Did Icasa mess up on MTRs?

It would not surprise me if ICASA stuffed up the process... but at least they are on the right track with the MTRs.
 
I read MTN's court papers (kindly provided via dominic's link) and it seems that MTN/VC have some grounds for a challenge and that ICASA have stuffed up. Again!!
 
MickeyD said:
I read MTN's court papers (kindly provided via dominic's link) and it seems that MTN/VC have some grounds for a challenge and that ICASA have stuffed up. Again!!
Click to expand...

Care to break down the problems...?
 
koeksGHT said:
Voda and MTN are like children throwing a tantrum
Click to expand...

Not really. They have a ground to complain but also to have asymmetrical rate at 100% more expensive is anticompetitive and is worse than BEE which gives stuff away.
 
Oh look the networks are crying that they will lose money. Our rates were too expensive and now they want to cry about that being fixed.
 
Hoping they dismissed with a complementary tube of lube.. What's that saying, do unto others... Came full circle now
 
Those ICASA guys are better ping pong players than Industry Regulators.
 
qwertydudeza said:
Not really. They have a ground to complain but also to have asymmetrical rate at 100% more expensive is anticompetitive and is worse than BEE which gives stuff away.
Click to expand...

Whoa, the last thing VC & MTN should bring up is uncompetitiveness .. it's common knowledge they used to collude on pricing & their reason for introcuding high MTR rates in the first place was to make it difficult for newcomers/smaller players to enter the market. The only thing is Icasa being asooze during that time made them get away with it for so long, now they trying to tell us they were the victim? Come on that's just lame, even for those two.

MickeyD said:
Procedural unfairness - insufficient consultation with relevant roleplayers
Lack of adherence to their own review process timelines
Ignoring industry standard costing processes
Click to expand...

Is that even a sue-able thing? Pointing to Sanral and their "comprehensive public consultations over e-toll" farce.
 
Last edited:
still digesting but not seeing a case in the slightest for urgency. If the court sets aside the regulations the pricing before change in regulation applies and the companies suffer no damages they simply collect the difference.
Telkom and CellC can defeat any case for urgency by undertaking to settle the accounts on what tariff the court determines within 90 days of ruling and MTN should have costs awarded against them on attorney own client scale
 
evilstebunny said:
Is that even a sue-able thing? Pointing to Sanral and their "comprehensive public consultations over e-toll" farce.
Click to expand...
This is not the public process but their own regulations whereby they are meant to set up bilateral meetings to hammer out new MTR's and to share all relevant information. They had a meeting but effectively Cllr Stucke told them to bugger off.

dominic can expand if I'm totally missing the boat here as I did a speedread!
 
MickeyD said:
This is not the public process but their own regulations whereby they are meant to set up bilateral meetings to hammer out new MTR's and to share all relevant information. They had a meeting but effectively Cllr Stucke told them to bugger off.

dominic can expand if I'm totally missing the boat here as I did a speedread!
Click to expand...

Sanral's mandate also specifically included public consultation, not? How's this different then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter