Categories
Over recent times we’ve been hearing increasingly strident demands to legislate and regulate telecommunications as an essential service, coupled with the claim that current regulation has failed.
One of the reasons given for this failure is the assertion that telecommunications is currently “self-regulated” and that industry “wrote its own rules”. Neither of these assertions is true. The Australian system of telecommunications regulation is a co-regulatory one, meaning that the relevant regulators, industry and consumer representatives determine and write the rules. Any code is subject to extensive stakeholder consultation, and only registered – if seen fit – by the sector regulator, the ACMA. It is not industry deciding what it can and can’t do for itself.
However, the benefit of co-regulation has always been that regulation has been developed by people who have the technical and operational expertise in telecommunications networks to ensure safeguards are feasible and practicable. Whether it be co-regulation or direct regulation, at the end of the day, it needs to be actually possible for the rules to be implemented. This system is not perfect, but it has meant over its lifetime that rules for selling, credit management, number portability, equipment labelling, and more, have been debated, rules agreed and penalties applied.
Now, however, a key component of that system has been abandoned and the most prominent regulator of the sector – the ACMA – is writing a new set of rules to apply. But believing we can regulate our way out of the problem doesn’t reflect reality.
If telecommunications is essential, we need to have a serious discussion about what that actually means. “Essential services”, under Australian law, include water, gas and electricity and are legislated for by State governments. Telecommunications falls under Federal law, a system which currently has no clear essential services legislation.
Telecommunications is also merely a conduit for communication – it isn’t the actual services people miss when networks go down. Enforceable performance guarantees for telecommunications networks won’t guarantee you can make that bank payment online, order your restaurant meal, or lodge your tax return. These latter services are provided independently of the networks – whether they be fixed, mobile or satellite – and if it is those services which are the genuinely essential components, then those enforceable performance standards need to be applied end to end.
When we try to compare telecommunications and internet services provision to the supply of gas, water and electricity we face a range of difficulties. These three systems have an excellent set of basic physical properties, coupled with standardised plugs and outlets which are far less complex than the suite of software applications, internet protocols, network technologies and the array of handsets, laptops and devices that connect across them. If my household water fails due to the plumbing in my kitchen, I don’t blame the water provider, yet the “telco” is almost always seen as to blame when people can’t search online.
Legislation cannot change physics.
We also know roughly how much water needs to be supplied to an average sized human to keep them alive, and can mandate that provision, and bring a tank of it when pipes fail. Even at the most basic level, were we to consider regulating mobile network performance, this would be akin to legislating that the lightbulbs on streetlights make everything visible no matter what the terrain, weather conditions, time of day, or dust and smoke levels are. Legislation cannot change physics. Even more absurd is the estimation of how much internet is required to keep the average human functioning. Is it 10 megabytes of Facebook, 20 megabytes of myGov, 2 megabytes of a bank and 8 megabytes of the ABC per day? Plus an allowance for telehealth and education? We certainly can’t bring you a disk drive full of content in lieu of a water tank.
It is also claimed that more regulation and heavier fines are needed because “people don’t trust telcos”. The significant number of Australians walking around without any hard cash or physical credit cards, would indicate they actually do trust the networks, despite the evidence that technological services are inherently imperfect.
Telecommunications and internet access have never been cheaper to buy nor more reliable than they are today. Perhaps what is needed is more clarity in how and who is responsible for its delivery, and better incentives to do this well. More regulation, particularly that codified by bureaucrats and politicians, no matter how well intended, is likely only to add to the cost and complexity of delivering these services.
by Narelle Clark
IAA was proud to attend and present at another insightful CommsDay Summit.
The Summit spanned two and a half days, opening with a pre-Summit forum on ‘Restoring Telecommunications Reputation’. This theme proved incredibly timely and resonated throughout the rest of the conference.
Indeed, the telecommunications sector has come under significant heat over recent years. Major network outages, including outages affecting the Triple Zero network, alongside a high-profile data breach and unconscionable mis-selling scandals have culminated in telecommunications becoming Australia’s most distrusted sector, according to Roy Morgan Research.
Speaking at the pre-summit forum, Roy Morgan’s CEO, Michele Levine punctuated distrust as not merely being the absence of trust. Rather, it is an active negative feeling directed at a brand, which is significant in its destructive capacity and therefore, industry must now respond.
To our credit as a sector, there was genuine accountability in the room. Industry representatives acknowledged the role that these successive failures have played in eroding public confidence, while also making an important observation: the public sentiment reflects just how important telecommunications has become to everyday life.
This in turn presents an opportunity for the sector to improve and rebuild trust.
The conference highlighted some of the great initiatives already being undertaken. A key example being the Australian-first, National Telecom Resilience Centre (NTRC), run out of the University of Technology, Sydney. As presented by NTRC’s director, Professor Ray Owen commended some stakeholders, including key competitor telcos, for coming together to vastly improve the reliability and resilience of Australia’s Triple Zero network – and emergency calling worldwide – through its interoperability and validation testing systems. However, there is clearly more to be done.
Unsurprisingly in a summit focusing on trust, AI cropped up as a popular topic. Presentations spanned:
- AI sovereignty as foundational to trust
- Use of AI for network optimisation and diagnostics, to ultimately drive better customer experience
- Policy and regulatory settings and frameworks for AI
- Telecommunications as being the critical backbone for AI evolution
Overall, there was broad consensus that while AI is sure to revolutionise the sector to bring about real benefits for industry and customers alike, we must ensure sovereignty and proper guardrails for AI to be deployed in a way that builds trust and confidence in the industry.
Against this backdrop, IAA’s CEO Narelle Clark took to the stage three times.
In her speech during the pre-Summit Forum, she highlighted the widening expectation gap between what consumers reasonably want, and what telcos can realistically, technically and commercially deliver. The current regulatory framework and approach to addressing the issues that have caused distrust have failed to close that gap and will only make it worse. Especially as disproportionate regulatory burdens are placed on smaller providers despite the evidence that the failures driving public distrust have primarily come from the largest players.
Narelle called for a root and branch regulatory review, including a serious conversation of what it means to legislate telecommunications as an essential service, instead of continuing with the complex and duplicative piecemeal approach that attempts to treat it as one.
She also called for engineers to be empowered to speak publicly about the extraordinary work going into building resilient and reliable networks, including sharing outage reports where they occur, and the remediation efforts to make sure these issues don’t re-occur. There needs to be increased uptake of technologies that improve security and trust, such as RPKI, and more of industry should participate in and support industry associations.
During her lightning talk, Narelle made a case for IXPs as vital infrastructure that can improve network reliability, speed and cost-efficiency – and therefore, ultimately, trustworthiness.
In her contributions to the ‘Great Debate Panel’ which tackled the pressures on the future of the telecommunications sector (again, heavily focused on AI), Narelle noted that while traffic strain is not new, AI’s scale and pace will significantly intensify this strain, while also raising new security implications. The message echoed by the panellists was that Australia needs a coherent and long-term telecommunications policy vision in the face of this development and uncertain future. Narelle’s ask to the Minister for Communications was, ‘just talk to us’.
Looking ahead, these discussions were incredibly timely. With the ACMA announcing on the Summit stage that the replacement draft industry standard for the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code will be released for consultation in the coming weeks, there is significant regulatory reform facing the sector.
Thank you to Grahame and the CommsDay team for another insightful conference. The conversations and insights shared over the two and a half days are certainly on our mind as we prepare to advocate on behalf of our members for a regulatory environment that is fit for purpose and is conducive to improving trust in the telecommunications sector.
Report by Sophia Joo, Senior Policy Officer & Company Secretary
Attention: Compliance deadline 1 July 2026.
To support Members in meeting their obligations under the Telecommunications (Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Consumer Protections) Industry Standard 2025 (the DFSV Standard), IAA has partnered with WISPAU to deliver targeted and practical training and compliance template materials.
Who the DFSV Standard applies to
Compliance with DFSV Standard is mandatory for all carriage service providers that supply telecommunications services to consumers. Consumers includes:
- residential customers;
- business customers with an annual spend of less than $40,000 who do not have a genuine or reasonable opportunity to negotiate their contract acquiring services not for resale; and
- not-for-profit organisations acquiring services not for resale.
What the obligations include
Carriage service providers, must amongst other things:
- Have a public facing DFSV Statement outlining how the CSP will provide DFSV support to its customers;
- Internal Policy and Procedures in place;
- Train all staff, with further specialised training for customer-facing staff;
- Reverse service limitations for affected persons;
- Consult with 2 expert organisations in developing the DFSV Policy, Procedures and Training.
Mandatory obligations for small providers with under 30,000 services in operation commences 1 July 2026. However, small providers can rely on industry representative bodies such as IAA and WISPAU to undertake the consultation requirements. IAA and WISPAU have undertaken this on behalf of our Members.
You can read more on the obligations on our website.
IAA and WISPAU’s Telco DFSV Pack
IAA and WISPAU have consulted with DFSV support services and representatives of people with lived experience to provide Members with:
- template DFSV Policy;
- template DFSV Procedure;
- template DFSV Statement;
- training webinar for all personnel covering core requirements of the Standard – to be made available in May
These materials are now available on the IAA Member Portal at a cost of $700 (incl GST). The fee is to cover the cost of consultation with expert organisations.
Further specialised training to be delivered by Good Shepherd (May-June).
Please don’t hesitate to ask any questions at policy@internet.asn.au.
Please note: support material is only available to Members of IAA or WISPAU.
The Internet Association of Australia Ltd (IAA) expresses its disappointment that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has rejected the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code (the Code), describing the decision as a missed opportunity to strengthen consumer safeguards through effective co-regulation.
While not entirely unexpected, IAA notes this decision appears to be influenced by misguided assertions regarding the mandatory and enforceable nature of the Code, and the role of the co-regulatory framework.
“The TCP Code was never voluntary. It was already binding on industry, and with the anticipated passage of the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 currently before Parliament, would have become directly enforceable,” said Narelle Clark, CEO.
IAA emphasised that the Code represented a significant advance in consumer safeguards, with the benefit of being developed by industry participants with direct operational and technical expertise in telecommunication networks to ensure safeguard measures would remain feasible and practicable.
“We are keen to review the ACMA’s detailed reasoning for the rejection,” Clark said, noting that some of the issues cited by the ACMA such as network outages and Triple Zero failures which have undermined consumer confidence in the industry and seemingly precipitated the rejection, are already subject to direct regulation, and cautioned against the assumption that a shift away from co-regulation would necessarily improve outcomes.
“The final version of the Code had already gone to considerable lengths to address the ACMA’s stated concerns, even to the point that many industry participants considered the obligations heavily onerous. The rejection, without clear and comprehensive justification creates uncertainty as to what additional measures are being sought, and on what basis.”
Looking ahead, IAA is committed to engaging constructively in the development of the replacement standard. As part of this process, IAA emphasises the need for inclusive and meaningful consultation.
“It is essential that all stakeholders work collaboratively to deliver a framework that benefits consumers and supports a sustainable and competitive industry. Recent consultation processes affecting the telco industry, and not necessarily by the ACMA, have at times been rushed, sometimes allowing only a period of 1-2 weeks to respond to key changes. For a reform of this magnitude, consultation must be genuine and must allow for thorough participation actively including the breadth of industry.”
“The Australian Telecommunications Alliance was subject to intensive consultation process requirements in its review of the Code, including requirements to publish summaries of stakeholder feedback, and providing public responses to feedback. We would expect the same level of transparency from the ACMA as a matter of regulatory best practice.”
IAA stressed the increasing regulatory pressures for smaller telecommunications providers.
“We are hearing consistently from smaller providers that the cumulative regulatory burden is becoming unsustainable. There is a real risk that the increasing regulatory settings are unintentionally pushing smaller players out of the market, which cannot be in the consumer interest. We need a regulatory framework that both protects consumers and ensures smaller providers can continue to operate in the market, thereby preserving genuine choice for consumers, and access to local providers who understand their needs.”
Under the current Code, there are also exemptions for niche providers meaning that while the spirit of compliance is well adhered to, cases where the Code is irrelevant means those providers haven’t had to comply to the same extent. Introducing new compliance obligations will add cost, largely to business customers which will in turn have flow on cost impacts to the broader community.
IAA also expressed compressed timelines for compliance as a key concern disproportionately affecting smaller providers.
“Even with the final version of the revised Code, members had expressed grave concerns about the proposed implementation timelines. We sincerely hope that this is up for re-consideration as part of the consultation process. Small providers, who may comprise as few as one or two staff, simply don’t have the capacity to divert their limited personnel to implement extensive changes within short periods, or the ability to absorb these costs. Regulators also need to recognise that telco providers are often facing multiple, concurrent compliance deadlines.”
As a representative body of small to medium sized internet service providers, IAA commits to representing its membership who form an underrepresented but disproportionately affected sector of industry in this consultation on a replacement standard.
IAA also noted that this once again raises the concept of telecommunications as an essential service which is not supported by corresponding legislation or well accepted definitions.
“We certainly agree that communications is a vital part of daily life but the concept of ‘essential services’ carries certain legislative implications that aren’t currently in place for the telecommunications sector. There needs to be widespread comprehensive discussions about what it means for telecommunications to be formally recognised as an essential service, and the costs of delivering services at that level,” said Clark.
The Internet Association of Australia Ltd (IAA) expresses its disappointment that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has rejected the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code (the Code), describing the decision as a missed opportunity to strengthen consumer safeguards through effective co-regulation.
While not entirely unexpected, IAA notes this decision appears to be influenced by misguided assertions regarding the mandatory and enforceable nature of the Code, and the role of the co-regulatory framework.
“The TCP Code was never voluntary. It was already binding on industry, and with the anticipated passage of the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 currently before Parliament, would have become directly enforceable,” said Narelle Clark, CEO.
IAA emphasised that the Code represented a significant advance in consumer safeguards, with the benefit of being developed by industry participants with direct operational and technical expertise in telecommunication networks to ensure safeguard measures would remain feasible and practicable.
“We are keen to review the ACMA’s detailed reasoning for the rejection,” Clark said, noting that some of the issues cited by the ACMA such as network outages and Triple Zero failures which have undermined consumer confidence in the industry and seemingly precipitated the rejection, are already subject to direct regulation, and cautioned against the assumption that a shift away from co-regulation would necessarily improve outcomes.
“The final version of the Code had already gone to considerable lengths to address the ACMA’s stated concerns, even to the point that many industry participants considered the obligations heavily onerous. The rejection, without clear and comprehensive justification creates uncertainty as to what additional measures are being sought, and on what basis.”
Looking ahead, IAA is committed to engaging constructively in the development of the replacement standard. As part of this process, IAA emphasises the need for inclusive and meaningful consultation.
“It is essential that all stakeholders work collaboratively to deliver a framework that benefits consumers and supports a sustainable and competitive industry. Recent consultation processes affecting the telco industry, and not necessarily by the ACMA, have at times been rushed, sometimes allowing only a period of 1-2 weeks to respond to key changes. For a reform of this magnitude, consultation must be genuine and must allow for thorough participation actively including the breadth of industry.”
“The Australian Telecommunications Alliance was subject to intensive consultation process requirements in its review of the Code, including requirements to publish summaries of stakeholder feedback, and providing public responses to feedback. We would expect the same level of transparency from the ACMA as a matter of regulatory best practice.”
IAA stressed the increasing regulatory pressures for smaller telecommunications providers.
“We are hearing consistently from smaller providers that the cumulative regulatory burden is becoming unsustainable. There is a real risk that the increasing regulatory settings are unintentionally pushing smaller players out of the market, which cannot be in the consumer interest. We need a regulatory framework that both protects consumers and ensures smaller providers can continue to operate in the market, thereby preserving genuine choice for consumers, and access to local providers who understand their needs.”
Under the current Code, there are also exemptions for niche providers meaning that while the spirit of compliance is well adhered to, cases where the Code is irrelevant means those providers haven’t had to comply to the same extent. Introducing new compliance obligations will add cost, largely to business customers which will in turn have flow on cost impacts to the broader community.
IAA also expressed compressed timelines for compliance as a key concern disproportionately affecting smaller providers.
“Even with the final version of the revised Code, members had expressed grave concerns about the proposed implementation timelines. We sincerely hope that this is up for re-consideration as part of the consultation process. Small providers, who may comprise as few as one or two staff, simply don’t have the capacity to divert their limited personnel to implement extensive changes within short periods, or the ability to absorb these costs. Regulators also need to recognise that telco providers are often facing multiple, concurrent compliance deadlines.”
As a representative body of small to medium sized internet service providers, IAA commits to representing its membership who form an underrepresented but disproportionately affected sector of industry in this consultation on a replacement standard.
IAA also noted that this once again raises the concept of telecommunications as an essential service which is not supported by corresponding legislation or well accepted definitions.
“We certainly agree that communications is a vital part of daily life but the concept of ‘essential services’ carries certain legislative implications that aren’t currently in place for the telecommunications sector. There needs to be widespread comprehensive discussions about what it means for telecommunications to be formally recognised as an essential service, and the costs of delivering services at that level,” said Clark.
Well, here we are in 2026!
With this sweltering summer half over already, we look to the list of things we have in the pipeline this year: a suite of events where we’ll visit communications history museums, more upgrades to get 400G ports everywhere, and hopefully polishing off our network automation efforts soon. Some of you will have already seen the benefit of roll-back capability and route server integration, which are super useful, I’m sure. We’ve recently also completed rearranging our content services to improve access and keep the deluge of Google content flowing your way, and activated a new POP at NextDC’s S2.
Like many of you, we’ll also have to lift our compliance game with the new security requirements landing later this year. We’ve been managing our risk and reporting it to our Board for quite some time, but having to certify our level of compliance will be a challenge, one I’m sure our Members will be sympathetic to. We’re also sorting out some training to ensure that our Members have the best opportunity to be compliant with the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence standard that came into being last year. You’ll find more detail in this newsletter item on a practical, cost-effective approach to supporting compliance, including shared training and consultation costs across the Membership.
Another big event for us will be to join our brothers and sisters across the ditch as they celebrate 10 years of NZIX! We remain close partners to their success with us continuing to operate their peering exchanges and admin systems for them. It’s been a fascinating journey watching them grow to where they are today.
Happy peering!
Narelle
Question from the desk
Each newsletter, I will pose a question to Members, because your perspective is important. Please email me with your thoughts and opinions. Over to you:
In the era of risk compliance – which model have you chosen to certify with, and why?