Ian Reinecke and Julianne Schultz, The Phone Book: The future of Australia's communications on the line. Ringwood: Penguin, 1983.
The appearance of this lively book in early 1983 was an important intervention in the debate over the future of Australian telecommunications. Written during the last months of the Fraser government, when de-regulationist and pro-market forces rhetoric exported from the U.S. had gained considerable ground in Australia, it is strongly supportive of union struggles around work, technology and control and develops a powerful argument for the preservation of public ownership of the means of communication. Nor is its interest confined to the telephone, for two main reasons. First, new technologies are rapidly transforming the functions of the telecommunications network. No longer does it merely carry voice, but is the means by which geographically dispersed computers are linked, by which television signals are distributed between stations, by which data traffic is carried, and by which, for example, facsimile copies of The Australian are sent to Perth. The telephone itself, which apart from minor changes in design and the introduction of automatic dialling has remained virtually unchanged since its inception, will become the means for calling up displays of text on video-screens. Secondly, many of the issues about work, control, technology, and state regulation versus the 'free play of market forces' arise with equal urgency in industries other than telecommunications, particularly industries engaged in cultural production.
In late 1982 when the book was written two reports on matters of importance were prepared for the Federal government. The Davidson Report recommended, in effect, that Telecom be dismantled — in particular, that the profitable aspects of telecommunications be opened up to private enterprise and that cross-subsidisation of unprofitable (e.g. country) services be discontinued. The report adopted and endorsed the arguments put to it by Business Telecommunications Services, a consortium of large foreign and local corporations including IBM and the Packer organisation, which stood to profit from the privatisation and de-regulation of telecommunications. It rejected the argument put to it by the largest Telecom union, the ATEA, that the standard of telecommunications, as a national and public service, could be maintained only if Telecom's common carrier status were preserved. Reinecke and Schultz point out that part of the apparent appeal of the de-regulationist argument rested on a mistaken assumption about the U.S. Bell network. While it is true that AT&T is a private enterprise company, the standard of the U.S. telecommunications system, as a national and public service, is due
127 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 2:1 (1984)
to the fact that, until its break-up in 1982, AT&T was highly regulated and operated in many respects like a public instrumentality. In particular, it was required, as a condition of its virtual monopoly status, to provide various unprofitable services. De-regulation of telecommunications, as recommended by Davidson, would allow certain corporations to profit from telecommunications traffic, but would undermine Telecom's capacity to provide a high quality national and public service at reasonable cost to the user. Corporate users would benefit at the expense of individual users.
The other report was that prepared by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on subscription and cable television. Again deregulationist rhetoric was dominant. Among other things the report recommended that cable television be introduced on an entirely commercial basis. The ABC was to be excluded, there was to be a single commercial licence for each market issued for 15 years, operators were to own the reticulation system (repeating the blunder of the 50s which allowed commercial television operators to own their own transmitters, an arrangement which virtually ruled out non-renewal of licences), and for the privilege of holding a monopoly licence operators were to be subject only to minimal regulation. For example, no specific requirements regarding Australian content were laid down.
Since The Phone Book was written there has been a change of government, cable and subscription television have been put on ice, Telecom remains intact, Davidson's recommendations are gathering dust, and BTS has disbanded. It might therefore seem that the issues addressed by Reinecke and Schultz are no longer of immediate concern. That, however, would be a rash and unwise judgement. The Campbell Report into the finance industry, also highly deregulationist in character, though deferred by the Fraser government, is now being revived by the present government. Moreover, although the proposal to sell off part of Aussat to private interests was rejected by Cabinet, the satellite-owning company has been preserved as a separate entity from Telecom. As such, it is capable of being sold, wholly or in part, at some time in the future. It will also draw traffic away from Telecom and thereby has the potential to undermine Telecom's capacity to cross-subsidise its unprofitable services. In addition, since it has not been brought under Telecom as urged by the ATEA and The Phone Book, its workers cannot be covered by the ATEA, a union which has played a major part in the telecommunications debate, but by the PREI, which has taken no part in the debate. The issues with which The Phone Book deals therefore remain as urgent as ever. The de-regulationist rhetoric which it attacks is likely to surface again in the review of broadcasting standards, including local content regulations, currently being undertaken by the Broadcasting Tribunal. The central issue in both telecommunications and broadcasting is whether the industry is to be regarded primarily as a public service or as an opportunity for com-
128 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 2:1 (1984)
mercial exploitation. What the struggle over telecommunications illustrates convincingly is the crucial role of the unions, whose struggles defend not only the interests of their members but the interests of small users against those of large corporations.
Besides its concern with the issues of regulation and ownership, The Phone Book is also very informative about the new technologies and their relations to telecommunications. There is also considerable discussion of work in Telecom, especially the work of telephonists. While recognising that much work replaced by automation is tedious, the authors draw attention to work which is both interesting and provides a public service which could not be provided by machines. For instance, in country exchanges telephonists often have an enormous range of local knowledge which is readily available to callers. Along with the telephonists union, the authors contend that, rather than sacking telephonists made redundant, Telecom should explore ways of utilising their skills and knowledge to provide new services. The authors also argue for an expanded, vertically integrated Telecom which produced telecommunications equipment and thereby created jobs. With the exception of AWA, all current suppliers of telecommunications equipment in Australia are foreign owned.
The Phone Book was evidently written in a hurry, a consequence of the objective of producing a book capable of intervening in an urgent struggle. There are as a result some unnecessary repetitions, but it is always clear, informed and lively. It views the telephone throughout in a positive light, as an instrument which has come to be taken for granted in industrial societies as a normal domestic installation along with gas, electricity and running water, and as an instrument essential to the functioning of the modern office. One of its central concerns is to show that the telephone can only be taken for granted as a domestic appliance if the currently fashionable deregulationist rhetoric is resisted. It does not deal with the telephone as a menace which rings in the middle of discussions, showers and sleep, which dominates the working lives of secretaries and typists, and which drives administrators, academics and doctors to their weekend phoneless hideaways. But this lies outside the scope of the book.
Bill Bonney teaches at NSWIT.
New: 21 October, 2019 | Now: 13 November, 2019