2 days ago
The billion-dollar industry with scant consumer protections
Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls.
Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death.
But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon?
Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos.
TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material.
Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information.
Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage.
If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed.
When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC.
Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle.
New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect.
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates.
In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford.
These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians.
The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year.
This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers.
The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers.
The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years.
The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements.
There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation.
In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration.
Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs.
Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system.
The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place.
These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission.
Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability.
We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code.
The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections.
ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition.
The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm.
Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety.
Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls.
Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death.
But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon?
Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos.
TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material.
Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information.
Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage.
If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed.
When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC.
Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle.
New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect.
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates.
In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford.
These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians.
The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year.
This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers.
The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers.
The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years.
The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements.
There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation.
In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration.
Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs.
Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system.
The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place.
These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission.
Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability.
We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code.
The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections.
ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition.
The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm.
Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety.
Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls.
Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death.
But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon?
Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos.
TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material.
Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information.
Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage.
If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed.
When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC.
Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle.
New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect.
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates.
In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford.
These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians.
The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year.
This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers.
The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers.
The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years.
The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements.
There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation.
In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration.
Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs.
Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system.
The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place.
These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission.
Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability.
We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code.
The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections.
ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition.
The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm.
Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety.
Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls.
Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death.
But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon?
Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos.
TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material.
Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information.
Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage.
If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed.
When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC.
Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle.
New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect.
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates.
In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford.
These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians.
The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year.
This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers.
The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers.
The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years.
The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements.
There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation.
In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration.
Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs.
Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system.
The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place.
These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission.
Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability.
We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code.
The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections.
ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition.
The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm.
Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety.
