People who want a silent phone number will continue to pay $35 a year despite widespread opposition to the fees from within the industry and privacy groups.
The government last week sided with Telstra when it adopted the recommendation of a Senate committee which compelled anyone who wants a silent phone number to pay a monthly fee for it. All but one of the 19 submissions to the committee were strongly opposed to the charges.
The dissenting submissions came from heavyweights including the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the Law Institute of Victoria, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Optus and Vodafone, which described the Telstra fees as “inequitable” and a “penalty for people who chose privacy”.
Telstra, who was the lone supporter of the fee, charges its customers $2.93 per month for a silent number, whereas its main competitors Optus and Vodafone do not charge at all. Other fixed-line resellers who charge fees include: Internode ($4.00 monthly), iPrimus ($3.50), Spintel ($2.95), iiNet ($2.93) and Dodo ($2.93).
Further, customers who want their landlines removed must contact their provider to opt out. While mobile phones are not listed in directories such as White Pages, home phone customers must wait until after their phone line is connected – which may expose them to harassment – to have their numbers removed, which angers privacy advocates.
Cost of privacy
Australian Privacy Foundation board member Professor Bruce Arnold told The New Daily that the requirement for people to pay for their privacy “is really problematical”.
“Do you have to pay to shut your door? The answer is no. Why is your phone any different?” asked Professor Arnold. “The answer is that it’s a nice money earner for phone companies,” said the professor, who teaches privacy law at the University of Canberra.
Telstra promise that anyone being stalked or harassed will have their fee waived if they ask.
“We recognise some community concerns on this issue and last year we announced we would introduce a waiver of silent line fees for customers who are facing a personal safety threat,” said a spokesman for Telstra.
One Telstra customer, whose wife was being harassed over the phone, told The New Daily that Telstra failed to inform him that a new home phone automatically would be listed. The customer had been given the phone number as part of an internet bundle. When he complained, it took a further five days for Telstra to verify that his wife was being harassed and offer to waive the fee. The number was publicly available for at least nine days.
“We are living in a digital age where we are constantly told to be careful what information we make public – think Facebook, Google etc,” the man, who did not wish to be named, told The New Daily.
“And in those examples we, the consumer, are the gatekeepers of who can access that information.
“With Telstra, they just post it without your knowledge or consent and then it’s up to you to take it down .”
Government sides with Telstra
The government said regulation was unnecessary as consumers already had the option to avoid the fees.
“Developments in the telecommunications industry have largely negated the need for regulatory intervention to abolish such fees,” said a spokesperson for Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
“Importantly, access to a fee-free silent number is available to consumers. For example, Optus does not charge for unlisted numbers.”
But the Australian Privacy Foundation said that privacy right should be free for everyone.
“If you jump through the hoops, you may get a dispensation, but shouldn’t we all be in that position where we don’t have to pay?” said Professor Arnold.
The APF said removing this fee would not affect Telstra’s bottom line, or that of the telemarketers who rely on public directories.
“Other countries have gotten rid of charging [for silent numbers]. They’ve gone to an opt-in system. Their phone companies haven’t fallen over. People are still marketing happily in the US. So, the world hasn’t come to an end,” said Professor Arnold.
Telstra defends the fee by arguing that White Pages and other public directories are in the public interest, and that a small fee is necessary to deter a mass walkout on these services.
UK experience
Indeed, figures from the UK suggest many customers don’t want to be listed in the phone book. After the laws were changed to outlaw the fees for silent phone numbers, UK directories were deserted by customers. Now, the UK national directory is 66 per cent unlisted.
Telstra’s spokesman said the fee “achieves the right balance between our customers’ expectations of privacy and our regulatory obligation to produce a national telephone directory”.
The Senate committee split four to three on the question of silent line fees, with two Labor and one Greens senator producing a dissenting report calling for the levies to be prohibited.
Telstra has not increased its silent number fee since 1996 (apart from GST charges).
