MTN could face R2,5bn fine

Good show, but wasn't TELKOM also fined way back when, for something that they never ended up paying, arguing that ICASA is the regulatory body not the CC? ?
 
Vigilante justice on a corporate scale. Nice.

Seems pretty straightforward: Order Cell C to take down those centers and make MTN pay what's owed.

As for the fine, it's hard to justify such a big amount, but the fact is that they broke the law by disregarding ICASA's designations.
 
" MTN took Icasa to court, where the regulator admitted it hadn’t properly applied its mind "


It has a mind? When did this happen?
 
A reduced interconnection fee of 6c/minute is charged for calls from CSTs whereas the commercial interconnect rate is R1,25/minute in peak times and 77c/minute off-peak.
Click to expand...

So is R0.06 cents the actual cost of interconnection? Versus the R1.25 we pay now......................................?

That is a huge difference and just demonstrates how we are being ripped off.
 
Telkomhater said:
So is R0.06 cents the actual cost of interconnection? Versus the R1.25 we pay now......................................?

That is a huge difference and just demonstrates how we are being ripped off.
Click to expand...
almost - although there seems to be conflicting information i have heard that the CST interconnection rate is actually commercially viable ;)

@ duncan - are you aware of the tribunal actually imposing any of these 10% of revenue monster fines? all that comes to mind is the SAA slap on the wrist...
 
dominic said:
almost - although there seems to be conflicting information i have heard that the CST interconnection rate is actually commercially viable ;)

@ duncan - are you aware of the tribunal actually imposing any of these 10% of revenue monster fines? all that comes to mind is the SAA slap on the wrist...
Click to expand...

No, I can't think of a single example. As a colleague of mine said to me this afternoon, it's like being told by a judge that you've been sentenced to death ... but then being told that the sentence has been suspended.
 
Maybe some clarification should be done here.

1. The inter-connect charge of R 0.06 would be subsidized as it's in under populated areas.
2. CellC goes and does it's business in a well populated area
3. The Subsidy is not applied no more
4. CellC goes and cry Foul

Now that the picture is little more clear maybe a example would help.

I ask Government for a grant as I'm unemployed. They say ok deal. 1 Year later I get caught doing a 9-5 and earn R 10 000.00 a month.

What do you think will happen in a case like that ?

Should Government now be fined 10% of their turnover because I failed my part of the agreement and still claimed while I was working ?

:rolleyes:
 
Pitbull said:
Maybe some clarification should be done here.

1. The inter-connect charge of R 0.06 would be subsidized as it's in under populated areas.
2. CellC goes and does it's business in a well populated area
3. The Subsidy is not applied no more
4. CellC goes and cry Foul

Now that the picture is little more clear maybe a example would help.

I ask Government for a grant as I'm unemployed. They say ok deal. 1 Year later I get caught doing a 9-5 and earn R 10 000.00 a month.

What do you think will happen in a case like that ?

Should Government now be fined 10% of their turnover because I failed my part of the agreement and still claimed while I was working ?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You arguement is flawed because it should look like this:
1. The inter-connect charge of R 0.06 would be subsidized as it's in under populated areas.
2. CellC asks ICASA if areas x, y, and z are classified as under populated areas.
3. ICASA says "Yes they are"
4. CellC does business in areas xy and z
5. MTN says we disgree that those areas are under populated
6. ICASA says "Jah maybe we didn't apply our minds well enough"
7. MTN refuses to pay the Subsidy
8. CellC goes and cry Foul which they have every right to do since ICASA is at fault not them.
 
Telkomhater said:
You arguement is flawed because it should look like this:
1. The inter-connect charge of R 0.06 would be subsidized as it's in under populated areas.
2. CellC asks ICASA if areas x, y, and z are classified as under populated areas.
3. ICASA says "Yes they are"
4. CellC does business in areas xy and z
5. MTN says we disgree that those areas are under populated
6. ICASA says "Jah maybe we didn't apply our minds well enough"
7. MTN refuses to pay the Subsidy
8. CellC goes and cry Foul which they have every right to do since ICASA is at fault not them.
Click to expand...

Ok I hear you.

So in a court ruling ICASA says oops we made a mistake and now MTN needs to pay :confused:
 
Telkomhater said:
You arguement is flawed because it should look like this:
1. The inter-connect charge of R 0.06 would be subsidized as it's in under populated areas.
2. CellC asks ICASA if areas x, y, and z are classified as under populated areas.
3. ICASA says "Yes they are"
4. CellC does business in areas xy and z
4a. Vodacom does exactly what Cell C coes
5. MTN says we disgree (with Cell C only) that those areas are under populated
6. ICASA says "Jah maybe we didn't apply our minds well enough"
7. MTN refuses to pay the Subsidy (to Cell C only but does pay it to Vodacom)
8. CellC goes and cry Foul which they have every right to do since ICASA is at fault not them(and MTN is not applying the same principle to Vodacom that they applying to Cell C
Click to expand...

Oops sorry I left out a few lines (highlighted in red)
Source for corrections - http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Cellular/822.html

“This is being done by withholding both commercial and CST interconnection fees due to Cell C - while at the same time not taking similar action against Vodacom’s CST rollout which mirrors Cell C’s own CST roll-out. Notwithstanding that, MTN continued to pay Vodacom interconnection fees due it,” Cell C said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pitbull said:
Maybe some clarification should be done here.

1. The inter-connect charge of R 0.06 would be subsidized as it's in under populated areas.
2. CellC goes and does it's business in a well populated area
3. The Subsidy is not applied no more
4. CellC goes and cry Foul

Now that the picture is little more clear maybe a example would help.

I ask Government for a grant as I'm unemployed. They say ok deal. 1 Year later I get caught doing a 9-5 and earn R 10 000.00 a month.

What do you think will happen in a case like that ?

Should Government now be fined 10% of their turnover because I failed my part of the agreement and still claimed while I was working ?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of what's happening.

Cell C were completely within the bounds of the law to have those CSTs where they were. MTN had no right to take on the role of judge and jury and decide to disregard the law and charge Cell C full rates. Rather they should have gone to ICASA if they felt those CSTs were unfairly placed.

It's vigilanteism on MTN's part.
 
Pitbull said:
Does that mean that the CellC and Vodacom CST's are at the same spot right next to each other ?
Click to expand...

I presume that that is what "mirror" means

while at the same time not taking similar action against Vodacom’s CST rollout which mirrors Cell C’s own CST roll-out.
Click to expand...

But then surelyCell C did everything above board according to this:
“As part of Cell C’s license obligations, amongst other things, we were required to install 52, 000 Community Service Telephony (CST) lines in under-serviced areas. These areas were defined broadly as those having less than 10% fixed line penetration as approved for in our license.”

“We then took this definition to the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) which mapped these areas. The resultant maps are endorsed by ICASA and we roll-out our CST network in these regions in accordance with this mapped information.” said Zeona Motshabi, Chief Corporate Officer at Cell C.
Click to expand...
 
Thanx for the info.

I'm not defending anyone or anything. I'm just trying to get some facts correct in my way of thinking. But it looks like time will tell as to what the out come will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X