Luke Coleman, CEO ATA Speech to ACCAN Webinar 7/11/25

ACCAN Webinar

‘Spectrum Management in the 21st Century’

1-2pm, Friday 7 November 2025

Thank you ACCAN for the invitation to speak at today’s event.

We’re here today to discuss and debate the issue of spectrum renewals versus spectrum auctions, and I’d like to frame my remarks around one single question:

What will deliver the best outcome for Australian communications consumers?

That should be the objective we are all united in seeking.

So what does the best outcome for communications consumers look like?

First, the lowest prices for mobile services.

Second, the most investment in mobile coverage and capacity.

And third, the greatest network stability at a time when consumers need reliable connectivity more than ever before.

Let’s start with which option will be more likely to deliver the lowest prices for consumers.

It’s easy to forget just how much Australians have benefitted from a competitive telecommunications market over the past decade.

Since 2015, there is only one sector in the entire Australian economy which is delivering more services at lower prices for consumers – and that is the telecommunications sector.

Telco prices are 23% lower today than they were in 2015, and consumers are getting around 50 times as much data as they were ten years ago.

In that same period electricity costs have increased by 70%.

But are these declining prices sustainable if telcos are required to pay more for spectrum they’re already using?

Spectrum costs are ultimately paid for by consumers in their phone bills.

High spectrum prices will result in either higher phone bills, or lower network investment – or both.

And it’s not only mobile network operators we’re talking about here – the NBN is a significant user of spectrum for its fixed-wireless service in regional areas, and NBN has to pay for this spectrum like any other user.

It’s also a digital inclusion issue. Affordable mobile services are often described as an ‘essential service’ – but increased spectrum costs will ultimately be reflected in consumers’ phone bills – and will be felt by those who can least afford it.

The best outcome for consumers is one that delivers the lowest prices for mobile services – and spectrum renewals is the option that will deliver this.

Second, which option will deliver the most investment in coverage and competition?

Every dollar spent on spectrum is a dollar that isn’t spent on mobile coverage.

It’s that simple.

The consequence of telcos paying too much for spectrum is that Australians could miss out on billions being invested in improved mobile coverage and capacity.

Mobile networks need both spectrum and infrastructure – towers and radio equipment.

It’s a house and land package – the more you spend on the land, the less money you have to spend on the house.

By charging telcos more for spectrum, you’re limiting how much they can invest in network infrastructure.

We’ve heard the argument that taxpayers could “miss out” on billions of dollars from higher spectrum prices.

But hang on – are we debating what’s in the best interests of Treasury? Or what’s in the best interests of telecoms consumers?

Remember – taxpayers are also consumers.

Charging telcos more for spectrum means consumers either get higher phone bills, or lower investment in mobile networks.

The best outcome for consumers is one that delivers more investment in mobile coverage and capacity – and spectrum renewals is the option that will deliver this.

And finally, which option will deliver stability at a time when consumers need reliable connectivity more than ever before?

Maintaining consistent access to existing spectrum rights will deliver maximum stability and certainty.

Spectrum auctions will deliver maximum disruption and uncertainty.

Remember – there is no new spectrum on the table here. The only potential outcome of auctions is for telcos to grab spectrum blocks off each other.

There’s a cascading effect – changes to spectrum allocations require networks to be re-engineered, and potentially new investments in radio and core network equipment.

This creates disruption for networks, and additional costs for carriers.

The more carriers have to spend on changing their existing networks, they less they have to invest in coverage and capacity.

Consumers may find themselves with less coverage or capacity from their existing telco if they lose access to the spectrum they’re using today.

The best outcome for consumers is one that delivers the most stability when consumers depend on reliable mobile connectivity – and spectrum renewals is the option that will deliver this.

So I’ll conclude by coming back to the one and only question we should be asking ourselves today:

What will deliver the best outcome for communications consumers?

The one that delivers the lowest prices, the most investment in coverage and capacity, and the greatest stability and reliability.

Spectrum auctions would deliver higher prices, lower investment, and greater instability and uncertainty.