TPP international mobile roaming Art Reason to get excited?

Transcription

1 TPP intrnational mobil roaming Art 13.6 Rason to gt xcitd?

2 Excitingly, TPP partis hav agrd to work togthr to promot transparnt and rasonabl rats for intrnational mobil roaming srvics, which will hlp promot th growth of trad among th partis and bnfit consumrs. Th agrmnt provids TPP participants with th ability to ntr into arrangmnts with ach othr on th rats and conditions for wholsal intrnational mobil roaming srvics. This is going to dlivr grat bnfits for both Australian businsss and consumrs. - Snator Mitch Fifild, Ministr for Communications 13 Octobr 2015

3 Thr must b som kind of way out of hr, Said th jokr to th thif Thr's too much confusion, I can't gt no rlif. Businssmn thy drink my win Plowmn dig my arth Non of thm along th lin Know what any of it is worth. No rason to gt xcitd

4 Contxt GSM standard dats back to 1987 Markt failur? Comptition? ANZ bilatral EU rgulation On Ara Ntwork World Bank 2016

5 Art transparncy and comptition with rspct to IMR rats tchnological altrnativs

6 SIM

7 Art (a) bilatral agrmnt to rgulat IoTs btwn TPP govrnmnts P1 and P2 agr thr is markt failur rquiring rgulation Party P1 rgulats IoTs bilatral agrmnt to rgulat IoTs Party P2 rgulats IoTs R g u l a t S1/S2 fully utiliss commrcial ngotiations to accss rgulatd IoT rats & conditions but this fails R g u l a t But! Australian-rgulatd (P1) IoT only availabl to Spark (S2) if th NZ (P2)-rgulatd IoT is rasonably comparabl to th Australian(P1)-rgulatd IoT (fn9) P1 govt nsurs that S2 nd only pay P1-rgulatd IoT Supplir S1 P2 govt nsurs that S1 nd only pay P2-rgulatd IoT Supplir S2 But! NZ (P2)-rgulatd IoT only availabl to Tlstra (S1) if th Aus (P1)-rgulatd IoT is rasonably comparabl to th NZ (P2)- rgulatd IoT (fn9)

8 footnot Partis A and B ntr a bilatral arrangmnt for rciprocal rgulation of IMR rats or conditions. 2. Partis A and B impos domstic rgulations on IMR rats or conditions purportdly in accordanc with th bilatral arrangmnt, prsumably narrowing th availability of th rats or conditions to ach othr s supplirs. 3. An MNO of party B sks accss to th rgulatd rats or conditions from an MNO of party A. 4. Party A s MNO rfuss accss to party B s MNO on th rgulatd rats or conditions, on th basis that party A s MNO dos not rciv rasonably comparabl rats or conditions with rspct to customrs of party A s MNO travlling to party B. 5. Party B s MNO rfrs th disput to th tlcommunications rgulatory body of party A. 6. If party A s rgulator dtrmins that party B s rgulatd rats or conditions mt th rasonably comparabl tst, th body forcs party A s MNO to provid accss to party B s MNO on th rgulatd trms or conditions.

9 Art (b) no bilatral agrmnt btwn TPP govrnmnts but on Party rgulats IoTs xampl if Australia (P1) rgulats but US dos not rgulat Party P1 rgulats IoTs Party P2 dos not rgulat IoTs R g u l a t Supplir S1-1 Supplir S1-2 Supplir S1-3 S2 fully utiliss commrcial ngotiations to accss rgulatd IoT rats & conditions but this fails P1 govt nsurs that S2 nd only pay No corrsponding dirct nforcmnt right for S1 against S2 by P2 to nsur accss to S2 IoT offr: only indirct nforcmnt through suspnsion of forcing accss to P1-rgulatd IoT P1-rgulatd IoT Supplir S2 S2 maks availabl to all S1 supplirs IoTs at rats or conditions rasonably comparabl to P1 rgulatd IoTs (complianc dtrmind by P1 fn10) providd that S2 s offr mts any additional rquirmnts which P1 imposs (.g. P1 rquirs S1 supplirs IoTs to rflct rasonabl cost of supply of IMR and S1 mts P1 s cost mthodology in doing so fn11)

10 Art and footnot 8 MFN domino ffct? Art information gathring