Member log in

Commerce Commission takes 'extreme' positions on telco rules

BUSINESSDESK: New Zealand is gaining an international reputation for "extreme" and unpredictable regulation by competition watchdog the Commerce Commission.

That is the opinion of Andrew Bascand, managing director of fund manager Harbour Asset Management.

In a submission to telecommunications commissioner Ross Patterson, Mr Bascand says the commission's approach puts the success of the government's ultra-fast broadband initiative at risk.

And could be a turn-off for foreign investors considering buying shares in partially privatised state-owned energy companies.

His comments follow what he describes as last month's "policy shock" of draft regulations for the unbundled copper local loop - the traditional mainstay infrastructure of the national telephone system, which fibre-optic cable will replace as ultra-fast broadband rolls out nationwide.

The government's $1.5 billion subsidy plan is intended to accelerate uptake of UFB, but the Commerce Commission's approach suggests it "has a mandate to tilt the playing field back to copper" while using a flawed benchmarking approach to regulation, Mr Bascand said.

"Telco industry regulation needs to have a policy anchor that is consistent across a broad range of objectives involving customer outcomes, the allocation of capital and the recognition of the benefits to society in the move to fibre that may not just be consumer-related

"Regulated returns need to have a cost of capital framework, not a benchmarking framework," he said.

While releasing draft regulations for consultation was a good practice, "some market participants observe that the commission seems to take an extreme position initially on some issues".

That raised risk premiums for investors at odds with the commission's role as a "core player" in New Zealand's capital markets.

The commission's drafts appeared to adopt tactical positions "to be used as a bargaining tool with companies", or to allow it conduct "goal-seeking exercises."

Mr Bascand said if a benchmarking approach had to be used, it would make most sense to use the agreed price for basic UFB service of $37.50 a month, since that had been "tested in the real world through a long, robust and hard-negotiated tender process" overseen by Crown Fibre Holdings.

Telecom, which split off its infrastructure unit Chorus earlier this year to participate in the UFB rollout, won the lion's share of the UFB funding in a process that policymakers were anxious to ensure did not force pricing for copper-based serviced to fall so far that uptake of UFB stalled.

However, last month's draft decision had led Goldman Sachs to cut its forecast of UFB uptake by 10%, suggesting outcomes that "run entirely counter to government policy", tilting the playing field in favour of copper and forcing Chorus to accept uneconomic returns on its copper network.

However the issue was handled, the government should be aware international investors now look askance at New Zealand regulators, making them wary of investing in partially privatised assets where regulatory risk remains high, such as the electricity sector.

"The government should contemplate legislation to ensure Chorus earns an appropriate return on their entire copper network and settles this matter before they embark on talking to global investors about IPOs of the SOEs," Mr Bascand told the commissioner.

"Our recommendation is to set aside the UCLL and all other copper based investigations pending the full telco sector review."

While the review was scheduled for 2016, enough evidence of UFB uptake may have emerged in time for it to be held a year earlier instead.
 

Comments and questions
10

Amen

Anyone going to ask the Government what they're going to do about it?

Com Com = muppetts

UFB offers no benefit over existing copper infrastructure and there are no applications that reequire fibre speeds to the home. Therefore the only way the consumer will accept UFB is if UFB prices are same or lower than the copper alternative. The reality is that copper based access is cheaper to provide and delivers eveyting that most broadband consumers need. So without regulatory intervention (price fixing) UFB woud be a failure. The result, consumers have to pay more for a service they don't need.

The only application I can see for the home user is downloading blue ray quality high definition movies in 3D, which is rather trivial.
Hopefully the commercial applications and the extra tax revenue generated from ultrafast broadband exports far exceed the cost.

Sounds like speculation with tax money.

Well done Mr Bascand. May his warning bells ring in the corridors of the Beehive.

Actually, the Commissioner's job is not to provide long term benefits to Chorus Investors - it's to provide long term benefits to New Zealanders. That is exactly what he is trying to do.

I would be very concerned if he was replaced by a government muppet.

That's excellent news. Most NZ'ers don't want our valuable assets flogged off - so if no foreigners will buy them it would be a viable outcome. Getting foreigners to invest in NEW assets that would GROW NZ would be a winning outcome - but we would need a leader with vision to achieve that.

Mr Bascand may know about asset management but clearly doesn't know what he is talking about on this. The Commission is REQUIRED by the Telecommunications Act to adopt a benchmarking approach, it can't use a cost of capital approach for this matter. Further, the Commission signaled last year that it was reviewing it's 2007 determination, and the likelihood that prices would go down was public long before the Chorus/Telecom split.

People like Vector and Telecom (now, Chorus), and the brokerages they use as stalking horses, have always complained about the Commission because they don't like the fact their monopoly returns are regulated downward. In other news, turkeys are outraged at the impending onset of Xmas. There is nothing surprising (or wrong) about self interest. What is surprising is that business media take these bleats seriously.

The Commission only does what its legislation requires it to do. The real problem is a lack of 'joined up' telecommunications policy at the government level. We have a copper policy, overseen by the Commission, a fibre policy overseen by Crown Fibre (albeit enforced by the Commission) and no-one with a mandate to look at what these silos are doing to (for example) the BROADBAND market, which has fibre, copper and mobile components.