On a related note, this is one thing I find strange about
the whole competition scenario. Telstra, as a private company,
has inherited a network from its government owned days, either from
government money or by the government protecting it (pre-competition).
So now Telstra has a lovely huge network which has not cost them
as much as it would cost for any other company to build the same thing.
This is fair?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt Mobile: +61 412 011 176 ham...@rising.com.au
Rising Software Australia Pty. Ltd.
Developers of music education software including Auralia & Musition.
31 Elmhurst Road, Blackburn, Victoria Australia, 3130
Phone: +61 3 9894 4788 Fax: +61 3 9894 3362 USA Toll Free: 1-888-667-7839
Internet: http://www.rising.com.au/
Jim Breen
Hamish Moffatt <ham...@rising.com.au> writes:
>On a related note, this is one thing I find strange about
>the whole competition scenario. Telstra, as a private company,
>has inherited a network from its government owned days, either from
>government money or by the government protecting it (pre-competition).
>So now Telstra has a lovely huge network which has not cost them
>as much as it would cost for any other company to build the same thing.
>This is fair?
Hamish, I wouldn't push this line too far, as I am afraid it is only
exposing a, shall I say, lack of understanding on your part on how
comany financing works.
Telstra isn't a "private company". It is a public company, with two
thirds of the shares held by the government. It didn't inherit a
network. It built the network using money raised from shareholders,
borrowings and internal earnings, just the same as any other company.
It is decades since any consolidated revenue money went into the network
(it was back in the PMG days), and that was long ago converted into
effectively the shareholders equity.
--
Jim Breen School of Computer Science & Software Engineering
Email: j.b...@dgs.monash.edu.au Monash University
http://www.dgs.monash.edu.au/~jwb/ Clayton VIC 3168 Australia
P: +61 3 9905 3298 F: 9905 3574 ジム・ブリーン@モナシュ大学
Nick Andrew
>It is decades since any consolidated revenue money went into the network
>(it was back in the PMG days), and that was long ago converted into
>effectively the shareholders equity.
It means that Telstra has "decades" of head-start on any competitor...
hardly fair for the competition!
Jim Breen
ni...@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew) writes:
>In <6adrs2$75c$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au> j...@daneel.dgs.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) writes:
>>It is decades since any consolidated revenue money went into the network
>>(it was back in the PMG days), and that was long ago converted into
>>effectively the shareholders equity.
>It means that Telstra has "decades" of head-start on any competitor...
>hardly fair for the competition!
Hmmm. You really don't understand about shareholders investing in
companies, do you?
The "consolidated revenue" money in the PMG/Telecom/Telstra was a blip
because pre-1975, bodies like the PMG couldn't retain earnings for
investment. It all had to go to Canberra, and some would be given back
as a *loan* on which interest was paid. Now just imagine Optus trying to
run that way! These old loans were converted to equity a while back.
I was trying to dispell the illusion that somehow Telstra had been
handed a free network. No way. Financially it is carrying a heap of
shareholders funds and a reasonable amount of gearing.
Now you seem to be making a case for Telstra being in an unfair position
because it has been in the game so long. It may come as surprise to
learn that there about a zillion people who thought of this before you,
and that all sorts of things were done to give the Optuses, APPTs, etc.
of this world a fighting chance. Otherwise the bidders for Australia's
second carrier licence wouldn't have fallen over themselves bidding 100s
of millions for a chance at the action. Unlike the UK, where Mercury was
saddled with poor interconnect capabilities, or New Zealand where it was
deregulated without any special arrangements, the Australian scene has a
heap of obligations put on Telstra to make sure that new entrants have a
chance. If Optus is having a problem, I am afraid it is entirely of its
own making, and if Optus is changing direction, it is due to the change
of strategy that has come with the change of dominant owner from Bell
South to C&W.
Short of destroying Telstra, I can't see what more the past and present
governments could have done to make sure new carriers and SPs had a good
chance. It's gone a damn sight better than in a few other countries I
could name.
Bob Bain
On the subject of "Intercarrier Roaming" I have just visited the UK
where I was offered the choice between two competing carriers - "UK
Cellnet" and "UK Vodaphone". One was markedly cheaper than the other,
so I chose the cheaper carrier wherever possible.
I notice that domestically if I hit the key for "available networks"
then the three Australian carriers appear on the "available" list, but
there is no way I can connect to anything but Telstra: this being the
carrier I have a contract with, and the point of this discussion.
As a matter of interest are UK visitors visiting Australia offered a
choice between the three Australian networks as I was offered a choice
of two competing networks in the UK, and equally as important are people
in the UK able to chose between the competing carriers as I was
permitted to do while "roaming" in the UK ?
Bob
--
Bob Bain, Sydney, Australia
bo...@acslink.aone.net.au
Jonathan Potter
In article <34cf8777...@news.syd.aone.net.au>, bo...@acslink.aone.net.au (Bob Bain) wrote:
> As a matter of interest are UK visitors visiting Australia offered a
>choice between the three Australian networks as I was offered a choice
>of two competing networks in the UK, and equally as important are people
>in the UK able to chose between the competing carriers as I was
>permitted to do while "roaming" in the UK ?
It depends what roaming agreements the visitors' own carrier has with the
Australian networks. I would be surprised if a carrier had established roaming
agreements with all three Australian networks, but I guess it's possible.
Jon
Joop
Bob Bain wrote:
>
>
> As a matter of interest are UK visitors visiting Australia offered a
> choice between the three Australian networks as I was offered a choice
> of two competing networks in the UK, and equally as important are people
> in the UK able to chose between the competing carriers as I was
> permitted to do while "roaming" in the UK ?
>
I do not know how the status is with carriers from England, but when I
came to
Australia from Denmark three years ago, I could access all networks with
my Danish phone (carrier Sonofone).
When I changed to an Aussie carrier, I could only access the one
network.
Telstra at that time told me that cross connections were technically not
possible!
It seems that one or more of the aussie carriers is just not interested
in cross-connections.
I do not really understand that, as one of the rules couls be that in
order
to connect to a different network there is a surcharge, so everyone
gains.
BTW, this was the case in Denmark, where one could connect to any
carrier
just the charges were different.
This system could make it much easier to service remote areas. It could
even be envisaged that a third party is going to install a tower,
and rents out the air time to any of the existing carriers.
This would be especially usefull in areas where there are few permanent
residents
and many tourists.
Joop
--
___________________________________________________________________
Joop de Wit, SIGMA Oilfield Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
Tel. +61 8 9221 8756 Fax +61 8 9221 8084 http://www.sigma.net.au
Kappa Engineering SEA Tel +61 8 9221 8765
http://www.kappaengineering.com