The state of competition in the Australian mobile resale market

Recommendations

There may be a need for the TCP Code to provide further clarification for providers regarding how they should report information in a CIS. The ACMA may have already considered some of the following issues which were evident in our evaluation of the implementation of TCP Code Rule 4.1.2.

• 
  Provide relevant product information, such as CIS documents, via service provider websites
  
  • 
    64% of consumers identify the provider’s website as an important source of information.
    
  • 
    The ability to search for information online was also indicated as a strong factor for allowing customers to be informed about the many choices on offer.
    
  • 
    It is important to maintain access to relevant product information such as a CIS, coverage maps, roaming prices and post-sales support online. Without this information customers are negatively affected due to less transparency and increased risk of not being provided the full range of offers and conditions when they request further information.
    
• 
  Language localization of CIS documents
  
  • 
    Under the premise of “fair and understandable use of language”, permitting use of non-English language versions of CISs would enable culturally and linguistically diverse groups to be better informed than may be possible using English- only versions (e.g., as ABLE NET Pty Ltd does for Japanese and Korean customers in Australia).
    
  • 
    We also acknowledge that providing only non-English CISs (and not English versions) may become an intentional tactic to limit offers to a certain demographic.
    
  • 
    Considering this, we feel that non-English CISs need to have allowances for relevant TCP Code clauses, particularly those specifying exact English language headings. However, a comparable English version should be producible to the ACMA on request to determine any infringement, with translation services verifying the faithfulness of both versions.
    
• 
  Cost information should have standardised wording and appearance
  

• 
  In relation to included calls, the term “all inclusive” is more accurate than “no cost”, which some providers continue to use.
  
• 
  Where included value is expressed in minutes, it is appropriate that the “Two minute standard national mobile call” should still allow providers to indicate the call can come from included value (i.e. be inclusive) but we suggest providers should also identify the dollar cost a consumer will incur for calls after the included value is depleted.
  
• 
  Where a plan includes data access, we recommend that it be mandatory for the “One megabyte of data within Australia” cost information to identify the minimum dollar cost for 1MB of excess data usage, even if the minimum block size is greater than 1MB or data quota is included within the offer. This will allow comparisons across offers and will better enable consumers to self-monitor data usage to minimise “bill shock”.
  
  • 
    Some offers have minimum block sizes (e.g. $10 for 1 GB) or included value data quota, which are then broken down into per MB costs and used as the “One megabyte of data within Australia” cost figure. These per MB costs are typically lower than excess costs and are potentially misleading when used in isolation. If providers wish to volunteer such information, it should be only in addition to the excess data usage cost customers would incur after any included data allowance is depleted.
    
• 
  Require a consistent CIS format
  
  • 
    While many providers have adopted a two page PDF document for CISs, there are some providers that exceed the page limit, make poor use of the two pages allowed or use webpages only to disclose the CIS (without a downloadable document version).
    
    • 
      The CISs that exceed two pages (in a PDF document) are typically poorly structured and formatted. This is also true for some CISs that meet the two page limit. We suggest these issues result from the absence of clear guidance about readability and format, and a lack of effort by the relevant providers in implementing changes to the TCP Code. In contrast, some providers present all the required information, plus additional comparisons between their offers, within two pages.
      
    • 
      A consistent format will better enable comparisons across providers with less files and pages required for comparisons to occur.
      
    • 
      While others have made a case for one page CISs, we do not endorse that case. Our examination of many CIS indicated the benefit of having sufficient space to include comparisons for a range of offers. This ability is particularly important for reducing the amount of effort required from providers that have many offers available. Combined with a uniform format, consumers are then better enabled to make comparisons across providers using less voluminous material.
      
    • 
      CISs that are available only as webpages also typically suffer from being poorly structured and formatted. These webpages generally are not “print-friendly” (with no option to access a print friendly version) and cannot be printed (or exported to PDF) in a way that reliably maintains the original webpages appearance.
      
  • 
    We propose that the ACMA review the presentation of the information to be presented in the CIS and further develop their example by drafting a recommended template for use by providers. This template might also include single or multiple offer formats for providers who wish to provide a single document for multiple offers. If such a template was provided in the relevant formats where providers can fill in the relevant fields, this could also benefit the OSS/BSS⁹³ vendors who could then implement the template as a standard report that is auto-filled for each reseller brand and offer.
    
• 
  Need to specify how to show CIS content is current
  
  • 
    Rule 4.1.2 requires CIS content to be current, but doesn’t define how a consumer can judge whether the information is current. Many providers indicate this by providing timestamps, typically in the footer of the CIS (e.g. Adam Internet). A few also provide complete access to current and historical CIS versions (e.g. Vodafone). However, on many sites it is difficult to ascertain whether the CIS document linked on a web page is current for the plan information provided.
    
  • 
    We recommend that it be mandatory that all CISs clearly indicate the date it was produced and the date from which it is effective.
    
  • 
    We recommend that it be mandatory that all CIS be archived and remain accessible to any customer who are on the relevant plan.
    
• 
  Clearly define expectations of information provided for “the maximum monthly charge payable where calculable”
  
  • 
    Identifying the maximum monthly charge payable is relatively straight forward for pre-paid offers. However, many providers use this section to inform post-paid customers that they can be charged more than the minimum monthly charge, but they do not provide specific details about usage notifications, spend management tools, the timeliness of billing data, or the dollar limit at which the service becomes restricted (if applicable).
    
  • 
    We recommend that it be mandatory for a provider to disclose the following:
    
    • 
      The timeliness with which the billing data will be provided. This might be subject to reasonable conditions, but should not merely make statements such as “will appear within several days”.
      
    • 
      Whether usage notifications are provided and, if so, at what proportions of usage notices are sent.
      
    • 
      Any sub-limits imposed on maximum calls, SMS or data.
      
    • 
      Whether there is a “safety net” at which billable consumption of the service becomes restricted.
      
• 
  Clearly define expectations of information provided for “the maximum charge payable for early termination of the offer”
  
  • 
    While it is relatively straight forward to identify the maximum payable for early termination charge (ETC) for pre-paid offers and month-to-month contracts, some providers use the same generic formula of “number of months remaining in contract X minimum monthly access fee” that applies to all their relevant offers without specifying dollar values specific to the offer covered by the CIS. Others state a maximum ETC specific to that plan but without details of the calculations to fairy represent the actual cost of terminated.
    
  • 
    We recommend that it be mandatory (for the relevant offer type) that the ETC be disclosed as the maximum dollar amount payable in the event of cancellation and the calculations for how this value was determined.
    
    • 
      Any cooling off periods (if they apply) should also be clearly stated, with a distinction between rights under consumer law and goodwill from the provider.
      
    • 
      The provider may also provide further examples of ETC calculations. For example:
      
      • 
        due to tiered charges for early, mid and late term contracts.
        
      • 
        if ETCs are waived upon signing a new contract.