In an effort to disprove Optus’ resistance to their proposed spectrum and network-sharing agreement, Telstra and TPG have released a deluge of expert reports.
The ACCC revealed comments Optus had submitted to the inquiry into the agreement in late June, and those remarks characterised the multi-operator core network (MOCN) concept as a “merger,” which the two specifically dispute.
The ACCC has now released responses from Telstra and TPG as part of its investigation into the MOCN. These responses were backed up by reports from international competition expert Richard Feasey [pdf], network capacity modelling from Aetha [pdf], economists Emma Ihaia [pdf] and Dr. Jorge Padilla [pdf], and economists Emma Ihaia and TPG.
The “TPG Counterfactual” [pdf], a heavily redacted document that describes the steps TPG would need to take if the MOCN agreements fail, contains alternatives outlined in the Telstra/TPG lawsuit.
One such action would be for TPG to sign a roaming agreement with Optus as the only Telstra alternative in order to acquire coverage outside of its own network footprint.
Only an agreement covering 4G services, not 5G, can potentially result from a roaming agreement.
According to the TPG/Telstra report, the MOCN “is considerably superior than any other option available to TPG to enhance its regional coverage” in the regional coverage zone.
Inability to pool spectrum would also “lower TPG’s negotiation leverage” and increase TPG’s costs because it would not be able to use spectrum payment to offset MOCN service prices.
As a result, the Feasey analysis comes to the conclusion that a deal with Telstra gives TPG a more competitive platform against Telstra and Optus than an agreement with Optus would.
Telstra and TPG also want to disprove four additional claims Optus made in its opposition to the acquisition, in addition to disputing the “merger” label: that it will result in TPG and restrict competition
