Telecommunications (Annual Charge) Determination 2025

The central concept is the chargeable holding. A chargeable holding is a set of numbers held by the same carriage service provider that all have the same digit length and the same service type. Service type is defined as exempt, normal, or reduced. Exempt service type numbers are those listed in section 8 and have a multiplier of zero: they generate no charge. Reduced service type numbers include numbers specified for use with incoming only international services, internal network services, internet of things services, and testing services. Their multiplier is 0.01. Normal service type numbers are everything else and carry a multiplier of 1. This three‑tier classification determines the cost exposure of each holding.

The BNC amount (base number charge amount) is the product of the base number charge, the multiplier, and 10 raised to the power of (10 minus number length). The base number charge is the single dollar figure that, when plugged into the formula for every holding across every provider, makes total revenue equal to $60 million. The Newton‑Raphson method is specified because the equation cannot be solved algebraically in closed form due to the $100,000 cap on the BNC amount for each holding. The cap prevents any single holding from being charged more than $100,000, regardless of how many numbers it contains. That creates a nonlinearity: if the uncapped BNC amount exceeds $100,000, the effective charge per number is capped, which affects the total revenue and therefore the solved base number charge. The ACMA must publish the base number charge on its website after calculation.

The census date is the day in April determined under subsection 18(2) of the Act. The instrument does not set a specific date; the ACMA will determine it annually. Only numbers held at the beginning of the census date are counted. A provider cannot reduce its charge by transferring or cancelling numbers after that date. The Revenue Target of $60 million is fixed in the instrument; it is not adjusted for inflation, for changes in the number of providers, or for regulatory costs. That means that if the total pool of numbers shrinks, the per‑number charge for normal numbers must rise to keep revenue constant. Conversely, if the pool grows, the per‑number charge falls. This fixed‑target design imposes a zero‑sum dynamic: one provider’s exemption or use of reduced‑type numbers increases the base number charge that all other providers pay.

The plan references throughout are to the Telecommunications Numbering Plan 2025, with a fallback to any replacement plan. This means the current instrument depends on the definitions in that plan for terms such as community service, geographic number, internet of things service, and access code. If the plan is replaced, the instrument automatically refers to the corresponding provisions of the replacement plan, preserving continuity.

The direct targets are carriage service providers that hold telephone numbers. Under the Telecommunications Act 1997, a carriage service provider is any person who supplies carriage services to the public using a telecommunications network. This includes the large incumbents (Telstra, Optus, TPG Telecom, Vocus, Aussie Broadband) and also smaller resellers and mobile virtual network operators that obtain numbers from the numbering plan. Any provider that holds at least one number at the census date is liable to pay an annual charge for that holding.

The impact is not uniform across providers. Providers that hold large volumes of short numbers, such as 1300, 1800, and other access codes, face disproportionately high charges because the exponent in the BNC formula amplifies short‑number cost. A 4‑digit access code, for example, carries a factor of 10^6, making the BNC amount $1 million times the base number charge before the $100,000 cap applies. Since the cap limits the holding to $100,000, such providers benefit from the cap relative to what they would pay without it. Conversely, providers holding only 10‑digit geographic numbers face a factor of 1, meaning each number’s charge equals the base number charge, which is likely to be under a dollar given the $60 million target and the large number of numbers in use.

Providers that hold reduced‑service numbers (e.g. internal network numbers, IoT numbers during the transitional exemption, testing numbers) pay only one hundredth of the normal charge, giving them a material cost advantage. This creates an incentive to classify numbers into reduced categories where possible, though that classification depends on the numbers being “specified for use” with those services in the Numbering Plan. The exemption for community service numbers and geographic numbers further reduces the burden on providers serving rural or public‑interest functions.

The instrument also indirectly affects end users. Providers will recover their number charges through retail pricing. Because the charge is a fixed overhead per number, providers have an incentive to minimise their number holdings and to favour longer numbers or exempt categories. This may affect the availability of short, memorable numbers or of geographic numbers that are not subject to the same per‑number cost. The fixed $60 million revenue target means that if one provider obtains a large block of exempt numbers, the remaining providers pay higher per‑number charges, potentially distorting competition in retail markets.

The primary duty on a carriage service provider is to pay the annual charge determined under this instrument. The charge is calculated by the ACMA after the census date using the formula and the solved base number charge. The provider does not self‑assess the base number charge but must ensure that the ACMA has accurate information about its holdings at the census date. Under the Act, providers are obliged to supply information about numbers held, and failure to do so can result in penalties. The instrument itself imposes no additional record‑keeping or reporting duties; those arise under the Act and the Numbering Plan.

Providers have the right to reduced charges for certain categories of numbers. Reduced service type numbers (incoming only international, internal network, IoT, testing) attract a multiplier of 0.01, reducing the per‑number charge to one per cent of the normal charge. This right is conditional on the numbers being properly specified for those uses under the Numbering Plan. If a provider misclassifies a number or uses a number for a different purpose than its specification, the ACMA may reassess the holding as a normal service type and impose the higher charge.

Providers also have the right to exemption for the numbers listed in section 8. That list is exhaustive. It includes community service numbers, geographic numbers (except those mentioned in subsection 22(1) of the Act, which probably refers to numbers that are not geographic but are treated as such for charging), international signalling point codes, mobile network codes, and various access codes for international services, interconnect and routing services, virtual private network services, incoming only international services (four or five digit access codes), and public safety services. The exemption is automatic once the number meets the definition; the provider does not need to apply for it.

Providers of IoT numbers have a temporary right: a 12‑month exemption from commencement. After that period, IoT numbers become reduced service type numbers with a 0.01 multiplier, not exempt. This transitional measure gives IoT providers time to adjust their business models.

There is no explicit right to challenge the ACMA’s calculation of the base number charge in this instrument. A provider could seek judicial review of the determination if it were made on an incorrect basis or if the ACMA misapplied the Newton‑Raphson method. The instrument does not create a merits review mechanism; any challenge would be under administrative law.

This instrument does not itself set penalties. The penalty for non‑payment of the annual charge is found in the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act 1997. Under section 23 of that Act, if a charge is not paid by the due date, the amount becomes a debt due to the Commonwealth and may be recovered in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Act also provides for late payment penalties, likely calculated as a percentage of the unpaid amount for each day it remains unpaid. The precise rate is not in this instrument.

The ACMA has enforcement powers under the Telecommunications Act 1997. It can issue infringement notices for failure to pay or for providing false or misleading information about number holdings. Civil penalty provisions may apply for serious non‑compliance, with penalties of up to $250,000 for individuals and $1.25 million for bodies corporate under the current penalty unit regime. These penalties are not in this instrument but flow from the parent Act.

The most likely enforcement scenario is that the ACMA calculates the charge based on the information it holds about number allocations. If a provider disputes the calculation, it must pay first and then seek reimbursement or challenge later, because the charge is a debt due. Non‑payment can lead to suspension or cancellation of number allocations under the Numbering Plan, which would be commercially disastrous for a provider that relies on those numbers to offer services.

Enforcement does not require the ACMA to prove intent. If a provider incorrectly classifies numbers as reduced or exempt and the ACMA later determines they are normal service type, the provider will be liable for the shortfall plus any late payment penalty. Given the complexity of the classification definitions, inadvertent misclassification is a real risk.

The instrument does not contain a mechanism for the ACMA to waive or reduce the charge in hardship cases. The $60 million revenue target is fixed, so any waiver for one provider would increase the base number charge for all other providers. This creates a strong disincentive for the ACMA to grant relief.

This instrument is made under subsections 20(1) and 22(2) of the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act 1997. That Act is the primary legislation that imposes the annual charge and provides the framework for its calculation. This instrument is the subsidiary legislation that sets the amounts and methodology for a particular financial year. It must be read together with the Act, particularly section 20 (which allows the ACMA to determine the amount of charge) and section 22 (which allows the ACMA to determine different amounts for different kinds of numbers).

The instrument also relies heavily on the Telecommunications Numbering Plan 2025. Many key definitions (community service, geographic number, internet of things service, access code, internal network service, etc.) are taken from that plan. If the plan is replaced, the instrument automatically applies the corresponding provisions of the replacement plan. This means that a change to the Numbering Plan can indirectly change the charging treatment of certain numbers without amending this instrument.

The instrument interacts with the Telecommunications Act 1997 through the concept of a carriage service provider. The definition of that term does not appear in this instrument but is in the Act. The instrument also references section 455(1) of that Act, which is the power to make the Numbering Plan. The instrument’s automatic reference to a replacement plan ensures coherence with any future numbering regime.

In the broader regulatory landscape, the annual charge sits alongside other telecom fees such as the Telecommunications Industry Levy (under the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Act 2012) and the Universal Service Obligation levy. These are separate charges on different bases. The numbering charge is specifically for the administration of the numbering system, not for broader industry funding.

The instrument repeals the Telecommunications (Annual Charge) Determination 2014. Any references in other instruments or contracts to the 2014 determination will need to be updated. Transitional provisions do not appear in this instrument; the repeal is immediate upon commencement.

State and territory laws are not engaged. Numbering is a Commonwealth responsibility under the Constitution’s telecommunications power. The instrument has no interaction with consumer protection laws, privacy laws, or competition law, though the underlying usage of numbers may be subject to those laws.

This instrument is self‑contained; it does not amend any other instrument. It replaces the Telecommunications (Annual Charge) Determination 2014, which it repeals in full. The 2014 determination had been in force for over a decade. The key changes from the 2014 determination are not listed in the source text, but can be inferred from the instrument itself and from the numbering plan update. The 2014 determination referenced the earlier numbering plan (probably the Telecommunications Numbering Plan 2015 or an earlier version). The 2025 determination updates all definitions to the Telecommunications Numbering Plan 2025. It also introduces a specific multiplier for internet of things services (0.01) and a 12‑month transitional exemption for IoT numbers, which suggests that IoT numbers were either not separately classified or were classified differently under the 2014 regime.

The $60 million revenue target is stated directly in the instrument. Whether that target is the same as under the 2014 determination is not stated. If the target has changed, that would materially affect the base number charge. Similarly, the $100,000 cap may have been carried over or adjusted. The instrument does not provide a table of changes.

Future amendments will be made by the ACMA using the same legislative power. Because this is a legislative instrument, it is subject to disallowance by either house of Parliament within 15 sitting days after tabling. Any amendment would be registered on the Federal Register of Legislation and published. The instrument provides that references to other instruments include those instruments as in force from time to time, so changes to the Numbering Plan or the Act automatically flow through without requiring amendment to this determination.

The instrument commenced on the day after registration, which under current practice means it would have started in late March 2025. The census date is in April 2025, so the charge will apply to numbers held on that date. The transitional IoT exemption runs for 12 months from commencement, expiring in March 2026.

The source text does not record any litigation concerning this instrument. Because it only commenced in 2025, it is too recent for any court to have considered it. However, its predecessor, the 2014 determination, may have been the subject of judicial review or administrative appeals. No such cases are mentioned, but potential grounds for challenge could include the ACMA’s use of the Newton‑Raphson method (if it were applied incorrectly) or the classification of numbers under the Numbering Plan.

The formula’s reliance on a numerical method that produces a single solution could be challenged if the ACMA’s implementation does not converge or if multiple solutions exist. In theory, a provider could argue that the resulting base number charge is arbitrary or that the ACMA failed to exercise its power properly. However, the Act gives the ACMA broad discretion to determine the amount, and courts typically defer to technical determinations by expert regulators.

Another potential litigation avenue is whether the exemption for geographic numbers is consistent with the Act’s charging provisions. Section 22(1) of the Act is mentioned in section 8(1)(b) of the instrument as carving out certain numbers from the exemption. If a provider disputes that a particular number is a “geographic number” as defined in the Numbering Plan, it could seek judicial review of the ACMA’s classification.

No High Court or Federal Court decisions are referenced in the instrument. The litigation history for this specific determination is non‑existent at the time of writing. Future challenges are possible if a provider believes it has been overcharged due to an error in the census data or the calculation method. The instrument does not provide an internal merits review, so any dispute would proceed via judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 or the common law.

The exponent in the BNC formula is a trap for providers holding short numbers. A 4‑digit number has 10^(10‑4) = 10^6 or 1,000,000 as a multiplier. Even if the base number charge is only $0.90, the uncapped BNC amount is $900,000 per number, well above the $100,000 cap. The provider will pay the cap for that holding, but must realise that the cap applies per holding, not per number or per provider. If the provider holds 100 different 4‑digit holdings, each holding can be capped at $100,000, producing a total charge of $10 million, despite the numbers being very short.

The Newton‑Raphson method is opaque to non‑mathematical readers. The ACMA will publish only the resulting base number charge, not the iteration steps or the census data used. Providers cannot independently verify the charge without knowing the holdings of every other provider, which is commercially sensitive. This creates a trust‑but‑verify problem. Any error in the ACMA’s calculation could go undetected until too late.

The classification of numbers into service types depends on the Numbering Plan. A number may be “specified for use” with a particular service only if the plan says so. Providers cannot self‑declare a number as a reduced service type; they must have obtained the number from the appropriate block. If a provider uses a number from a normal block for an internal network, the holding remains a normal service type and attracts the full charge. The plan’s specifications must be checked carefully.

The census date is in April, but the exact day is determined by the ACMA. Providers must have accurate records of all numbers held at the beginning of that day. A number transferred or cancelled after that date is still chargeable for the year. Conversely, a number acquired after the census date is not chargeable until the next year. This creates a timing incentive: providers may want to delay acquisitions until after the census date.

The transitional IoT exemption is only 12 months. Providers deploying IoT numbers should plan for the charge after March 2026. The charge will then be at the reduced rate (0.01 multiplier), not exempt. Failure to budget for this could cause a significant cost increase.

The multiplier for reduced service types is 0.01, not zero. Even with the reduction, a provider holding a large number of internal network numbers at 5 digits will still pay: for base number charge $0.90, the BNC = $0.90 * 0.01 * 100,000 = $900. Multiply by number of numbers. This is not trivial.

The instrument exempts geographic numbers but carves out “a number mentioned in subsection 22(1) of the Act”. That subsection likely refers to numbers that are not “geographic” in the ordinary sense but are treated as such for charging purposes. Providers must examine the Act’s subsection carefully.

Compliance begins with knowing exactly which numbers the provider holds on the census date. The provider should maintain an up‑to‑date register of all allocated numbers, including their length, the service type under the Numbering Plan, and the specification block. This register should be reconciled with the ACMA’s allocations at least monthly.

Before the census date, the provider should classify each number into one of the three service types: normal, reduced, or exempt. The classification must be based on the Numbering Plan’s specifications, not on the provider’s intended use. If a number is from a block designated for incoming only international services, it is a reduced service type even if the provider temporarily uses it for something else. Conversely, a number from a normal block cannot be classified as reduced even if used for an internal network.

The provider must group numbers into chargeable holdings: each holding must contain only numbers of the same digit length and same service type. The provider should calculate the AOC for each holding using the formula, but only after the ACMA publishes the base number charge for the year. The provider cannot calculate the final charge until that figure is known. However, the provider can estimate the charge using the previous year’s base number charge as a proxy, noting that the actual charge will vary depending on changes in the total number pool.

For holdings with short numbers (e.g. 4 or 5 digits), the BNC amount will almost certainly exceed $100,000. The provider should not rely on the uncapped formula but should cap the AOC at $100,000 per holding. For holdings with longer numbers (e.g. 10 digits), the BNC amount will likely be less than $100,000, so the cap is irrelevant.

The provider should review the list of exempt numbers in section 8 and ensure that any numbers that qualify are segregated into separate chargeable holdings. For example, geographic numbers should not be mixed with normal numbers in the same holding, or the entire holding may be classified as normal and lose the exemption. The provider should create separate holdings for each exempt category.

For IoT numbers, the provider must track the expiry of the 12‑month transitional exemption. After that date, IoT numbers should be moved to a reduced service type holding. The provider should budget for the charge from the 2026‑27 year onward.

The provider should also verify that the ACMA’s published base number charge was correctly calculated. While independent verification is difficult without access to the full census data, the provider can use the published charge to compute the implied total number of normal‑equivalent numbers and compare it with industry‑wide estimates. If the charge seems anomalous, the provider should request clarification from the ACMA and, if necessary, seek legal advice on challenging the determination.

Payment must be made by the due date specified under the Act. The provider should set aside funds in advance, as the charge may be substantial for holders of short numbers. Non‑payment can lead to debt recovery and loss of number allocations, which is far more costly than the charge itself.

Finally, the provider should monitor any amendments to this instrument or to the Numbering Plan. A change in the plan could reclassify numbers from exempt to normal, dramatically increasing the provider’s liability. The provider should subscribe to the ACMA’s notifications and review the Federal Register of Legislation regularly.