3G Mobile Network Public Hearing – Cooma

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here, and thank you for an excellent opening statement. Have you read James Parker’s submission?

Mr Hanna: No, I have not.

Senator ROBERTS: It explains many of the issues and what’s driving many of the issues you raise. Your No. 1 point, in order of chronology, was black spots. I experienced them coming down from Canberra, so I know
exactly where you are—especially around Bombala. Your second point—and, arguably, in my interpretation, your biggest point—is the lack of information and the lack of dialogue with the telcos; is that correct?

Mr Hanna: That’s correct. Telstra have been positive on keeping council up to date on a number of things. However, keeping council up to date is different to keeping their consumers up to date, and I don’t think they’ve
done that well enough.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a fine distinction you make; it’s critical, because councils don’t represent everyone. They serve everyone but they don’t represent everyone. What engagement have you had with telcos and
what engagement have ratepayers had with Telstra? I take it it’s mainly Telstra?

Mr Hanna: Yes—mainly Telstra at this point in time. The Telstra provider and the person in charge of this area has come out and spoken to a number of community members; her name is Christine. She is happy to keep
doing that. Unfortunately there’s only so much she can do, but she has been able to do follow-ups. They were having regular meetings with council in the early stages, and they keep the information of what is happening. Again, it comes down to: have they provided enough information to the consumer? I don’t believe so.

Senator ROBERTS: One of the things I’m concerned about is that the 3G maps cover less area than the actual 3G footprint; in other words, there are areas that get 3G that are beyond or outside the recognised or specified coverage of 3G. I believe the telcos are saying they will cover 4G on all the spots that have 3G, and no-one will miss out. Is that in regard to the specs or the actual larger footprint—or has no-one even talked about that yet?

Mr Hanna: I couldn’t answer that question.

Senator ROBERTS: So you lack information about the emergency call service as well?

Mr Hanna: That’s correct. I was at Creewah—that’s just outside Bombala—a few weeks ago, at their AGM meeting. Their biggest concern is they run off 3G but they have not had any information on what will happen
once that 3G network is turned off and on what that means to those people there. I couldn’t even make a phone call on the 3G network out there three weeks ago.

Senator STERLE: Why couldn’t you make a call?

Mr Hanna: It just wouldn’t go through.

Senator STERLE: And you were on 4G?

Mr Hanna: I was on 3G at the time; I’ve got 4G, but my mobile phone converted over to 3G. I could not make a phone call out there. I couldn’t even get access. They asked me for information and I couldn’t even get access on my phone. 3G is very poor in that data side of things, so that’s probably the main reason for that.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me quote the first paragraph of James Parker’s summary and opinion: It is clear that the 3G network switch-offs must be permanently postponed. Failing to do so prioritises commercial interests
over the public interest, risks lives, harms competition, and undermines essential communication. Mr Parker, as I understand it, is an expert in IT and communications. Does what he said concern you?

Mr Hanna: One hundred per cent. There are many people in our region that are elderly, that have got pacemakers and that will have to convert over to a new upgrade. Are they all aware of it? Have they had the
opportunity to upgrade? They are my concerns. If someone has an accident on a tractor, which we have had many times before where tractors have rolled, if they can’t make a triple 0 phone call it is a big concern.

Senator ROBERTS: He goes on in the fourth paragraph of his summary: The planned switch-offs are entirely set to serve the commercial and business interests of the network providers, partnered
handset makers and associated industry. Would you like to make any comment on that?

Mr Hanna: I think it speaks for itself.

Senator ROBERTS: Newer Android devices support the GSMA and the TS.43 standard, which should enable automatic 4G calling activation. However, according to Google’s documentation, only a few networks
have implemented this feature. None of the Australian providers are on that global list.

Mr Hanna: That’s a concern.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a big concern.

Mr Hanna: That’s a massive concern.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me go to the second paragraph of his summary: It’s clear that to date there has been insufficient oversight of the switch-off from Government, Minister, the ACCC, ACMA
and Media. Have you had any interaction with those agencies and the minister? Are they riding shotgun on this? Are they properly overseeing it, as far as you can see?

Mr Hanna: No, not to my knowledge. We haven’t had any communication from any of them.

Senator ROBERTS: His third paragraph: In my view the industry has not been open or transparent around this issue and communication about the impacts has neglected to provide key information to customers. The industry is entirely aware of the problem— that is, the inability to use 4G in some areas, even if you have got the 4G signal—for voice calls, that is; you can use it for data but not for voice— but as shown in the EENA presentation, nobody wants to take responsibility for it and fix it.

Mr Hanna: It’s shocking that no-one wants to take responsibility. They need to step up. We need to get the infrastructure in place before they turn off the 3G network. It’s pretty simple.

Senator ROBERTS: These problems have been well known overseas, apparently, in America, Europe and other countries. From memory, France, the United Kingdom and South Africa, and there may be one other
country, have delayed ending 3G for many years—I think France is out to 2028—because of the inherent problem in the firmware that the telcos are just not addressing or even admitting. It would seem to be that we need to extend the shutdown date for 3G for several years, not just one or two or a few months.

Mr Hanna: That’s correct. As I’ve said, 3G should not be turned off until the infrastructure and everybody has been upgraded. If that’s what is being talked about overseas, why are we not doing the same here?

Senator ROBERTS: It seems that the telcos, from Mr Parker’s submission—and he goes into a comprehensive, pretty detailed explanation; it seems very competent to me—are running away from the inherent
problem of 4G not being able to be voice call unless there are modifications made to handsets. Some handsets are compatible, some are not. People just don’t know what the hell is going on.

Mr Hanna: Correct. Like I said in my statement, we’ve got a large population of elderly and disadvantaged people. Can they afford to upgrade their phones? I just bought a new phone a few months ago. It cost me nearly
$1,500. I can afford that, but can everybody afford to upgrade their phones? Unless those phones are upgraded— and potentially they are; I can’t talk on everybody’s behalf, but potentially all phones that are out there can take the 4G, but we’re not guaranteed that right now. If telcos are able to send a message to their customer in regard to whether their phone is compatible, they should have that data to us today—and they don’t.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what would be expected, but, according to Mr Parker, even the telco’s tests are not reliable. He’s basically saying, the way I read it, that they don’t know what the hell they’re doing, yet they’re
wanting to foist this on customers simply to sell more handsets and more plans.

Mr Hanna: I can’t comment on behalf of the telcos, but that’s what I would be doing—making sure that everybody is up to date and upgraded before turning off the 3G network.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator ROBERTS:Could you elaborate more on a social contract?

Ms Tegen: First of all, as I opened with, I think Australia is forgetting that rural, remote and regional Australia has kept Australia out of two financial crises and supported recovery after COVID. We have a
wonderful economy. If you look at Western countries around the world, ours is doing so incredibly well due to the resources sector, agriculture and tourism, and we are treating rural, remote and regional Australia as if they were a third World country. We have a $6.55 billion underspend per annum in health expenditure alone. We’re not spending the money on education, and we’re definitely not spending the money on industry and infrastructure. Infrastructure includes telecommunications. It is often because the markets failed in rural, remote and regional Australia, and yet we’ve continued to keep Australia in the economic and social wealth that we have. In economic terms, when markets fail, that is when government steps in, and government steps in to allow the economy, through education, health and infrastructure, to do well and to continue to deliver. If Australia were a company and 30 per cent of your company were bringing in two-thirds of the wealth, wouldn’t you expect to spend more money in that 30 per cent of the company so that the wealth continues to grow?
So I’m saying that we have a social and economic contract to support that part of the economy to do better, and we’re currently not doing that. We have to do that because we need our economic contribution to grow so that we can fund the health and the infrastructure. Again, rural Australia is not a Third World country. It shouldn’t have to beg and plead to get a service. When I say there is a $6.55 billion underspend, that is $850 less funding for each person in rural and remote Australia than for somebody that lives in Bondi Junction, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth or Brisbane. We can no longer accept this when we know it is happening. So I’m saying that we can’t continue. Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Tegen. I’ll just interpret your message: if you take Australia as an entity, the maximum productivity comes from the rural areas, so we should be investing more in that, because it will magnify the return on investment.

Ms Tegen: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Could I turn to something that Senator Canavan raised during the break: the Starlink- Optus alliance or deal. If a telco’s service is poor and it’s not fulfilling its social contract or responsibility then it
won’t be remembered when technology changes the game, and people will just abandon it. Is that a fair comment? That’s what history seems to show. In other words, it’s in the telcos’ interests to look after you guys.

Ms Tegen: Definitely, but in the end I think there needs to be an understanding also that, if you have shareholders and they’re expecting a return on investment, they’re not going to want to support those areas that require further investment rather than making profit. I’m just wondering whether the KPIs address that particular problem, because it doesn’t match. It’s like a private health insurer. They’re not going to want to invest in those areas that are not going to make a profit, so it depends on what the KPIs are. I don’t think it matters which telco we have; if the KPI is to make a profit, they’re not going to want to invest in those areas where the returns are low or they are sinking further costs.

CHAIR: Thank you for that. It’s a good start. I’ll come back if there’s time, but, Senator Roberts, you’re next.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Parker, for your excellent submission. It’s powerful and filled with facts, and it raises some very, very serious points and question. I watched both the videos, and Hugh Jeffreys’ video hit the bullseye. Tell me if I’m saying anything wrong in this summary. You mentioned the software solution is available, and that solutions to this problem are real and practical and don’t need the shutting down of 3G. You also say a significant proportion of 4G devices currently in use either do not support 4G VoLTE calling, or only support it with the telcos they were purchased with regardless of whether the device is fully network unlocked. You also say that perfectly functional 4G, 5G phones will essentially become useless for making or receiving calls, with many ending up in landfill or not properly recycled while the lingering effects of the global chip shortage and the extreme ongoing cost-of-living crisis mean a complete switch off of 3G services in 2024 will pose a major financial challenge for many. These are just two of the many questions you ask. Could you tell me about your communication with the department, the significance of it and what you learnt please?

Mr Parker: I’ve been aware that this has been coming for a while. The industry and department may say, ‘Knowing what we know now, maybe we would have done things differently,’ but these issues have been obvious since the first 4G devices hit the market. When the iPhone 5s and the Samsung Galaxy S3s hit the market, they were 4G devices, but whenever you would go to make a call, you’d see that 4G icon disappear and be replaced by a 3G icon. So you think, ‘Why does that happen?’ And then you find out that 4G doesn’t actually have any native calling functionality, like 2G and 3G do. Therefore you think, ‘That’s going to be a problem someday,’ and here we are. Consistently, over the years, industry has failed to implement things properly. There are devices on Telstra’s support list that will only work if you bought that phone specifically from Telstra and that has Telstra software on it. If you purchased that phone from another operator, or if you purchased it retail or you purchased it elsewhere—maybe it’s a New Zealand model or a UK model or a US model—it can be exactly the same device hardware, there is nothing physically different about the device, but it won’t work simply because it has the other telecom operator’s software on it. Knowing about these issues for years, I felt it important to try to contact the minister. I could at least say, ‘Well, if this all goes pear-shaped, I’ve at least done something about it.’ In June, I wrote to the minister via email outlining all of the compatibility issues that I’ve experienced with devices using different software and different networks. I even pointed out the implications for triple 0 calling and people using devices from overseas in my original submission. Despite perhaps what the department would like it not to have been about, I did specifically point out implications for emergency calling in my 6 June email. I did not get a response to that, which I was not surprised by. In August, I followed up again with my local member, Anika Wells, and I had a bit of back and forth with her office, trying to get a response. Eventually, at the end of September, I did get a response. It basically did not acknowledge the issues I raised in my submission about the compatibility issues that exist for people and the misleading information from the providers and the cost-of-living impacts on people and the overall confusing and disruptive situation it would pose. A month later, in the Senate estimates, we had Senator Cadell ask questions of the department on whether there was any response from the government regarding unintended consequences. Senator Cadell was told, ‘No; we’re treating this as a corporate and commercial matter between Telstra and its customers.’ These issues have continued to persist. Obviously, we had that 8 November Optus outage. Following on from that, I made an even more comprehensive submission to that inquiry trying to bring these issues to the attention of the inquiry. And then, over the Christmas break, I was looking into it further and I found that European Emergency Number Association by that telecoms expert Rudolf van der Berg. I got in contact with him. He said he appreciated the heads-up and he said, ‘I’ve contacted people who know people at the ACMA and the ACCC to see if we can alert them more.’ That was early January. Then we had the department in February seemingly scrambling to do something about it. And then we had the announcement by the minister in March. So it’s clear there has been to date, and there continues to be up to this point now, a lack of oversight from the department and government about this issue. They’ve been way too over-reliant on reporting from industry. When AMTA in November said, ‘A very small number,’ the first question should have been, ‘What is that number?’ not, ‘Okay, that sounds fine; we’ll just leave you to it.’ There needs to actually be some scrutiny over these numbers, because the providers have a commercial interest for the switch-off to go ahead. The 3G network is expenses, and they would like to cut costs with that. Rudolf van der Berg in his EENA presentation in 2022 said, when AT&T in the US did it, they spent about US$300 million giving customers free phones. He said that gives you an idea of how much the providers can save by doing this; they can recoup that so quickly. If you’re stopping them from doing it, that creates an out-of-pocket cost that will get the boardroom’s attention, and then maybe someone will call up the testing department and ask: ‘Why didn’t you get this standardisation right? And why am I out of pocket a couple of hundred million dollars?’ I thought it was a very interesting comment that he made in that presentation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just restate the second paragraph of your submission summary where you say: It’s clear that to date there has been insufficient oversight of the switch-off from Government, Minister, the ACCC, ACMA and Media. You just explain your frustration and your lack of respect for these government agencies because you became aware that there would be a problem when 4G first came in because you saw the 3G as well.

Mr Parker: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m guessing you’re saying that, because the government has just woken up, that is yet another reason—not only the technical reasons, the fairness reasons, the commercial reasons, the safety reasons— for delaying. You’re saying the government has been asleep. It needs to wake up and do its job. We should be delaying it at least until 2028 ,which is when France has delayed their cut-off to, or you’re saying we should never shut 3G.

Mr Parker: There will be a need at some point, when it’s impractical to keep the 3G network around. In countries like France, their providers are going to have 3G until about 2028 or 2029, and France is known for its very pro-consumer network policies. I think it was in Optus’s submission to this inquiry that they talked about how the UK had switched off their 3G network, and, therefore, this is industry standard, and we need to go ahead and do that. At the same time they completely ignored that the UK still has a 2G network, which means you have access to calling, roaming calling and emergency calling anywhere there is sufficient 2G coverage, and the UK is keeping that network up until around 2030 and 2033. So it’s convenient that the providers have cherrypicked what they want to say about it. It is clear that the government has not been paying attention to this. I have been calling for a delay. Most European companies are looking at maybe 2025 or 2026. We may be the second or third cab off the rank as far as Western countries. The United States has obviously done it before us, and in the year prior to the switch off we had Google and Apple scrambling to try and add new software to their devices, because obviously they’ve not been proactive about this, and industry has not been proactive about this. We really need to wait until much larger markets within Europe fix the compatibility and standardisation issues and get handset manufacturers and network operators to implement one single globally recognised standard that enables seamless connectivity, like we’ve had for decades with 2G and 3G. As a reminder of history, you can use any 2G or 3G enabled device purchased from any network provider or any retailer on any 2G or 3G network in the world, and it will work flawlessly. Whereas, none of that exists with 4G calling. There are major compatibility issues that still persist with new devices. It’s not guaranteed that you can purchase a device from a store or online and use it on any network and have access to calling, emergency calling and roaming. There are a number of issues that have been neglected. The department really should have announced a delay a year ago, when these sorts of issues were pointed out by AMTA or at least when I pointed them out in June. The announcement in March should not have been the establishment of a working group; it should have been, ‘Okay, we’re going to delay this by 12 months to ensure that consumers are not being adversely impacted.’ I’ve received messages from my provider, marketing emails, saying, ‘It’ll be mayhem; here’s our mayhem sale,’ and, ‘Now it’s time to upgrade.’ The providers definitely have an advantage here with the new device sales aspect of it, and consumers are vulnerable to the information that they receive from the network providers. They don’t know the difference between if their device works and if it doesn’t. They’re entirely reliant on what the messaging from the providers is. Telstra says, ‘We have an SMS testing system.’ As I point out in my submission, that system does not actually do a test to report compatibility. It simply looks up your phone model in a list, and if your phone is in that established list then it will say it works. It doesn’t actually report back whether you have working calling. I have devices that are configured perfectly for the network, and even when I make a 4G call I get that outbound calling message—on a device that I have manually updated to work. If I do an SMS test, it says, ‘It looks like your phone is reliant on 3G for voice calls.’ It isn’t. It’s using exactly the same configuration and software as all the other supported devices, yet Telstra is saying I need to replace it. Someone who’s not tech savvy is going to have absolutely no idea what to do. They’re just going to go to the nearest Telstra shop or Optus shop or whatever, and they’re just going to have to buy a new phone and cop the financial hit. That’s the situation, which could have been avoided if the department and government were actually concerned about the interests of consumers, as opposed to only being concerned about the network providers being able to go ahead as planned. As I think I put in my inquiry submission, the ACMA said a few years ago: One of the key issues for licensees is the uncertain timeline for the proliferation of Voice Over LTE (VoLTE)-enabled devices among consumers. The ACMA sought information from incumbent licensees on the expected timing and speed of consumer migration towards the use of VOLTE handsets, but still has no clear indication of intended migration paths. In the absence of receiving any further information to support a more detailed assessment, the ACMA considers that the proposed timeline outlined in this option (i.e. a mid-2024 …) provides enough opportunity for carriers to mitigate risks to the continuity of consumer services.  When the ACMA made that assessment, Android and iOS didn’t even have 4G call roaming support. So it goes back many years how this has been neglected. The switch-off should not be based on, ‘Well, we’ve made a lot of investment in 5G, and now we want a return on investment, so we’re going to shut off the 3G.’ The criteria for switch-off should be compatibility and standardisation within devices and on networks. It should not be based on the next quarter’s earnings. The telcos should serve the market and what the market has. It shouldn’t be that the telcos get to dictate the market. There are three main network providers, but there are millions of customers and millions of handsets. Why is it that the three get to dictate the whole market? It doesn’t really make any sense, and it doesn’t pass the pub test in any real way.

Senator ROBERTS: So you lack confidence in the numbers affected, you lack confidence in the testing of phones’ capabilities and you see a self-interested motivation to make exorbitant or excess profits, when solutions that are real and practical are in reach for the telcos. What you’re saying is to delay it at least until 2028, if not further. I’ll put the rest of my questions on notice, Mr Parker, but I want to thank you again for your clarity of answers.

Mr Parker: No worries.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for participating, and thank you to the National Farmers Federation for their submission. I want to go to your submission, Mr Thomas. Specifically, on page 4, item 2 is headed
‘Providers must prioritise accountability and transparency through the transition’. Have you read James Parker’s submission?

Mr Thomas: I have not personally; Charlotte might say otherwise. But I did manage to catch some of his
evidence prior to us.

Senator ROBERTS: Clearly, in my view, the telcos and the handset providers just cannot be trusted. There is very little chance of accountability without trust, especially when the problem was not defined until Mr Parker came along. He’s got the solution there as well. Does anyone there have any comments on the serious issues he raises?

Mr Thomas: To be honest, I probably won’t wade into it too much, not being too familiar with the technical detail he was going into. It certainly sounded interesting. Perhaps I would just say that the focus for the NFF at
present has been on making sure that people are upgrading their devices to be compatible within the timeframe and making sure that we’ve got that coverage equivalency. When we talk about transparency and accountability, we’re primarily talking about that coverage equivalency piece. But, yes, we would certainly be interested to learn more about the issues that he’s raised and see what our members make of that.
Senator ROBERTS: The conclusions that I took from Mr Parker’s submission and from his testimony were quite startling. We’re being misled, it seems, by the telcos and possibly them in conjunction with the handset
makers. It seems to me that, for the benefit of your members, it would be important for the National Farmers Federation and NSW Farmers to actually work with Mr Parker to raise members’ awareness and to realise that we are quite likely being led down the garden path, and farmers are incurring needless expense and needless inconvenience.

Mrs Charlton: Just to add to that, I have not read Mr Parker’s submission, but NSW Farmers have conducted a survey, and I do agree that there is a lot of mistrust of the telcos. So it’s definitely out there, but I’d be interested to read his submission now. A bit like Charlie, I only heard bits and pieces, so I can’t comment on his submission and the conversation he had, but we will definitely look into that at NSW Farmers.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. Thank you so much for your understanding as well. I think it’s important for the benefit of members of both organisations to get Mr Parker’s message out, because it’ll save your
members a lot of inconvenience and a lot of time, and give them an enhanced service. Thank you, Chair. I’ve put my other questions on notice because I know the time deadline.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. One of the big problems with the cost-of-living crisis is the inflation in the cost of building things, and housing costs have gone up dramatically. The 3G switchover is a cost on businesses like surveyors. Is there a chance they’ll have to pass that cost on and add to the inflation issue?

Mrs Blicavs: Yes, most certainly. The increasing costs of all we’re dealing with, the increased cost of our equipment—the only way we can deal with that is to pass that on to the public by increasing our surveying prices.

Mr Atkinson: This is one of the major problems we have in the industry. The other thing is the lack of communication from 3G in remote areas. All of my field work in remote areas that I used to have 3G coverage
for, which meant I had safety and communication, no longer has that, so I’m sending two-person field parties when usually a one-person field party would suffice to do the job. But, because they no longer have phone
reception, I need two people in case an emergency happens and they can’t call for assistance. We’ve also had to buy EPIRBs, or satellite communication, and that all ends up being passed on to the customer directly. So, for any job that I’m sending two people out to instead of one person, that’s a direct additional cost to those customers. That is the only way to make sure that my guys are coming home safely to their families at the end of each day, and that’s a necessity.

Mrs Blicavs: The technology upgrades, for a time, allowed us to run one-person field parties out in the field with a robotic. We could just send people out—one here, one there—and we could do multiple jobs in a day. We are seeing, and our research that we do every year says, that more and more are running two-people field parties again, so we’ve gone back. So the technology is good, but not from a safety perspective or for work health and safety. And now the 3G shutdown has added to that need. So that has just increased costs for consumers.

Senator ROBERTS: One question that’s been intriguing me, Mr Atkinson, perhaps because you’re exposed to these areas—Telstra and, I think, Optus have said they will cover existing 3G areas eventually.

Mr Atkinson: Eventually.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. By that, do they mean areas that are spec’d as 3G or do they mean areas that are actually 3G—because the spec’d 3G is much less in area, apparently, than actual 3G. So, if they’re going to be
covering the spec’d, they’ll not cover lots of areas that are currently in 3G range.

Mr Atkinson: I can’t answer for them directly as to what they’ll end up covering, but I can talk about my experience of being remote. I do a lot of remote work. I cover from here to Tumut to the Victorian border to Eden
to Bermagui and then back through the mountain range. So I’m out there a lot. I would question the comment that their coverage is greater than their spec’d coverage. Quite often we will look at their mapping system to see if we’re going to have 3G coverage before we go to those jobs, and I would say that there’s often a time when it’s mapped as not having 3G that I pull my phone out and can make a phone call. I would say that it’s probably almost the other way around—that, if it’s mapped as 3G and it’s on the fringe, I would be going there expecting to not have the coverage. But that’s my experience in this area alone. What is mapped and what is achievable is probably—

Senator ROBERTS: The reverse of what I said.

Mr Atkinson: the reverse of what you’ve said. There’s also the continuity of the connection, especially with this. If you’re running this, you need to hold the connection constantly to have the data logging and communicating its information back and forward. If you are on those fringes, you don’t have that continuity, and therefore it is again redundant and you can’t use that technology.

Senator ROBERTS: In your submission you gave us examples of the huge costs that some people face, including some near the end of their working careers. They’re just not doing it, which hastens the end of their
working careers. Can you see any disadvantage or danger to your members if the government chose to intervene and delayed the 3G shutdown?

Mrs Blicavs: No, that would help us. A delay would be good. We’ve appreciated the three months that we’ve had. We think that any further delays would be helpful because they would allow us to continue using what we’ve got, or, say, for those who were planning to leave surveying in two years, because they could then leave within two years rather than investing some thousands of dollars now to only work another two years.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of Mr James Parker’s submission?

Mrs Blicavs: No, I’m sorry.

Senator ROBERTS: It might be worth reading.

Mrs Blicavs: We will.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s very well done. If the 3G shutdown goes ahead, you’ve said it will be necessary to issue some grants to compensate business holders who have been disadvantaged by the shutdown. Taxpayers
would then, obviously, pay for this. Can I confirm that, in your opinion, it would be necessary for government to leave taxpayers with this bill if the government simply intervened and stopped the shutdown?

Mrs Blicavs: I think that’s an excellent question. The challenge that we have is the demand upon surveying right now with the housing crisis. We have a huge housing crisis. We need surveyors to keep building homes and the infrastructure that goes along with that. Just on my drive here today, I passed nearly a dozen surveyors out in the field doing infrastructure work as well as building homes. So we certainly need this equipment in order to do the job. As to how we undertake that, we’ll let the government decide whether the need to have 4G and 5G is more important than delivering on housing and infrastructure. If a delay can’t be held then a subsidy, we think, would be the best way to help us continue doing our work. We want to have continuous use of our equipment and be able to contact the necessary points that we need to contact. We’ll let the government make the decision about which is the best way. If the shutdown is going to happen, we think we need subsidy, or we risk even more of our businesses going out of business. Otherwise, a delay in the shutdown would be helpful for our financial needs.

Senator ROBERTS: So, either way, Australia pays for this decision, either in higher prices—higher surveyor charges—or in some form of subsidy.

Mrs Blicavs: Yes, that’s right. Unfortunately, building delays are just as costly, as are rebuilds after natural disasters. When the next floods or the next fires occur, it’s our surveyors who are the first ones on site with all of those scenarios, checking levels on floods and recovering damaged land after fires—and even checking where fires are going, through the equipment that they have. So surveyors are critical to everything that goes on in this country. There are only a few thousand of us, but we are critical. As to whether that’s a cost to the Australian people, personally I think it’s not a huge cost compared to many other professions and industries.

Senator ROBERTS: The last section of your submission says: “Support Needed”
We would like to see support provided though the federal budget to assist our industry to cope with this unexpected change.
If you read Mr Parker’s submission, you’ll find it’s probably a needless change, so that’ll make your blood boil.
That is just forewarning. Thank you.

CHAIR: I’ll go to Senator Roberts next.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today, especially in person. It makes it so much more effective. Have you seen James Parker’s submission?

Mr Pickens: I have not been through the submission in detail, no. I was present earlier on when he was giving some of his evidence; I was here for that.

Senator ROBERTS: Did anything strike you or stick with you?

Mr Pickens: I think he’s got a lot of detail there about the actual technical characteristics of how mobile networks work with regard to circuit switched capabilities as opposed to voice over LTE. It will be very
interesting to hear the MNOs feedback on that tomorrow. I don’t think it’s necessarily a position that I should take as the New South Wales government to comment on the technical—

Senator ROBERTS: It’s an opinion, but I wasn’t asking for that. I just wanted to know if there was anything that struck you in that. You said there is a lot of material in there, and you haven’t read it in detail.
Mr Pickens: I haven’t read the submission itself. I was only here for some of his evidence earlier on.

Senator ROBERTS: This is from Mr Parker’s submission: Prior to being allowed to switch-off their networks the providers should be held to a Government specified standard for the number of compatible devices and minimum levels of coverage for those in remote and regional areas. That’s pretty much what you said in your first criteria, wasn’t it—no detrimental impact?

Mr Pickens: Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that France has extended its 3G until 2028?

Mr Pickens: I wasn’t aware of the 2028 date. I knew that most countries around the world are at this inflection point at the moment where they’re looking at what they need to do from a management perspective and are
therefore making those decisions around which technologies to continue and when to phase things in and out. But I wasn’t aware specifically of the 2028 date.

Senator ROBERTS: This is not a criticism of you or any other witness, but almost everything in James Parker’s submission took me by surprise. It really raised eyebrows with me. Have you done any communication
with overseas countries like Britain, France, South Africa that have postponed or deleted considerably by several years their cutting off?

Mr Pickens: No. We do liaise internationally on a range of topics, particularly on the adoption of broadband technology for public safety workers. We haven’t specifically talked about the topic of 3G shutdowns though.

Senator ROBERTS: Britain is actually keeping its 2G.

Mr Pickens: For the purposes of circuit switched voice, as I understand.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know any other countries that are keeping 2G? Is America, for example?

Mr Pickens: No, I don’t.

Senator ROBERTS: From your submission it says: It is of primary importance to the NSW Government that its communities, services and industries, particularly those that currently rely exclusively on 3G networks, are not subjected to avoidable detrimental outcomes. Instead, they should be assured that they have a reasonable opportunity to adapt to, and benefit from, the generational advancement of long-term evolution … technologies without undue distress. The general evidence we’ve seen so far seems to indicate there are certainly going to be those detrimental outcomes if the shutdown proceeds. That would fly in the face of your first concern about no detrimental impacts that can be prevented.

Mr Pickens: Sorry, I’m not sure of the conflict there.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems there will be detrimental outcomes if this shutdown proceeds, and that would go against your first concern—that you want to avoid preventable detrimental impacts, especially safety.

Mr Pickens: We’re calling out that we don’t want there to be any detrimental impacts by the shutdown of the networks and also, from a digital inclusion perspective, that we want to ensure all communities, wherever they are across the state, have the opportunity to benefit from technologies. While, it’s great if we can actually keep the whole state moving in terms of having greater equity and parity of the technology that is available to those communities, if there is no meaningful coverage solution for them, they shouldn’t be adversely impacted from a safety perspective by shutting off the network now. So, as long as the networks can actually provide that equivalency of coverage, then allowing the adoption of newer technologies is certainly something that we would advocate for and like to see happen to close that digital divide.

Senator ROBERTS: How would you hold the telcos accountable? Once it’s done, it’s done. It’s not, ‘Whoops, we made a mistake.’ There are detrimental outcomes.

Mr Pickens: I think there needs to be, potentially, a greater level of direct community engagement to understand which devices are being used within the coverage footprint of that broadcast tower. Once they actually
understand that and can have a more targeted approach to device replacement, essentially, then the guarantees, if you like, or the number of people who could potentially be adversely impacted by it will be reduced greatly. Senator ROBERTS: The way you’ve stated that sounds to me like that responsibility should be on the telcos to assess that.

Mr Pickens: Government definitely has an obligation to do that, and we, as New South Wales, have been engaging through campaigns, through Service NSW, for example, to try and increase the awareness of this risk.
There certainly needs to be a significant communication program by the MNOs themselves. They’re the ones who actually have the customers attached to their networks and would be best placed to understand the scale of the problem that exists on a tower-by-tower basis almost, from a location perspective, and have targeted ways of approaching that.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you flagging that issue—this may be verging on opinion—as a concern of yours or as something that you must insist on?

Mr Pickens: We look for the assurance that the coverage equivalency has been met, essentially. So if we can get that feedback through—and that hasn’t been provided yet. We still do have concerns about parts of the state that haven’t yet had their upgrades through and that 3G coverage has been overbuilt by the 4G or 5G. So, until those fears are allayed, it’s certainly something that we would flag as an outstanding action.

Senator ROBERTS: If those are not completed by next month, there should be an extension of 3G?

Mr Pickens: Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; that was clear. In your submission you touched on the importance of mobile networks when it comes to bushfires and floods. Could you please expand a bit more on that and how 3G plays a role?

Mr Pickens: Absolutely. For our emergency service workers as well as communities who have been impacted by fires and floods, what we’ve seen, certainly from the 2019-20 bushfires and then flooding that we had
subsequently, is that the reliance on access to mobile telecommunications is absolutely paramount, not just for communities but for emergency service organisations themselves.

Senator ROBERTS: So lives are at stake if it’s not—

Mr Pickens: If people cannot communicate effectively, if they can’t call triple 0, for example, because either they’re using a handset that can’t do it or they’ve lost coverage because a 3G footprint no longer exists, then, yes, lives are at stake.

Senator ROBERTS: Your submission stated that Transport for NSW service delivery was on track to convert all services from 3G by 30 June 2024. Was that deadline met, or are there still any conversions outstanding?

Mr Pickens: No. We believe that earlier this year they only had about 1,800 to go and they were still on track to have them completed by the start of this month. So we’re not aware of any lingering issues for Transport.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had two conflicting opinions on what I’m about to ask you. Does the map of 3G range exceed or understate the actual 3G? In other words, will you get 3G outside the specified range from
Telstra?

Mr Pickens: I believe it’s unlikely.

Senator ROBERTS: Was the conversion work by Transport for NSW to transition all of those services off 3G a significant cost?

Mr Pickens: I’ll take that on notice. I don’t have costs for Transport.

Senator ROBERTS: That was one agency. Have you got any indication whether the process has been replicated across all of New South Wales state government?

Mr Pickens: We did reach out. As I said, we were leading an all-of-government submission. The only feedback that we had of note was from Transport. Subsequently, we got additional information from some of the
emergency service organisations, but I don’t have anything more substantial that I can offer in response to that.

Senator ROBERTS: What about other state governments? Do you liaise with them? Can you tell us how they’re doing or give us a rough indication?

Mr Pickens: I can’t comment specifically about other states, but I am aware that we’ve all been going through a similar process to understand the risks of 3G shutdown.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to talk on behalf of a specific state, but your answer is fine. If you allow me to paraphrase, you’ve said in your submission that, if the telcos don’t do everything that they need to
make sure no-one is left behind, the federal government should intervene. Given you made your submission in May and it’s now the end of July, have you seen enough over the last three months? Are you satisfied that the telcos aren’t going to leave anyone who relies on 3G behind?

Mr Pickens: No, I’m not satisfied about that. I believe that there is still more work to be done in terms of guaranteeing that the device types of concern, where they can’t make triple 0 calls, for example, have been
sufficiently removed from networks. I also haven’t seen enough to confidently suggest that the coverage footprint is going to be equivalent with what’s been offered by the MNOs so far. So, if that can’t be provided, then we believe that the shutdown should be done, as I’ve mentioned previously, in a phased location-by-location approach, where that’s appropriate, so that they can derisk that as much as possible.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you see any danger in keeping the 3G network operating for longer?

Mr Pickens: ‘Danger’ isn’t the word that I would’ve chosen, which is why I clarified it. There are service quality benefits to having newer technologies. Some of the feedback that we’re getting from emergency service
workers is that the need for more data-hungry capabilities, like video, for example, is something that they’re very keen to explore. As and when that technology can be used effectively, they’d be very keen to adopt that. so it’s not a danger necessarily—that I can foresee—to keep 3G on for longer, but it’s a delayed benefit of some of the other services.

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a cost, not a danger. What is the cost involved in operating 3G longer? Have you approached Telstra, for example, or any of the telcos or have they approached you about discussing keeping 3G open longer?

Mr Pickens: We’ve had conversations with all carriers about their plans for—

Senator ROBERTS: Did you initiate them?

Mr Pickens: Yes, we did. We haven’t specifically put to them what the cost of keeping 3G open longer would be, so I can’t comment on that specifically. But we have had conversations with all the carriers about their plans.

Senator ROBERTS: From your experience then, what are some of the things that would affect that cost? Is it the maintenance cost? Is it the cost of new parts coming for old machines?

Mr Pickens: Yes, there are parts. There is network equipment that is 3G specific only, so there will be a cost inherent with that, in terms of maintenance, support and so on.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.