Latest news with #AustralianCommunicationsandMediaAuthority
The Advertiser
06-07-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
How one decision could see us shortchanged on billions
The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research 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 told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future. The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research 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 told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future. The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research 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 told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future. The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research 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 told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future.
New York Post
02-07-2025
- New York Post
Gen Z baffled over ‘strange' hotel feature — as older generations set the record straight
A Gen Z hotel guest has left a lot of people feeling ancient after a discovery in their room left them baffled. It seems the idea of a landline phone is a thing of the past, as the Zoomer appeared clueless about a 'strange' wall socket in their French hotel. Advertisement The Brit shared a photo of the wall plate with a small rectangular opening in it and asked, 'What is this thing?' on Reddit. 5 It seems the idea of a landline phone is a thing of the past, as the Zoomer appeared clueless about a 'strange' wall socket in their French hotel. Lukasz Czajkowski – Including a coin in the photo for scale, the confused traveler pointed out, 'It almost looks like the sort of thing that you slide a security chain into – but it's nowhere near the door or windows.' They mentioned that they travel 'fairly extensively' but have 'never seen one of these before.' Advertisement Older generations set the record straight 5 The Brit shared a photo of the wall plate with a small rectangular opening in it and asked, 'What is this thing?' on Reddit. Reddit To those from the pre-smartphone era, it was immediately recognized as a landline telephone socket. Australians may not be so familiar with the sight, but the 'prise en T' socket is similar to Australia's RJ11 ports, designed for landline phones before mobiles took over. Advertisement Once a common fixture in nearly every home, hotel room or office worldwide, it's now a relic unrecognizable to younger generations. 5 To those from the pre-smartphone era, it was immediately recognized as a landline telephone socket. jummie – 'That's a phone socket for landline phones,' one commenter pointed out. 'Damn, that's hitting the getting old target really hard,' said another. Advertisement Someone else joked, 'I'm feeling older every day … that was the socket used to plug landline telephones into.' 'Welcome to the 20th century,' quipped another. The death of the home phone 5 'Damn, that's hitting the getting old target really hard,' one replied. Reddit Landlines were once a staple of everyday communication, but now they have gradually declined in use over the past 20 years as mobile phones became more affordable and widespread. In Australia, this shift really took off in the mid-2000s. By 2010, mobile phones had already replaced landlines as the primary means of communication. According to a report from the Australian Communications and Media Authority in 2022, 63% of Australians had only a mobile for phone calls at home and no landline, with younger Aussies aged 24 to 35 most likely to only have a mobile phone (82%). Advertisement Gen Z bring back land lines 5 By 2010, mobile phones had already replaced landlines as the primary means of communication. Scott Habermann – It comes as Gen Z have been buying retro home phones as a form of 'vintage' decor, using kitschy landlines from shops like Urban Outfitters to decorate their homes. As the younger generation has an affinity for making old things new again, such as bringing back the flip phone and digital cameras, the corded land line has also been making a come back, according to a report from The New York Post last year. Advertisement A 24-year-old New Yorker said she'd always 'fantasized' about having one in her room. 'It really bridges that gap between reality and my childhood fantasy. I feel like the main character in my favorite TV shows — One Tree Hill, The OC, Gilmore Girls — when I use it,' she said.
The Advertiser
16-06-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
Betting giant fined millions for 'VIP' spam splurge
The communications watchdog has fined betting giant Tabcorp $4 million for thousands of breaches of spam laws. The Australian Communications and Media Authority found Tabcorp sent more than 2500 messages over text and WhatsApp to VIP customers between February and May 2024 without an option for recipients to unsubscribe. The investigation also found a further 3148 messages in the same period were not sent with information about the sender, while 11 texts were sent without consent. It's the first time the watchdog has found breaches of spam laws in gambling VIP programs. VIP programs often contain personalised messages to members offering incentives such as bonus bets, rebates or tickets to sporting events. The watchdog's Samantha Yorke said the breaches of the spam law were concerning. "VIPs should not be confused with gambling 'high-rollers'," she said. "These types of gambling VIP programs can involve customers who are not well off and are experiencing significant losses. "It is utterly unacceptable that TAB did not have adequate spam compliance systems in place." Under spam laws, messages must be sent with the option for customers to unsubscribe from the marketing material, with businesses also needing consent. The betting giant has already paid the $4 million fine and has agreed to a three-year court undertaking. In a statement, Tabcorp said it was "remediating and significantly improving" its processes, systems and overall compliance under a new leadership team. "Tabcorp assisted the ACMA throughout the investigation and will continue to work closely with the regulator to ensure ongoing improved compliance," it reads. It will be required to carry out an independent review of its marketing material, run staff training, as well as conduct audits every quarter of its VIP marketing program. "When people make choices to unsubscribe from a service, they must be able to do so easily and their decisions must be respected by companies," Ms Yorke said. "The ACMA will be watching closely to ensure TAB meets its commitments and complies with the spam laws in the future." In the past 18 months, the watchdog has fined companies more than $16.9 million for breaches of spam laws. National Gambling Helpline 1800 858 858 The communications watchdog has fined betting giant Tabcorp $4 million for thousands of breaches of spam laws. The Australian Communications and Media Authority found Tabcorp sent more than 2500 messages over text and WhatsApp to VIP customers between February and May 2024 without an option for recipients to unsubscribe. The investigation also found a further 3148 messages in the same period were not sent with information about the sender, while 11 texts were sent without consent. It's the first time the watchdog has found breaches of spam laws in gambling VIP programs. VIP programs often contain personalised messages to members offering incentives such as bonus bets, rebates or tickets to sporting events. The watchdog's Samantha Yorke said the breaches of the spam law were concerning. "VIPs should not be confused with gambling 'high-rollers'," she said. "These types of gambling VIP programs can involve customers who are not well off and are experiencing significant losses. "It is utterly unacceptable that TAB did not have adequate spam compliance systems in place." Under spam laws, messages must be sent with the option for customers to unsubscribe from the marketing material, with businesses also needing consent. The betting giant has already paid the $4 million fine and has agreed to a three-year court undertaking. In a statement, Tabcorp said it was "remediating and significantly improving" its processes, systems and overall compliance under a new leadership team. "Tabcorp assisted the ACMA throughout the investigation and will continue to work closely with the regulator to ensure ongoing improved compliance," it reads. It will be required to carry out an independent review of its marketing material, run staff training, as well as conduct audits every quarter of its VIP marketing program. "When people make choices to unsubscribe from a service, they must be able to do so easily and their decisions must be respected by companies," Ms Yorke said. "The ACMA will be watching closely to ensure TAB meets its commitments and complies with the spam laws in the future." In the past 18 months, the watchdog has fined companies more than $16.9 million for breaches of spam laws. National Gambling Helpline 1800 858 858 The communications watchdog has fined betting giant Tabcorp $4 million for thousands of breaches of spam laws. The Australian Communications and Media Authority found Tabcorp sent more than 2500 messages over text and WhatsApp to VIP customers between February and May 2024 without an option for recipients to unsubscribe. The investigation also found a further 3148 messages in the same period were not sent with information about the sender, while 11 texts were sent without consent. It's the first time the watchdog has found breaches of spam laws in gambling VIP programs. VIP programs often contain personalised messages to members offering incentives such as bonus bets, rebates or tickets to sporting events. The watchdog's Samantha Yorke said the breaches of the spam law were concerning. "VIPs should not be confused with gambling 'high-rollers'," she said. "These types of gambling VIP programs can involve customers who are not well off and are experiencing significant losses. "It is utterly unacceptable that TAB did not have adequate spam compliance systems in place." Under spam laws, messages must be sent with the option for customers to unsubscribe from the marketing material, with businesses also needing consent. The betting giant has already paid the $4 million fine and has agreed to a three-year court undertaking. In a statement, Tabcorp said it was "remediating and significantly improving" its processes, systems and overall compliance under a new leadership team. "Tabcorp assisted the ACMA throughout the investigation and will continue to work closely with the regulator to ensure ongoing improved compliance," it reads. It will be required to carry out an independent review of its marketing material, run staff training, as well as conduct audits every quarter of its VIP marketing program. "When people make choices to unsubscribe from a service, they must be able to do so easily and their decisions must be respected by companies," Ms Yorke said. "The ACMA will be watching closely to ensure TAB meets its commitments and complies with the spam laws in the future." In the past 18 months, the watchdog has fined companies more than $16.9 million for breaches of spam laws. National Gambling Helpline 1800 858 858 The communications watchdog has fined betting giant Tabcorp $4 million for thousands of breaches of spam laws. The Australian Communications and Media Authority found Tabcorp sent more than 2500 messages over text and WhatsApp to VIP customers between February and May 2024 without an option for recipients to unsubscribe. The investigation also found a further 3148 messages in the same period were not sent with information about the sender, while 11 texts were sent without consent. It's the first time the watchdog has found breaches of spam laws in gambling VIP programs. VIP programs often contain personalised messages to members offering incentives such as bonus bets, rebates or tickets to sporting events. The watchdog's Samantha Yorke said the breaches of the spam law were concerning. "VIPs should not be confused with gambling 'high-rollers'," she said. "These types of gambling VIP programs can involve customers who are not well off and are experiencing significant losses. "It is utterly unacceptable that TAB did not have adequate spam compliance systems in place." Under spam laws, messages must be sent with the option for customers to unsubscribe from the marketing material, with businesses also needing consent. The betting giant has already paid the $4 million fine and has agreed to a three-year court undertaking. In a statement, Tabcorp said it was "remediating and significantly improving" its processes, systems and overall compliance under a new leadership team. "Tabcorp assisted the ACMA throughout the investigation and will continue to work closely with the regulator to ensure ongoing improved compliance," it reads. It will be required to carry out an independent review of its marketing material, run staff training, as well as conduct audits every quarter of its VIP marketing program. "When people make choices to unsubscribe from a service, they must be able to do so easily and their decisions must be respected by companies," Ms Yorke said. "The ACMA will be watching closely to ensure TAB meets its commitments and complies with the spam laws in the future." In the past 18 months, the watchdog has fined companies more than $16.9 million for breaches of spam laws. National Gambling Helpline 1800 858 858
West Australian
04-06-2025
- Business
- West Australian
Telstra penalised for disruption to emergency call service used by people with hearing, speech impairments
Australia's biggest telco failed to provide emergency call service for a period of time last year during a software upgrade, the nation's media regulator has found. Telstra has paid just under $19,000 in fines and agreed to launch an independent review after it mistakenly disabled the connection to the emergency call relay service, which is used by people with hearing and speech impairments. An Australian Communications and Media Authority investigation found the 106 number — which can be used with a teletypewriter — was accidentally made unavailable for 12 hours and 46 minutes between July 5 and 6 last year, following a server migration process. A teletypewriter allows for typed messages to be communicated to police, fire and ambulance services over a phone line. Under emergency call services rules, telco providers must maintain the proper and effective functioning of their networks and facilities that are used to carry emergency calls. ACMA member and consumer lead Samantha Yorke said the regulator took any disruption to an emergency call service 'very seriously' given there could be devastating consequences for the public. 'This mistake could have contributed to very serious harm if someone who relies on this service had needed emergency assistance but was unable to get through,' she said. 'Fortunately, the records show no one attempted to use the 106 service for an emergency during the time the service was disabled.' Telstra has given ACMA a court enforceable undertaking to improve its relevant change management processes. It has also engaged an independent reviewer to look at the range of operational arrangements that support reliable delivery of the 106 emergency call service. Telstra has been contacted for comment. Rival telco Optus was fined a record $12 million by ACMA last November for its network outage a year earlier that left millions of Australians without mobile or internet access, and even left some customers unable to call triple-0.
7NEWS
25-05-2025
- Business
- 7NEWS
Australian watchdog issues warning to Elon Musk's satellite internet service Starlink
Elon Musk 's Starlink has been put on notice by the Australian communications watchdog. The controversial billionaire's satellite internet service received a warning from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) over complaints record-keeping. Telecommunications companies with more than 30,000 active services are required to file complaints reports with the authority no later than 30 days after each quarter. But Starlink failed to do so on four occasions between October 2023 and July 2024. 'Starlink's failure to submit the required complaints reports in a timely way hampered the ACMA in its role of monitoring whether Starlink is meeting its obligations towards consumers,' authority member Samantha Yorke said. The company has since provided the outstanding complaints reports and cooperated throughout the investigation. The Starlink satellite service has increased in popularity in parts of regional Australia, where internet is provided through the slower copper network instead of fibre-optic cables. Some say it could compete with Australia's National Broadband Network as thousands across the country are now believed to use the service in their homes. However, there are lingering concerns about the risks it could pose. In December, a regional telecommunications review found the foreign ownership of systems such as Starlink raises questions about data security and sovereign risks.
