Section 362 of the Act explains it all!

Section 362 of the Telecommunications Act is dry and dusty. But it's well worth reading because it sets out so clearly what is going on here. Sections 360 and 361 are also needed in order to understand Section 362. Also remember it is Sections 360 and 361 which APUMP wants repealed (Section 362 then becomes redundant). In these sections of the Act, AMPS means analogue, and "eligible mobile carrier" means Optus, Vodafone (not Vodaphone) or Telstra. You can see how beautifully those three have manipulated the government to make it impossible for a new low-cost competitor to come into the Australian market.

360 No new AMPS

Before 1 January 2000 a person other than Telstra must not install or operate an AMPS network.

361 AMPS to be phased out

(1) On or after 1 January 2000, a person must not install or operate an AMPS network.

(2) Before 1 January 2000, a person must comply with any written plan determined by the Minister in relation to:

(a) ceasing installation or operation of an AMPS network; or

(b) ceasing the supply of AMPS services; or

(c) ceasing to use, for AMPS purposes, the radiocommunications spectrum used in relation to AMPS services.

(3) to (5) contain details unrelated to this discussion.

362 Limited exemption from phase-out of AMPS

(1) A person may install or operate an AMPS network in a particular area:

(a) on or after January 2000; or

(b) contrary to the requirements of a plan of a kind to which subsection 361(2) applies;

if:

(c) the Minister and each eligible mobile carrier agree in writing; or

(d) the Minister agrees in writing after:

(i) the Minister has consulted each eligible mobile carrier; and

(ii) the Minister has determined that the installation or operation of the AMPS network will not erode unduly the practical value to an eligible mobile carrier of the regime embodied in sections 360 and 361.

So there you have it. A bald statement that the regime of Sections 360 and 361 has value to the established operators in a supposedly competitive market! If the Minister wants to vary that regime, he has to take into account the interests of the three phone companies - but not the interests of mobile phone users.

Any one of Optus, Vodafone or Telstra can object to the continuation of any analogue service at all. If one of them objects, then the minister can do nothing to permit analogue service unless he has determined that doing so will not erode the value of the "Close down analogue" policy. In making his determination, the Minister cannot take into account competing considerations such as the benefit to the community, or the benefit to people with hearing aids, or the benefit to our bushfire fighters - all he can consider is whether there will be disadvantage to any of the phone companies. There clearly would be disadvantage if analogue was retained in cities and major towns, so under the present law analogue service will cease in places like:

Kalgoorlie; Port Lincoln; Warrnambool; Tamworth; Stanthorpe; Smithton; Katherine; and all similar centres throughout Australia.

Remember, this legislation was passed in 1997 by the Howard government. It is why APUMP says that in designing the analogue closure policy, the Howard government has considered only the interests of the suppliers, and not the interests of the users, of mobile phones.

APUMP demands the repeal of sections 360 and 361 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.

Return to APUMP's Home Page     Join APUMP     FEEDBACK: send us EMAIL