Cellular17.05.2013

WASPA battle brewing over Cell C decision

By Staff Writer

The Wireless Application Service Providers’ Association’s (WASPA’s) decision to not lodge a complaint with the Competition Commission against Cell C, despite its members voting overwhelmingly in favour of this complaint, has caused unhappiness in the organisation.

At the WASPA AGM in March 2013, the majority of the body’s members voted in favour of lodging a complaint against Cell C for giving preferential treatment to Blue Label Telecoms owned Cellfind on bulk SMS pricing and a cross-network A2P reply path.

On 3 April 2013 WASPA sent e-mail communication to its members, informing them that “the WASPA Mancom believes that there is now no need to pursue lodging a Competition Commission complaint against Cell C” after the mobile operator “committed to providing a level playing field to all its WASPs”.

This did not go down well with some WASPs who feel that a complaint was necessary to send a message to all mobile operators that they must treat all WASPs as equals.

WASPA battle with members brewing

The issue is not going away, and many WASPs feel that WASPA has not served its members’ needs in this regard.

Many WASPs feel that the WASPA management did not have a good enough reason or mandate from its members to override the AGM vote. One industry player said “the situation stinks”.

BulkSMS CEO Pieter Streicher said that many WASPs remain unhappy, and that the issue should go back to WASPA members for a second vote if circumstances have changed.

Pieter Streicher

We made the best decision considering the circumstances: WASPA

WASPA said that after its members gave it a mandate to pursue a formal Competition Commission complaint against Cell C, discussions between WASPA and Cell C lead to Cell C offering the same pricing and services to all WASPs.

“This removed the concerns that had led to the proposed complaint to the competition authorities,” WASPA said.

“Given this, and after having sought professional legal advice, WASPA’s Management Committee decided that pursuing a formal complaint with the Competition Commission would no longer be a productive use of WASPA’s resources.”

WASPA said that while it has the authority to override the decision of its members, it was not the case here.

“There was a change in the situation which led to the proposed complaint to the competition authorities. Given this, the Mancom decided not to pursue the issue, especially in the light of legal advice,” said WASPA.

Vote us out if you are unhappy: WASPA management

Asked what the unhappy member can do regarding the situation, WASPA said that they can vote in a new leadership.

“If members, for any reason, are unhappy with the leadership of the organisation, they are fully entitled to vote in new leadership,” said WASPA.

Full WASPA responses

Why did WASPA s management decide to not lodge the complaint against Cell C?

During the March WASPA Annual General Meeting, held on March 14th, alleged anti-competitive actions by Cell C in the WASP sector were discussed at length. WASPA’s members gave WASPA’s elected Management Committee a mandate to pursue a formal complaint with the Competition Commission to address these allegations.

In the two weeks following the AGM, discussions between WASPA and Cell C lead to Cell C offering the same pricing and services to all WASPs, removing the concerns that had led to the proposed complaint to the competition authorities.

Given this, and after having sought professional legal advice, WASPA’s Management Committee decided that pursuing a formal complaint with the Competition Commission would no longer be a productive use of WASPA’s resources. It is, after all, difficult to sustain a complaint if the circumstance which triggered that complaint are no longer valid.

Did WASPAs management ask its members to vote on the issue again before making the decision? If not, who not?

WASPA’s Constitution commits the elected Management Committee to engage in any activities which will further the mandate of the organisation.

There was, in the first place, no requirement for WASPA’s Management Committee to put the decision to lodge a complaint with the Competition Commission to a vote. However, owing to the significance of such a step, and the fortuitous timing of WASPA’s AGM, the Mancom felt that it would be helpful to seek input from WASPA’s general membership at the AGM.

Since, by the end of March the reasons for pursuing a competition complaint were no longer valid, WASPA’s Management Committee did not feel that it was necessary to go back to WASPA’s members for a further vote before deciding not to proceed with a complaint.

WASPA’s members were, however, made fully aware of the decision taken by the Management Committee, and given an opportunity to comment. The majority of the comments received from members were in support of Mancom’s decision, although there were also comments from a minority of members who favoured proceeding with a complaint notwithstanding the change in circumstances.

Does WASPA management have the authority to override WASPA members’ vote on this issue?

Yes, although it should be noted that WASPA’s Management Committee did, in any case, not “override” a vote.

There was a change in the situation which lead to the proposed complaint to the competition authorities. Given this, the Mancom decided not to pursue the issue, especially in the light of legal advice.

What can unhappy WASPA members do about the WASPA management decision?

WASPA’s Management Committee is elected by WASPA’s members on an annual basis. If members, for any reason, are unhappy with the leadership of the organisation, they are fully entitled to vote in new leadership.

Members also have the option to call for a vote of no confidence in any office bearer, should they wish to do so.

Finally, there is nothing stopping any individual WASPA member from lodging their own complaint with the competition authorities. Such a complaint does not have to be lodged by an industry association; any individual or company is entitled to lodge a complaint, should they wish to do so.

Can WASPA members expect WASPA s management to override its members’ vote again in future?

As noted above, WASPA’s Management Committee did not “override” a vote.

There was a change in the situation which lead to the proposed complaint to the competition authorities. Given this, the Mancom decided not to pursue the issue, especially in the light of legal advice.

As an organisation, WASPA respects the diverse opinions of its members. Not all members will necessarily always agree on the most appropriate course of action, and occasionally WASPA will make a decision which some members disagree with.

In this particular case, although there were a small number of dissenting opinions, WASPA’s Management Committee is confident that the majority of members supported the decision not to proceed with a competition complaint, given the change in circumstances following the March AGM.