Icasa must stop guessing over call termination rates

[QuintonB]

Icasa must stop guessing

A panel of telecommunications industry insiders has shared their views on what is needed from Icasa’s next round of call termination regulations

 

[Hamish McPanji]

It would help if the operators were more forthcoming with their actual costs

 

[Arthur]

It would help if the operators were more forthcoming with their actual costs

It probably would.

But if they don't want to disclose that info - and they should have every right to keep it secret - then ICASA should proceed according to its lights and powers as provided in the applicable legislation. And the MNOs will just have to live with that.

It is of course moot whether the Acts require such disclosure. This question should be resolved with speed so things can progress. ICASA should test it in the courts with urgency.

We can't continue being frozen in a legal and administrative limbo.

 

[noxibox]

They had to guess because MTN and Vodacom refused to provide the required data. Obviously these two had hoped they could block the whole process from proceeding, then threw a tantrum when ICASA went ahead anyway. The regulations and process should be amended such that if the operators refuse to provide required information then ICASA can make up whatever figures they please.

 

[Paul Hjul]

It probably would.

But if they don't want to disclose that info - and they should have every right to keep it secret - then ICASA should proceed according to its lights and powers as provided in the applicable legislation. And the MNOs will just have to live with that.

It is of course moot whether the Acts require such disclosure. This question should be resolved with speed so things can progress. ICASA should test it in the courts with urgency.

We can't continue being frozen in a legal and administrative limbo.

The problem is that the MNOs want a legal and administrative limbo because that allows for absolute regulatory capture which is in their interests.
The sooner a straight forward identification of the fact that "costs based" is inherently impossible to achieve to any sufficiently satisfactory degree without rendering the industry a bureaucracy with the regulator being the guiding hand the sooner seeing the actual problem for what it is arises. The CTR issue is at its heart the reality that communications network providers have to preserve a commercial relationship with each other which involves using each others infrastructure and that the providers are dependent on each other investing in infrastructure (it is the last part that seems to be often forgotten in the telecommunications and shipping industries). Now as a general practice in commerce colleagues will charge each other a wholesale price which is tied directly to the cost to the providing company but this practice arises unforced and as a result of mutual benefit. But if you start compounding cost based line items or are the originator of the service such that

Now the CTRs should be looked at for what they are, they are the formula by which it is determined which technologies and operators will subsidized by the others. So long as there is high asymmetry between the FTR and the MTR your fixed line last mile (with respect to backhaul it becomes a little more interesting) is prejudiced and mobile benefits - moreover because the definition of mobile and fixed are badly constructed ... - with consequences that a most evident in South Africa: the voice revenue off the copper last mile plummeted and we now have the line access hold up (which also can very easily be broken). The simple reality is that the BAUT signed up for an asymmetry to force competition line back in the day (high asymmetry between new telecommunications entrants and the incumbent (Telkom) are needed to accomplish market liberalization ...) and upon the entry of CellC embarked on one of the most patent anti-competitive abuses imaginable (and it is an abuse rather than practice because it is only possible as a result of a regulatory duopoly). There is a mess created in the regulatory space and it needs to be untangled and put to a judicious solution that allows for the market to do its thing once the dust settles [think AT&T], in my view the judge who heard the CTR review actually did a massive service to all concerned and if the parties are unable to act by September and get things on track it really would be a failure of leadership of the highest order.

Sadly though until shareholders and the financial sector wake up and smell the coffee and start asking why the leadership of the MNOs are putting their investments at greater risk this isn't going to change. There are solutions that can move things forward and break the leg jam but frankly this isn't an ideas problem it is a crisis of leadership. All that the current nonsense is doing is driving uncertainty but that has been the case for at least the last 18 months.

As for testing the courts with urgency, one course open to ICASA in the event that last weeks disclosure are insufficient is to approach the Court for relief that seeks to compel the MNOs to come to the party with information pending which they are interdicted from adjusting their termination rates.

 

[Arthur]

And here endeth the Lesson.

Amen.

Exhortation to ICASA: So now let us spring to action and stop rocking up at the office accomplishing nothing. We need more crateo and less bureau!

 

[Paul Hjul]

And here endeth the Lesson.

Amen.

Exhortation to ICASA: So now let us spring to action and stop rocking up at the office accomplishing nothing. We need more crateo and less bureau!

However for any solution to work the MNOs need to be prepared to properly engage. There are solutions and quite a few of them, I have my own personal favourite, but until there is a recognition that regulatory capture will not last forever the principal agent problem will persist.

There was a fairly decent first step workshop on facilities leasing a few months ago that will hopefully be repeated.

 

[Arthur]

Sometimes bureaucrats forget that the word is a compound of "bureau" (office), and "crateo" (rule, govern).

If the MNOs don't come to the party/office, then give effect to the second word. Rule! Issue the appropriate fatwa as Caesar empowers you to do. And let the MNOs obey.

What is left to negotiate? Just make the damn ruling, demmit!!

 

[Paul Hjul]

the methodology of CTRs is open to negotiation - until it is changed of course the mangled current methodology must persist.

 

[Crystal Web]

Sometimes bureaucrats forget that the word is a compound of "bureau" (office), and "crateo" (rule, govern).

If the MNOs don't come to the party/office, then give effect to the second word. Rule! Issue the appropriate fatwa as Caesar empowers you to do. And let the MNOs obey.

What is left to negotiate? Just make the damn ruling, demmit!!

The problem is if the regulatory framework is lacking from the outset then you have a situation where there is no legal position from which to "rule." And Icasa have nothing but guesswork to go with, and we're back to the courts every second month when they attempt to "rule."

 

[Arthur]

What an unholy cock-up. I admire your patience.

Yet another example of poor Caesar having to grow 99 999 arms and legs (laws and bureacrats) to manage all this crap.

I wish he'd give more attention to protecting the persons and property of citizens from harm. He seems to be severely distracted by these arcane things and forgetting his main mission. First things first. Back to my same ol' drum.

 

[krycor]

I think ICASA should just push forward with the last rates published and, on the same day issue fines or court proceedings for failure to comply with investigations with respective bullish networks. Simply put.. Play the MNO game the way they like with many court cases such that they go to court and lose one way or another + in public and still lose out on regulations. Why they haven't done this from the offset is astounding as we all knew the networks would not just accept it. It's like a game of chess sue before so that so that they tied up to stop process

 

[Arthur]

Seems like some threads on MyBB.

 

[dominic]

They had to guess because MTN and Vodacom refused to provide the required data. Obviously these two had hoped they could block the whole process from proceeding, then threw a tantrum when ICASA went ahead anyway. The regulations and process should be amended such that if the operators refuse to provide required information then ICASA can make up whatever figures they please.

no - they had to build a proper costing analysis model, this is standard practise in the regulation of termination rates.....so it is not about them not having the info, it is about not using the tools they should have to make an informed assessment of costs

 

[Paul Hjul]

no - they had to build a proper costing analysis model, this is standard practise in the regulation of termination rates.....so it is not about them not having the info, it is about not using the tools they should have to make an informed assessment of costs

had ICASA built a costing model would the MNOs not have challenged said model ...

 

[dominic]

icasa have the power to do so and, as long as it is defensible, a degree of discretion in how they do so. the MNOs are disadvantaged by not wanting to share / not being trusted to share truthfully resulting in the regulator using an accepted costing methodology to approximate cost

 

[MickeyD]

icasa have the power to do so and, as long as it is defensible, a degree of discretion in how they do so. the MNOs are disadvantaged by not wanting to share / not being trusted to share truthfully resulting in the regulator using an accepted costing methodology to approximate cost

Does Telkom still provide ICASA with this data? For TM as well?

 

[dominic]

Does Telkom still provide ICASA with this data? For TM as well?

not 100% sure as there is some confusion re the old coacam regs
under the 2010 call termination regs ICASA were meant to set out regs on reporting required from Telkom (in fixed market) and Voda and MTN (mobile) but simply failed to do so
TM will only be the general information requests which ICASA makes as they do not have enhanced significant market power