Commsrisk has previously reported on the establishment of a pilot project for a national SMS SenderID registry by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), but follow-up news confirms the intention to block unregistered SMS messages in the long term. A press release from Australia’s Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland MP (pictured) asserts that the national government will fund the operation of an SMS SenderID registry for its first four years. AUD10mn (USD6.8mn) of government expenditure has been budgeted for the launch and maintenance costs of the registry during those years. Leading Aussie comms providers Telstra, Optus, TPG Telecom and Pivotel are already involved in the pilot, which will invite other organizations to participate based on whether their messages have previously been spoofed.
The announcement is another sign that the Australian authorities follow a different rationale for protecting phone users than that adopted by some other English-speaking countries. Australia has often been a leader in devising and implementing consumer protection controls, but others have already created registries for bulk senders of SMS messages. It is also important to compare the funding of consumer protection controls in Australia and other countries. There is a growing body of evidence that a boom in regulatory compliance technology, also known as ‘regtech’, is generating disproportionate profits for private sector monopolies by levying stealth fees that receive little or no scrutiny. Telecoms appears to be especially prone to this phenomenon. Australia has a refreshingly transparent approach compared to many other countries, with the ACMA retaining hands-on responsibility for new consumer protection controls that are implemented. This simplifies the task of ensuring the public receives good value for money.
The Australian approach to paying for consumer protection is the polar opposite to that found in the USA, where it is virtually impossible to determine how much is being spent on similar activities. US authorities rarely execute consumer protection controls on behalf of phone users; they merely impose obligations which are then funded and managed by private sector entities. These regulatory compliance businesses get their income by charging telcos for the services they provide. This may create the illusion that taxpayers are receiving additional protection for free. The reality is that phone users will cover the costs through increased bills. This encourages a vacuum in responsibility, with nobody having proper visibility or exercising adequate oversight over the way money has been spent.
Americans already have reason to be wary of corruption in the telecoms sector. Insufficient scrutiny has encouraged decades of wastage and abuse of government subsidies for low-income phone users (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Instead of learning the lesson that for-profit firms need to be subjected to rigorous external audits, the US keeps handing potentially lucrative monopolies for nationwide consumer protection controls to private sector firms that receive minimal oversight. The downside to this approach should have come into focus when the proposed takeover of the USA’s SMS registry for 10-digit long codes resulted in a xenophobic campaign to block the sale on national security grounds from a rival consortium that wanted to acquire the registry.
Robust and cost-effective consumer protection for phone users will only be delivered in the long run through stable and productive partnerships between the public and private sectors. The Australian thinking on this issue is further evidenced by the government committing to the creation of a National Anti-Scam Center (NASC) with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). This is already being described as an “innovative, world-leading public-private sector partnership to disrupt and stop scammers in Australia”. The NASC is likely modeled on Singapore’s Anti-Scam Command Office which came into service in March 2022 and claims to partner with more than 80 institutions within Singapore and abroad.
Governments have to lead the fight against lawlessness, but only the private sector has the knowledge and skills to protect the public from scams. Giving a blank check to a for-profit business and telling them to protect consumers will always be a mistake because it reduces the chances that the money will be spent well. Government employees will also be prone to inefficiency without the results-oriented discipline that can only come from specialists working in the private sector. Partnerships between the public and private sector where both sides have a stake in ensuring success, as epitomized by Australia’s new SMS registry, are the best way forward.
