The problems that the code seeks to address persist and are well documented policy problems - that form the basis of regulatory intervention in the telecommunications sector and a variety of other markets (Buchanan & Stubblebine 2000; King 2009). There is accordingly a sound basis for regulatory interventions to address these problems. What are the objectives of the code? As noted in the discussion paper the stated objectives of the code are: The improvement of environmental amenity by avoiding a proliferation of mobile towers and cables; The promotion of competition and efficiency in the provision of telecommunications services by facilitating the entry of mobile and fixed line telecommunication operators, who could use existing infrastructure without having to invest in new infrastructure. The code aims to promote competition by ensuring that service providers can access facilities owned by their competitors (and third parties) and thus provide services at lower cost to consumers, and to ameliorate the negative effects on amenity as a result of duplicative infrastructure construction. In addition to these objectives, the code has a broader objective of promoting efficient investment in telecommunications infrastructure through greater co-location and co-building of facilities. For consumers, increased co-operation in the construction of infrastructure has the potential to reduce the costs of building facilities and therefore reduce the cost of services. This is particularly important in extending or improving coverage in those areas where the construction of facilities may not be financially viable where funded by one service provider, particularly in regional and remote Australia. Has the code achieved its objectives? The code has promoted beneficial outcomes for consumers by reducing the loss of amenity from unnecessary duplication of infrastructure, as well as reduced service costs as a result of co-investment. Although these benefits appear to have been material, in the absence of clear evidence to demonstrate this, we cannot conclude that the code has been fully effective in achieving its stated objectives. The code appears to have promoted greater investment in telecommunications service infrastructure, with the private sector investing $5951.5 million in 2016-17 (BITRE 2017, p.259). This represents a record level of investment by the private sector (over $1 billion higher than the preceding year), which follows over a decade of exceptionally strong private investment in telecommunications infrastructure. However, the benefits of greater investment and lower infrastructure costs have not been evenly spread, and for consumers in regional and remote areas, the code does not appear to have facilitated investment or competition, with Telstra maintaining its regional dominance (ACCC 2018, p. 5, p.
The problems that the code seeks to address persist and are well documented policy problems - that form the basis of regulatory intervention in the telecommunications sector and a variety of other markets (Buchanan & Stubblebine 2000; King 2009). There is accordingly a sound basis for regulatory interventions to address these problems. What are the objectives of the code? As noted in the discussion paper the stated objectives of the code are: The improvement of environmental amenity by avoiding a proliferation of mobile towers and cables; The promotion of competition and efficiency in the provision of telecommunications services by facilitating the entry of mobile and fixed line telecommunication operators, who could use existing infrastructure without having to invest in new infrastructure. The code aims to promote competition by ensuring that service providers can access facilities owned by their competitors (and third parties) and thus provide services at lower cost to consumers, and to ameliorate the negative effects on amenity as a result of duplicative infrastructure construction. In addition to these objectives, the code has a broader objective of promoting efficient investment in telecommunications infrastructure through greater co-location and co-building of facilities. For consumers, increased co-operation in the construction of infrastructure has the potential to reduce the costs of building facilities and therefore reduce the cost of services. This is particularly important in extending or improving coverage in those areas where the construction of facilities may not be financially viable where funded by one service provider, particularly in regional and remote Australia. Has the code achieved its objectives? The code has promoted beneficial outcomes for consumers by reducing the loss of amenity from unnecessary duplication of infrastructure, as well as reduced service costs as a result of co-investment. Although these benefits appear to have been material, in the absence of clear evidence to demonstrate this, we cannot conclude that the code has been fully effective in achieving its stated objectives. The code appears to have promoted greater investment in telecommunications service infrastructure, with the private sector investing $5951.5 million in 2016-17 (BITRE 2017, p.259). This represents a record level of investment by the private sector (over $1 billion higher than the preceding year), which follows over a decade of exceptionally strong private investment in telecommunications infrastructure. However, the benefits of greater investment and lower infrastructure costs have not been evenly spread, and for consumers in regional and remote areas, the code does not appear to have facilitated investment or competition, with Telstra maintaining its regional dominance (ACCC 2018, p. 5, p.
ACCC%20FAC%20Consultation_ACCAN%20submission%20041018.docx