Business

Reforms pave way for Telstra break-up

Ari Sharp
September 15, 2009

Video feedback

Use this form to:

  • Ask for technichal assistance in playing the multimedia available on this site, or
  • Provide feedback to the multimedia producers.
Video feedback form

Video feedback

Thank you.

Your feedback was successfully sent.

Video will begin in 5 seconds.

Video settings

What type of connection do you have?

Video settings form
  1. Note: A cookie will be set to keep your preferences.

Video settings

Your video format settings have been saved.

Why Telstra is being broken up

Business Day columnist Elizabeth Knight analyses the Government's move to split Telstra's retail and wholesale arms.

Telstra is set for its biggest shake-up since privatisation under Federal Government plans that will pave the way for a break-up of the telco and introduce new hard-line consumer safeguards.

Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy this morning announced the company would need to structurally separate voluntarily - and if not the Government would force a split under a new regulatory regime.

Fielding questions Future Fund sell-off of Telstra stake
Telstra shares slump as empire cracks
Consumers the big winners: iiNet
Reforms unnecessary, create uncertainty: Thodey
Optus: reforms are long overdue
Shareholders say 'not one good thing' in Telstra proposal

The changes are part of an attempt by the Government to pressure Telstra to be a part of the $43 billion national broadband network, but no promise of involvement has been extracted from Telstra as part of negotiations

Telstra shares lost 14 cents, or 4.3 per cent, to close at $3.11.

Telstra operates as a Universal Service Obligation, which outlines the company's obligations to consumers, including reasonable access to standard telephone services and payphones.

If the proposed changes are adopted, the minister will have the power to ''specify the standards, terms and conditions of services, connection and repair periods, and reliability requirements of the standard telephone service''.

If Telstra opts to ignore the demand, the Government will have to power to force Telstra to:

- conduct its network operations and wholesale functions at arm's length from the rest of the company;
- provide the same price for its retail business and it does for other carriers in accessing its wholesale network;
- implement governance structures to make the separation transparent.

Australia's largest telco will also need to choose between holding on to some of its existing assets and gaining access to spectrum space that will allow it to provide so-called 4G services.

The draft laws will require Telstra to lose its cable network and divest its interests in the pay television arm, Foxtel.

Telstra will be prevented from acquiring additional spectrum for advanced mobile services.

It will be prevented from gaining new spectrum while it remains vertically integrated, owns a hybrid fibre coaxial cable network and holds onto its interest in pay TV operator Foxtel.

But as an incentive to Telstra to co-operate, the legislation gives the minister the right to ditch the last two requirements if the structural separation wins the approval of the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission.

New benchmarks

Under the proposals, Telstra will be subject to tough new guidelines under the threat of hefty penalties.

''Telstra will be required to meet new minimum performance benchmarks. Failure by Telstra to meet the requirements will expose Telstra to a civil penalty of up to $10 million.''

''The legislation also includes more stringent rules on the removal of payphones... Failure to comply with the new rules will expose Telstra to civil penalties or on-the-spot fines.''

"For years industry has been calling for fundamental and historic micro-economic reform in telecommunications," he said.

"Today we are delivering this outcome in Australia's long-term national interest."

The reforms would address the structure of the telecommunications market and provide Telstra with the flexibility to choose its future path.

"It is the Government's clear desire for Telstra to structurally separate, on a voluntary and cooperative basis," Senator Conroy said.

"The Government believes it is possible to achieve a win-win outcome in the interests of Telstra, its shareholders and, more broadly, all Australians."

Telstra was one of the most highly integrated telecommunications companies in the world across the fixed-line copper, cable and mobile platforms, Senator Conroy said.

'Long-standing inadequacies'

''These fundamental reforms address the long-standing inadequacies of the existing telecommunications regulatory regime. They will drive lower prices, better quality and more innovative services,'' Senator Conroy said.

''Unless it structurally separates, divests its ... cable network and divests its interests in Foxtel,'' Senator Conroy said.

Previous governments had failed to undertake serious reforms of the telecommunications sector, Senator Conroy said.

''The measures in this legislation will finally correct the mistakes of the past,'' he said.

In a statement to the market this morning, Telstra said it was ''examining the detail of the reforms and will provide an update to the market as appropriate.''

BusinessDay with AAP

9 comments so far

  • Good news for consumers. If you compare what we pay for fixed-lines, mobile calls, and broadband we are among the most expensive in the developed world. We can only hope this will break the monopoly in a similar fashion to the forced break-up of BT in the UK and start to see reduced prices...

    Commenter
    Darren
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    September 15, 2009, 11:55AM
  • Everyone who has owned a Telstra prepaid account, these are the thoughts of myself if no one else, hopes that Telstra's share price falls, and falls hard. Their labyrinth of contracts and ability to sign oneself onto a reoccurring billing payment is second to none. Make them accountable, make it fair. Good riddance!

    Commenter
    Daniel Hobbs
    Location
    Geelong
    Date and time
    September 15, 2009, 11:54AM
  • As a migrant arriving in 2006, I thought well of the Australian government and ASX.But look likes my investment ,first for TLSCA,then paid up the instalment to be a full Telstra sgareholder,is a con job to mislead me into a long term investment which was overpriced,and a lousy one eager to be get rid off by the government,to unsuspecting investors.

    Commenter
    Migrant Investor
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    September 15, 2009, 12:29PM
  • The biggest question is: was the Australian Future Fund engaged on a bit of an insider trading a couple of months ago when it sold a very big portion of it's Telstra holdings?

    Commenter
    Michael
    Date and time
    September 15, 2009, 12:47PM
  • Where is Telstra's competitors in the rural and remote areas?Optus is not there as there is no economy of scales in these areas and only sucker "private' Telstra provide services (at a loss?).True competition means all competitors build their own infrastructure instead of riding piggyback on Telstra. We got ripped off in T2 ,then again T3.

    Commenter
    Dad & Mum Investor
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    September 15, 2009, 1:58PM
  • Can the Labour Government be sued for "Insider Trading"? The Government sold a large chunk of its shareholding in Telstra before announcing today's outrageous decision. Haven't they made profit out of insider knowledge? In the process ripped shareholders off? Let's bring a class action to teach this foolish Government.

    Commenter
    Madhu K
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    September 15, 2009, 2:38PM
  • How can Senator Conroy justify ripping off the Australian shareholders that have allowed funds to flow into his Government's coffers by investing in an Australian company where the Australian Government is a major shareholder ?? We, the shareholders have paid to purchase the infrastructure that belongs to Telstra. It goes against every business and commercial principle for the Government to dictate that an Australian company must allow a competitor to use its infrastructure. Surely any decision to allow a competitor to use the company infrastructure, or to restructure the company, must be a 'commercial' decision in the best interests of the shareholder, according to the Corporations Act. I believe this is a decision for shareholders, not the Federal Government.

    Commenter
    Wiso
    Date and time
    September 15, 2009, 2:08PM
  • All I can say is its about time. Telstra is the only broadband provider in the new estate that I'm in and I am paying a small fortunes for it. I cant change as I'm locked into a two year contract and it has another year to go. If it drives their prices down, that's always a plus.

    http://www.abettermanagingtip.com

    Commenter
    Andrew Bailey
    Location
    melbourne
    Date and time
    September 15, 2009, 3:45PM
  • Firstly it must be remembered that Telstra is a private company with private shareholders who have now seen their shares devalued. The gopv is interferring with the running of a private company, telling them they must shed revenue raising shareholdings, Foxtel, exclude them from bidding for spectrum to expand the business. I do not see the same restrictions on the other companies.
    Whilst there are some gains to be made from the seperation of commercial and wholesale the restrictions will see Telstra such a restricted business it's future success could well be questioned.
    The continual debate driven by overseas owned companies where thier prices basis is in countries with a higher population and far less distances. Providing a service to a remote cattle station does not compare to providing a service in downtown Manhattan. Do not see any of the so called competiutors rushing in to provide the cattle station with a service. Remember the scream that certain companies made when Telstra tried to shut down the CDMA.

    Well now the gov has made this announcement we can now expect the same drastic action against the banks, oil companies etc. Yeah that is likely against the untouchables.

    Commenter
    Bill
    Location
    Bruisbane
    Date and time
    September 16, 2009, 12:35PM

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

More Related Coverage

Telstra break-up plan: rivals crow

15 Sep Consumer groups and competitors have rejoiced at the Government's decision to force a structural break-up of Telstra, while investors dump the stock.

Thumbnail image for video asset.Click to play video

Video

Why Telstra is being broken up

Business Day columnist Elizabeth Knight analyses the Government's move to split Telstra's retail and wholesale arms.

Opposition: wireless scrambles NBN plan

The explosion in the use of wireless broadband has undermined the rationale for the $43 billion national broadband network, the Federal Opposition says.

Telstra's day of reckoning in NBN legislation

New regulations will mean major changes for the telco.

Now for something different: Telstra ripped off

15 Sep Telstra shareholders are now being ordered by Stephen Conroy to suck it up for the greater good.

Telstra will just have to wear it

15 Sep The Government's agenda on the reform of telecommunications was always going to be about structural separation for Telstra.

Quigley aims to build NBN in eight years

15 Sep NBN Co chairman Mike Quigley says he sees no reason why the government's commitment to having a national broadband network in place in eight years should be changed.