The only sensible thing for people to do in the Optus-Telecom election is not to vote. Of course, ideologues may wish to vote on sentiment, like many do in Federal elections. Those who favour public-sector, highly unionised provision of services and dinky-di Australian industry working behind a tariff wall to exclude the rapacious multi-nationals will vote Telecom. Those who believe in vigorous international competition, individualism and service will vote Optus.
Their votes will be quite off target; neither company remotely fits those stereotypes. However, ideological prejudice is as good a basis as any to vote in this ballot. That people will vote that way, however, puts the kybosh on both Keynesian and economic rationalist belief that people will act according to their best interests.
What is more surprising is that the Government and its telecommunications regulatory authority Austel imagine that even the rest of us non-ideologues should take this ballot seriously or that we will follow the course of human behaviour set out in economics books and work out which company will provide us the best deal according to service, cost and benefit.
The reason I am not voting is quite simple. It is not because I am unaware of the issues or how the ballot is to be run. That is the easy part. Most people are aware the ballot is limited to non-local calls; that upon election you can still make calls using the other company by dialling a four-digit code; that voting ends on August 15; and that not voting means you stay with Telecom, but it will not count in the 65% threshold required to prevent a re-ballot.
All of that part, put out by Austel, has been in plain English, straightforward and easy to follow. It has been like the material put out by the Australian Electoral Commission before federal elections. Ninety-eight per cent of the horses find out where the water is. The rest are donkeys and will vote accordingly.
The difficult bit is the misleading and complex material put out by the competitors in the election (both political and telephonic).
Having seen claim and counter-claim and hundreds of combinations of calls and prices, I am confused. Call Italy after 12am for $1 a minute. Have 16 international and STD numbers specially logged and get a discount for each one called more than eight times a month after 6pm or weekends. Then there are the asterisks which direct you to tiny type at the bottom saying it applies only to 29-day months, or some such.
Being confused does not mean you are unintelligent or lazy. I dare say that dozens of numerate auditors who have mastered the mysteries of double-entry accounting, learned lawyers who can translate Section 256D of the Tax Act, and professors of nuclear physics who are well versed in the theory of relativity are in the same boat as me. We are confused.
And, quite frankly, I intend to stay confused. I could become unconfused by spending several hours on a computer spreadsheet program to work out which computer company offers the best price for my permutations of monthly phone calls. But it is simply not worth it.
The difference between them is likely to be less than 5 per cent. For most people that is about $30 or $40 a year. Given these two companies’ propensity to change their intricate price structures almost daily, the equation becomes even less profitable for the consumer. (No doubt it is different for businesses with large phone bills and plenty of accounting down-time.)
The rational thing in these circumstances is to say: “”My time is more valuable than the return gained by the hard slog of sorting out the competing prices.”
It is some irony, therefore, that the introduction of competition into Australian telecommunications was at the behest of the forces of economic rationalism, yet the very first foray at the consumer level is conducted on a fundamentally irrational premise: in this ballot it costs more to make an informed choice than the choice is worth. Until that changes, let’s keep them both on their toes with the threat of further ballots.
One of the rules of this ballot is that neither the parties nor Austel is allowed to publish voting or participation figures during the ballot. My guess (and it can only be a guess) is that by August 15 the turnout among non-business subscribers will be pitifully low.