In what may be seen as a deliberate attempt to stifle industry competition, telecommunications giant Telstra is seeking an exemption on its obligation to provide local call services to its competitors at wholesale prices.
"Telstra is trying to make sure that [local call] services aren't declared so the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission doesn't have the power to arbitrate terms and condition...therefore creating less competition," Cable & Wireless Optus Group Manager Regulatory Policy, Adam Suckling said.
The telco giant lodged an application to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for exemption from providing local call services to providers in metropolitan areas of Hobart, Canberra and Darwin and regional areas in Newcastle, Wollongong and Geelong.
Furthermore, Telstra lodged an application earlier this year for exemption on providing local call services to the five main state capitals, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide.
Telstra claims there is already a high level of infrastructure competition in these areas.
However, rival company AAPT's Group Director Regulatory and Legal, Brian Perkins, said there is "absolutely no competition in any of those areas, its absolute rubbish."
According to Perkins, the providers are already at a disadvantage as Telstra won't offer wholesale calls at a reasonable price, which makes it impossible for providers to make money out of the service.
"At one stage, we were paying more than retail customers, how ridiculous is that," Perkins said.
Perkins claims Telstra's strategy is to reduce competition as it will affect the providers' ability to sell long distance calls as customers only want one bill to pay.
"Telstra has a way of making it difficult for us. They don't want to have to provide wholesale local calls to competitors. They want to go back to the old monopoly," Perkins said.
In relation to the wholesale price debate, the ACCC released a statement today of what it believes the local call prices should be set at, which is based on retail prices - minus avoidable costs.
"Our belief is that the commission could not reasonably agree to these exemptions," Perkins said.
