By RICHARD BRADDELL
WELLINGTON - Vodafone, New Zealand's second largest and, for two quarters, fastest-growing mobile telephone company, has declared itself mostly satisfied with the current regulatory regime.
"Our considered view is that the New Zealand regulatory regime has much to show the world. Many of the key features of the current
regulatory regime represent regulatory best practice," Vodafone said in its submission to the Government's telecommunications inquiry.
Though Vodafone acknowledged arguments that New Zealand's telecommunications development might have benefited from a more regulated approach during the early stages of deregulation, emerging competitive pressures, including the arrival of Telstra Saturn, indicated that time had passed.
Rejecting industry specific measures, Vodafone said the generic competition law, including the Commerce Act, was adequate for the task.
While it "broadly" supported Commerce Act changes that would make it easier to identify and punish anti-competitive behaviour, Vodafone seemed to be mindful of its own burgeoning position in the cellular market and opposed the Government's plans for replacing the definition of dominance with one of substantial market power.
"The industry is characterised by rapid technological change that will inevitably blur market boundaries (a key element in determining market power).
"Any changes run the real risk of slowing down innovation and investment," Vodafone said.
Rejecting the inquiry as the best forum for designing a new regulatory regime, Vodafone said it should instead concentrate on assessing the effectiveness of the current regime while delaying work on any structural change until there had been further industry consultation.
Vodafone was strongly opposed to enforced "roaming" between networks, claiming a new entrant with relatively low costs but with limited network outside high-density locations could freeload on more geographically widespread networks of competitors.
"In Vodafone's view, government intervention in this area is unwarranted and if applied to Vodafone would be tantamount to a confiscation of the assets of an important investor in the New Zealand market," it said.
But while Vodafone's stance was largely hands off, it argued that the courts which, together with the Commerce Commission, were the best places for the determination of disputes about market abuse, should be streamlined with an accelerated commercial list.
