Cell C versus MTN
At the public hearings hosted by ICASA in Johannesburg yesterday, Cell C reiterated its position on the definition of an “underserviced area” and the roll-out process of its community service telephones (CSTs).
As part of its licence obligations, Cell C was required to rollout 52 000 CSTs in under serviced areas by 2008.
“Cell C has not only met this target two years ahead of deadline but exceeded it,” says Zeona Motshabi, chief corporate officer of Cell C.
“We turned a licence obligation into an entrepreneurial opportunity by promoting small business development and the creation of job opportunities to communities in some of the country’s most disadvantaged areas. Furthermore we have also delivered on affordable telephony as was envisaged by policy when our licence was issued.
To date, Cell C has established more than 116 000 CST lines, creating employment opportunities over 9,100 CST owners.
Motshabi says Cell C’s rollout map was based on the primacy of Universal Access, which includes equal access and affordability.
MTN is however not happy with Cell C’s CST rollout. MTN claims that certain of Cell C’s CSTs do not comply with the definitional requirements in Cell C’s licence and should not to be regarded as CSTs for interconnect purposes.
The interconnect rate for CSTs are significantly less that the standard interconnect rate, and MTN feels that Cell C is abusing the CST system to benefit financially.
MTN has, for some time, refused to make payment to Cell C of any interconnect fees, and has simultaneously contended that Cell C is indebted to MTN in an amount far in excess of what it owes Cell C.
Cell C however says that for the first time in South Africa, the widespread availability of affordable telephony has provided historically disadvantaged communities with simple and cost-effective communications.
“While these accomplishments are precisely what the policy ambitions of Universal Access aimed to achieve, they have not been welcomed by one of our competitors.
“They have also asserted that what we have done in achieving these goals is not only unwelcome, but have questioned our interpretation of an underserviced area. They have sought to penalise Cell C financially for the achievement of these goals by claiming that they have financially been disadvantaged and have sought to meet our offerings of affordable and accessible telephony not with competitive offerings of their own, but in the courts of law.
“Whilst our competitors cannot illustrate any disadvantage which they have suffered as a result of the rollout of CSTs, by contrast, hundreds of thousands of consumers have benefited tremendously from that rollout. This is something that we are very proud of.
Cell C further claims that the incorrect interpretation of the Joffe Judgement by MTN, which forms the basis of their argument, was dispelled by Cell C in its presentation to ICASA today.
“In our view, ICASA’s role is to achieve the goals of Universal Access to the benefit all South Africans. We believe CST is at the heart of this and we trust that open fair and non-discriminatory access will prevail in this process” Motshabi concludes.
Cell C versus MTN – give your view
Loading ...