| » Home |
| » About Us |
| » Events |
| » Publications |
| » Sponsors |
| » Advisers |
| » Projects |
8. Universal service rules
8.1 Governing principles
8.2 Arrangements to deliver universal service
Note on what this heading is about. There is currently a complex universal scheme in federal telecommunications legislation. In broadcasting, there is a different approach. The ABC provides a range of public services to all citizens on a non-commercial basis.
One issue for the future is whether the law should provide for a defined range of services to be provided to all citizens nationwide. Should any regulation be focused not on correcting disadvantage as such, but on gaining the economic advantages of putting the whole nation within reach of certain services such as social security, health and education. For example, should there be a mechanism to ensure that the whole population can be reached by broadband at a minimum speed? On the other hand, should a Communications Act be focused only on getting to people with specific disadvantages such as physical disability or isolated location?
8.1 Governing principles
• A ‘metro-equivalent’ USO principle for the future, not related to specific technology
Source: Internet Society of Australia
The Internet Society of Australia proposed in 2007 the following principles, to replace the current form of universal service requirement:
The public are increasingly making choices about the communications technology they are using; the concept of requiring simply the provision of voice telephony has the effect of confining that choice to a minimum technology and transmission capacity. What should be reasonably accessible to all Australians is a broadband transmission service with speeds at least comparable to what is available in metropolitan areas to support new communications technologies. As technology develops, what is considered as ‘metro comparable’ can be updated.
The existing USO is to provide a service for voice telephony (or equivalent) that passes the any to any connectivity test. Under the connectivity test, a customer of the service must be able to communicate with other customers of the service, regardless of network provider. This requirement must be preserved in any new requirement for universal service. It should also reflect that customers are, increasingly, requiring communication between platforms (e.g., SMS to Internet).
As in current legislation, the requirement for provision of the ‘service’ should be technology neutral. Regardless of the technology used in fulfillment of the obligation, however, if a transmission service is provided under this obligation, there should be minimum service standards that can support various forms of communications used, including minimum data rates of transmission.
[Ref: ISOC-AU, 2007, Submission to the DCITA USO Review, viewed 24 July 2008, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/81560/ISOC-AU.pdf]
8.2 Arrangements to deliver universal service
• Recognise greenfields fibre providers as Universal Service Providers
Source: South Australian Government
The South Australian Government made this recommendation in November 2007 to the Federal Government universal service obligation (USO) review:
As fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) deployments to new housing estates by a range of providers become more widespread, it is timely that the USO model be reviewed to address issues that have emerged.
The appointed provider for the housing estate could offer the universal service. The provider which rolls out infrastructure in the new housing estate should have the opportunity to be the local USP [universal service provider] provided certain assurances are given that will guarantee the long term availability of services. The national USP, assuming there continues to be one, should not be able to use the USO to their commercial advantage and potentially undermine the business case of the local provider. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that this has happened in the past.
The national USP (provider of last resort) may be able to be relieved of its obligations in these situations where another provider is rolling out the customer access network in these new estates. Under this situation, there may be some regulatory implications to do with access, interconnection, etc.
[Ref: Government of South Australia Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology, 2007, submission to the DCITA USO Review, viewed 24 July 2008 http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/81562/South_Australia.pdf]
• Establish a new framework to replace the existing USO legislation
Source: Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee
The Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee said that current legislative and regulatory universal service obligations were out of date. Its September 2008 report recommended a kind of scheme saying that:
The Australian Government develop a new framework to provide an assurance of ongoing access to voice, mobile, broadband and payphone services to replace the existing USO legislation. The legislative framework [should] provide for:
a) The Minister to determine the relevant standards — the Communications Service Standard (CSS). The CSS is to include standards for voice, broadband, mobile phone and payphone services.
(i) The voice standard must include internationally recognised voice quality measures.
(ii) The broadband standard must be equitable with services delivered by the NBN.
(iii) The mobile standard must be for hand-held mobile phones.
(iv) The payphone standard must include objective criteria for access to payphones, and in developing this standard consideration needs to be given to whether a standard is needed for public internet access.
b) The Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee to be consulted on proposed changes to the standards.
c) The Australian Government to develop, publish and implement a ‘plan of measures’ to ensure that all individuals and all small businesses can purchase services that meet the CSS, wherever they live or work in Australia, on an equitable basis.
d) An independent body, not subject to Ministerial direction, be required to conduct an audit at least every three years on the effectiveness of the Australian Government’s ‘plan of measures’ in ensuring communications services meeting the standards are available to be purchased by all, and this audit be tabled in Parliament.
While recognising that changes to existing laws would be significantly influenced by the NBN the Committee recommended that the new framework be in place on or before 30 June 2013. The committee said that reforms may extend to the current industry tax to fund the existing USO but also said it would be possible to retain the industry specific tax to fund interventions to meet Communications Service Standards.
[Ref: Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee, Framework for the Future Report, September 2008, viewed 6 February 2009, http://www.rtirc.gov.au/Report]
• The Minister rather than a telephone company required to implement measures to ensure USO services available
Source: Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee
The Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee said that while the current USO framework was based on the concept of carrier of last resort, this was an illusionary practice because the current universal service provider can legally refuse to supply a request for a service in some circumstances. The report said that the proposed Communications Service Standard arrangements ‘would effectively shift the legislative obligation from a telephone company, Telstra (as it is today), to the Minister. The Minister would be required to implement measures to ensure the services are available’:
The committee recommended that:
The Australian Government provide a mechanism, simple for individuals and small business to use, to address and resolve service inadequacy issues that may arise under the new framework. At a minimum the mechanism provide that:
a) If consumers have been unable to obtain access to services that meet the standards, then the prospective consumer should receive advice of services available. If no services are available, for the Minister to be informed.
b) If individual instances of failure to access a service that meets the standards are found and not resolved, then a report detailing those instances is to be prepared and published annually and within the first quarter of the following year.
c) If a consumer is refused access to subsidy or other schemes that are part of the Australian Government’s ‘implementation plan’ for the CSS, the consumer disputes that decision, then that decision should be reviewable.
The Committee concluded that technological developments mean that the current USO arrangements no longer working effectively and that there is a need to provide greater certainty over future access to mobile, broadband and voice services.
[Ref: Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee, Framework for the Future Report, September 2008, viewed 6 February 2009, http://www.rtirc.gov.au/Report]
« Back
Network Insight sponsors include:
