ACCC still lives in 20th century

AH, you gotta love Rod Sims, the head of the ACCC. At least he’s consistent. He’s determined to show that the supposed competition regulator hasn’t got the faintest clue about – well, competition.

Indeed, he’s going to regulate as if we are all still living in the 20th century, and so, there. That not only is the NBN yet to be even the (crazy-brave) apple of Kevin Rudd’s eye, 99.99 per cent of Australians were still living in blissful ignorance of the Ruddster’s very existence.

Sims has banned the proposed merger of Vodafone – a distant third of the ‘big three’ in the mobile market of Telstra, Optus and Vodafone – and TPG, one of the big three in the fixed broadband market with Telstra and Optus.

Has he noticed something about the two threes? That Telstra and Optus are in both? That what the merger would do would beef up the third player in both? That banning the merger leaves Telstra and Optus and only them with the advantage of being strong in both?

Once again we see the ACCC displaying its fundamental and utter failure to understand the competition dynamics in a specific industry in the context of 21st century 24/7 real-time dynamics. An ACCC that clings to a 20th century competition mindset straight out of a dusty textbook.

So you get Sims rolling out this sort of rubbish – that competition in mobiles would be reduced because TPG wouldn’t roll out a fourth mobile network.

It never crosses the ACCC collective – what passes for – mind is that the best way to get real competition, to get sustained competition, is to have strong competitors, against particularly, dominant incumbents like Telstra.

In both mobiles and fixed broadband a beefed up Vodafone-TPG – with their combination of assets and customers – would best deliver greater competition and what ultimately matters sustained cheaper prices to the consumer.

It has been ever-thus with this sort of mindless insanity whoever heads the ACCC.

Back in 1999 the ACCC banned the merger of thethen very distant (to Telstra) second-placed Optus with AAPT.

In perhaps the most absurd example, in 2016 the ACCC set about investigating whether a proposed merger of Mitre 10 and Home Timber and Hardware would be anticompetitive.

Knock, knock, did anyone inside the ACCC bunker understand how Bunnings was obliterating hardware competitors? And had been doing for years? And was very likely to end up as the only operator?

Did anyone at the ACCC in 2016 notice that not even a Woolworths-backed Masters could hack it against Bunnings?

At least in that case, the ACCC did end up approving the merger. But really, can we ask them to get real; to move into the 21st century; to understand that it is all about strong competitors.

Presumably, the ACCC would look askance at two minnows in the search space wanting to team to up to tackle – to survive – Google.

At least, the ACCC acronym works just as well for what it really is: the AntiCompetition and Consumer Commission.