published by ACMA each year. arrangement was implemented. Contestability Without a funding arrangement in place, it is unlikely that the fixed wireless and satellite services could be made contestable. In the future nbn compete with other providers to provide fixed wireless and satellite services. In the future nbn could compete with other providers to provide fixed wireless and satellite services. In the future nbn compete with other providers to provide fixed wireless and satellite services. the funding arrangement comes into place, it is unlikely that the fixed wireless and satellite services could be made contestable. Competitive neutrality nbn would continue to face costs that its competitors do not. nbn could lower its prices in line with the amount of additional funding it received. The cost of fixed wireless and satellite services would be shared proportionally across all comparable providers. End users would receive direct subsidies. nbn would continue to face costs that its competitors do not until the funding arrangement is implemented. Sustainability nbn would be increasingly uncompetitive. It may be unable to continue to fund services. The cost of the fixed wireless and satellite services would be sustainably funded. The cost of the fixed wireless and satellite services would be sustainably funded. The proposal would be complex and costly to administer. nbn would be continue to be uncompetitive on price until the funding arrangement was implemented. Depending on the period of delay, it may be unable to continue to fund fixed wireless and satellite services. Economic Efficiency: Allocative efficiency This proposal would lead to inefficient entry decisions by nbn comparable providers. End user decisions for commercial services are also impacted as they implicitly fund This proposal would not distort investment choices by broadband providers or end users. There would be distortions associated with direct budget funding, which could be in the order of $1.5 Entry decisions would be efficient as nbn and other broadband providers would face the same incentives. End users would shift away from nbn comparable services, because these providers would no longer This proposal would not distort investment choices by broadband providers or commercial end users. However, it would be likely that few people would take up fixed wireless or satellite services in the absence of This proposal would lead to inefficient entry decisions by nbn comparable providers. End user decisions for services are also impacted as they implicitly fund
with other Government programs, such as Family Benefit Part A). We assume that, based on nbn’s forecast penetration rate and the ABS’ estimate of income distribution across Australia, that 204,600 households would be eligible for a subsidy. This RIS assumes that assessment of consumers’ claims is undertaken by the Government. If another body (such as the service provider) were to undertake this work, the Budget cost estimated in “Who is affected?” would apply as a compliance cost instead. Option 5: Delay nbn and nbn comparable providers $43,000 p.a. The compliance cost for the ‘Delay’ option would be identical to the preferred option, although would not impact on the entities involved until the funding arrangements were put in place. Enforcement and record keeping: As part of the arrangements, providers will need to determine how many eligible SIOs they operate and advise the ACMA. It is expected that providers will be aware of the number of eligible SIOs they operate on a month to month basis, for billing purposes. Likewise, providers already need to provide information to the ACMA for other telecommunications purpose (e.g. as part of carrier license requirements). Nonetheless, we estimate that eligible carriers may need to undertake some work to ensure that they are compliant with the charge requirements, particularly in determining whether SIOs they operate are eligible for the charge. We estimate that a regulatory officer in each provider would spend approximately .5 months undertaking this work, each year. nbn $0 nbn has advised that there are no material ongoing compliance costs, relative to budget, even though additional resources may be required in administering the charge. However, there are may be substantial transaction costs for nbn. Consequently, a ‘set off’ provision is proposed. Regulatory compliance costs for the five options explored in this document are set out below. The offsets referred to in this section refer to the proposed reforms to Parts 7 and 8 announced in the Government’s 2014 Policy Paper. The Department warrants that the regulatory costs imposed by the preferred option will be offset by regulatory savings from these reforms. Option 1: Do nothing Average Annual Regulatory Costs (from Business as usual)
Change in costs ($million) Business Community Organisations Individuals Total change in cost Total by Sector $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost offset ($million) Business Community Organisations Individuals Total by Source Agency $0.9 m $0 $0 $0.9 m Are all new costs offset? yes, costs are offset Total (Change in costs - Cost offset) $0.9 m Option 2: Direct Budget funding Average Annual Regulatory (from Business as usual) Change in costs ($million) Business Community Organisations Individuals Total change in cost Total by Sector $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost offset ($million) Business Community Organisations Individuals Total by Source Agency $0.9 m $0 $0 $0.9 m Are all new costs offset? yes, costs are offset Total (Change in costs - Cost offset) $0.9 m Option 3: Regional Broadband Scheme Average Annual Regulatory Costs (from Business as usual) Change in costs ($) Business Community Organisations Individuals Total change in cost Total by Sector $43,000 $0 $0 $43,000