Address to Telecommunications Carriers Forum Strategic Planning Session, Hilton Hotel, Auckland

Tena katou katoa, good morning everyone,

I’d like to start by saying that I think this session is a very worthwhile idea and I’m pleased to be given the opportunity to share my thoughts and throw a few ideas around with you

Firstly, I wish to reflect on the objectives of the TCF and whether those are still relevant going forward. I’d then like to discuss some of the challenges that the TCF faces and some of my aspirations for the TCF.

I will also touch on some of the changes being brought in by the Amendment Bill with the caveat that Government is currently considering the Select Committee's recommendations.

The purpose of the TCF is still to facilitate co-operation within industry

The purpose of the TCF has always been about self-regulation – about facilitating co-operation within industry where possible and in line with the public good. My view is that this is still the relevant objective for the TCF going forward and where its future role lies.

But there have been a number of significant changes

However, there have been a number of significant changes since the 2001 Telecommunications Act came into force and consequently I agree that it is timely for the TCF to stop and think about the best way to achieve this objective.

The shape of the industry has changed

The shape of the industry has changed.

Six years ago there were fewer players and the industry was dominated by network operators. Nowadays, the industry is much more diverse. The TCF is no longer the only telecommunications industry body. And this means that it is not just network operators who have an interest and a role to play in self-regulation.

That’s why the Amendment Bill proposes that the definition of eligible persons be widened. Despite this increasing diversity and the challenges it brings, I do not wish to see the telecommunications sector becoming as fragmented with industry bodies as it is in my Information Technology portfolio - which has over 90 industry bodies!

The TCF faces two key challenges. One is for the TCF is to continue to be a focal point for industry self-regulation in this environment.

Another is for the TCF is obtaining buy-in. Especially from some of the smaller players who have more limited resources.

As you are probably aware, the Amendment Bill proposes a stronger role for the Commission – who would be able to prepare, amend, and enforce codes. I hope that such a regulatory backstop will assist the TCF with obtaining the buy-in from the wider industry that is required for effective self-regulation.

It would also mean that the hard work that goes into developing an effective self-regulatory code that relates to a regulated service will not be thwarted by the few who don’t sign up.

The content and scope of codes has changed

I would also like to spend a few minutes on the content and scope of the TCF codes because they have been changing also. The TCF has been proactive in developing codes that are beyond the scope of the regulated access regime but are nevertheless important. Codes such as the SMS Anti-spam code and the Consumer Complaints Scheme. I hope for the TCF to continue taking on these wider self-regulatory challenges and reducing the need for government intervention in such areas.

Priority work streams for the TCF going forward

I eagerly anticipate receiving the final consumer complaints scheme early next year. There are reserve regulation-making powers in the amendment Bill that I am keen to see kept as “reserve” where appropriate (but noting the other responsibilities of the Minister and the commissioner). Current progress on the code indicates that should be the case.

To supplement this, it could be useful for the TCF to develop an industry standard or code of practice for measurement of broadband speeds in order that consumers are able to easily compare broadband offers. I have been receiving feedback that consumers are confused at how data speeds are variously represented as minimum, average and maximum levels.

Consumers also appear to be confused about the broadband speeds that their line will allow and whether they can expect to get broadband at the promised levels.

There are also reserve regulation powers in the Amendment Bill to set out minimum requirements for emergency services. The TCF may like to consider developing a code of practice for emergency services (VOIP and analogue) in order to support the following five things:

• Consistent availability of services
• Uniformity in access numbering and dialling
• Caller Line Identification – Number and Location
• Service quality and reliability levels
• Call routing protocols.

I encourage the TCF to continue its joint work with the Internet NZ on developing a suitable model for managing ENUM in New Zealand”.

I see the work being undertaken by the TCF on LLU and naked DSL as particularly high priority. My aspiration is for these working parties to progress as many of the technical implementation issues as possible. I do not wish to see them frustrated by gaming and delays.

Number portability also continues to be a priority code going forward. I have been disappointed at the ongoing delays with implementation of number portability but heartened by the efforts that have been put into achieving the promised April 07 date.

The TCF needs to finalise more codes if it wishes to be an effective industry body

On that note, the last five years cannot be painted as an entirely rosy picture. One of the reasons for originally proposing a stronger role for the Commission around the access code regime was because very few codes have been finalised by the TCF and this could not be described as teething issues. Of late however there seems to be much more preparedness on the part of the major players to resolve issues through the TCF and I hope that continues. A major challenge will be bringing the ISPs and other providers into the fold and accommodating their concerns within reason.

Conclusion
So to sum up, my aspirations for the TCF are for it to be an effective facilitator of appropriate self-regulation, especially as New Zealand grapples with implementation of LLU, and naked DSL.

The telecommunications legislative regime provides for appropriate industry self-regulation in order to reduce costs while promoting industry compliance where this advances the public interest. My hope is to see the TCF to achieve these things