Just as when media companies sought to encourage the government to adopt a bargaining code with big tech platforms, the telcos’ TV traffic toll will be robustly rejected by the tech crowd.
The initial comments seen on social media after Sunday’s article was published show that the telcos will also face a difficult challenge when making a case in the court of public opinion.
Double-dipping
A survey from Roy Morgan released a few days ago had Optus and Telstra both in the top five most distrusted brands in the country, and there is a perception among some commenters that the telcos are already being paid for their infrastructure investments through consumers’ bills.
Therefore, they say charging the likes of Netflix and Google would be double-dipping.
Optus’ and TPG’s response to that argument would be that consumer packages have had to move away from charging based on how much data they use, because users revolted over bill shock when they blew their budgets.
Most internet plans now have unlimited data, so two different customers on a $69-a-month Optus 5G home internet plan will pay the same as each other, regardless of if they are a family of six chewing through the data, or a retiree living alone and just using the internet sporadically.
From that perspective going after new revenue from tech firms must seem easier than trying to shift their heaviest using customers back on to a usage-based billing structure.
Netflix also disputes the data freeloader tag, and says its “Open Connect” program takes a lot of the pain out of its services for telcos.
This is a content delivery network which it offers for free to ISPs, that localises Netflix traffic and reduces the traffic that is served over a transit provider.
Australian tech and telco infrastructure entrepreneur Bevan Slattery, who has founded and run the likes of PIPE Networks, NEXTDC, Superloop and Megaport, took to LinkedIn to decry the telcos’ arguments as “rubbish”.
“Nearly every streaming platform packages up all their content and delivers it to the telcos’ front door right here in Australia, free of charge,” he wrote.
“What is regrettable is these streamers already pay the likes of Telstra for access to their eyeballs because they are charged directly (or indirectly) for getting transit access to their networks.
“This is done by charging for ‘peering’ and to lock out infrastructure competitors, Telstra bundles in their access to their eyeballs with international capacity deals – something the ACCC has not seen to be an issue for the past 25 years.”
What is undeniable is that everyone benefits from proper investment in up-to-date telco infrastructure, and the tortured birth of the national broadband network showed what happens when the major incumbent providers decide it is not commercially viable to upgrade in a timely fashion.
The government and industry will be keen to find a compromise to avoid a repeat.
