Chris Barton: Decision in 0867 case is a joke

Page 1 of 2 View as a single page 5:00AM Thursday May 08, 2008
By Chris Barton

Best of business analysis

• Brian Fallow: Carbon cost will only get bigger
• Simon Hendery: Canterbury students to take green transport idea to the world

We are "satisfied that Telecom did not have an anti-competitive purpose when it introduced the 0867 service and that there is nothing in the consequences which followed that could lead to a contrary view". What the ... ?

Reading the April 18, High Court judgment of Justice Rodney Hansen and lay member Michael Copeland in the case of the Commerce Commission versus Telecom, one is left choking in disbelief.

Was the good judge blind or living in another country?

Perhaps the law is indeed an ass. Or maybe, once again, Telecom's deep legal pockets have triumphed over justice.

The 0867 case, our version of Charles Dickens' intractable Jarndyce and Jarndyce dispute in Bleak House, goes back to 2000 when the commission decided to haul the Telecom monopoly before the courts.

At issue was the infamous 0867 dialling regime which the company unilaterally imposed on its competitors in 1999. Its purpose (in the pre-broadband era) was to force all internet users to use an 0867 prefix when they were dialling their internet provider. Telecom said 0867 was necessary to protect its increasingly overloaded network which was being swamped by unruly hordes wanting access to this new internet thingy. In truth, Telecom was bleeding money - thanks to the arcane practice among telcos known as interconnection agreements.

These enable competing networks to connect phone calls from one network to the other and employ border crossing fees (termination payments) to cover the costs. Not surprisingly, Telecom had negotiated its interconnection agreement with competitor Clear Communications at rates very much in its favour. In 1999 when the trouble started, Clear was paying Telecom at the rate of 3c a minute, amounting to $73 million a year in border crossing fees. In the other direction, Telecom was paying Clear at the rate of 1.5c per minute, amounting to only $18 million a year. But, for Telecom, this was about $12 million a year too much. Far too many people were using Clear's network, staying on the phone far too long while surfing the net and costing Telecom a bundle. There was even a brief period when users could get dial-up internet for free - ironically funded by Telecom's termination payments.

Hence 0867, which we learn from Justice Hansen's judgment was codenamed "Project Morecambe" and cost $2.55 million to implement. The codename is perhaps because of the uncanny resemblance of the architect of 0867, Bruce Parkes, to the late Eric Morecambe of the British comic double act Morecambe and Wise.

Justice Hansen finds one of the reasons for 0867 was so Telecom could avoid capital expenditure of $205 million which would have been required over the next three years to support projected network usage growth.