Submitted by Hallam Hope – Consumer Advocate and Managing Director Caritel
Hallam Hope
A Reference Interconnection Offer (RIO) might not mean a whole lot to many people but it can have a significant impact on new services and the extent to which there is competition in communications.
LIME is at the centre of a RIO consultation and a series of documents on services such as overseas calling. Companies have to interconnect so that customers of one company may communicate with those of another, for example Digicel, TeleBarbados, LIME and Blue Communications, which is offering a competitive long distance card to make calls.
In addition, the new charges could also relate to new services, since they also involve interconnection and payments between these companies to terminate calls. Essentially, LIME is trying to get the best deal for itself while other parties want to ensure that the decisions taken by the Fair Trading Commission do not disadvantage them financially and their ability to compete and offer better rates where possible.
In March the FTC received submissions in response to LIME’s proposals from my business consultancy, CARITEL, TeleBarbados, Digicel and Blue Communications. Well, on Friday we all received what was submitted by the parties as well as the responses of LIME.
A public consultation will be held on June 19th when only these parties will have a chance to re-iterate their positions, provide any additional information on the issues raised or raise new related issues. In the case of the latter the Commission has given all parties until June 5th, a day over one week, to provide a written summary and submit to all parties.
Now if this isn’t highly unreasonable I don’t know what is.
We are expected in our case with limited resources to read all the documents, do research and respond by then. But this is how the Fair Trading Commission goes about its business while refusing to provide a lot of basic information when it is requested to do so.
16 responses so far ↓
Hallam Hope // May 31, 2009 at 6:29 PM
The RIO and submissions
Having spent my Sunday reviewing the submissions on a new Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) as submitted by Cable & Wireless (see earlier post for some background) two things are being objected to in the main.
Digicel, Blue, TeleBarbados and CARITEL are all saying that the existing rates which Cable & Wireless wants to keep in place are extremely high, are not cost-based nor are they justifable.
Some of these “objectors” for want of a better word or non-Cable & Wireless companies are also asking the Fair Trading Commission to reject providing any decision on a proposed Access Deficit Charge.
An Access Deficit Charge may be implemented to help a company which is providing a service at below-cost with funding to cover those costs. They are usually contributed to by companies but have been found to be ineffective and in some cases have inhibited competition. We at CARITEL, Blue and Digicel have argued that the FTC should dismiss any approach on this score. My own initial review of the documents which I have in hard copy form is that the C&W submission is weak and has holes but like everything one has to be able to know how and where to punch or find the holes. It’s the usual self-serving, anti-competitive approach which some of us have become familiar with.
David // May 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM
A little while ago BU added its support to the issue of the RIO as well.
General Lee // May 31, 2009 at 8:31 PM
I wonder if Chris has or could obtain a copy of this C&W proposal.
The Reference Interconnection Offer And Consumers « Barbados … | Barbados today // May 31, 2009 at 9:44 PM
[...] View original here: The Reference Interconnection Offer And Consumers « Barbados … [...]
Christopher Halsall // May 31, 2009 at 11:29 PM
@General Lee et al…
Yes, I have all the language wrt this “review”.
Plus a lot more that no one else does, as well.
(Please remember that I *wrote* the TSD and EQA/IDA Policies, along with the VoIP Policy.)
May we live in interesting times…. (ROTFL.)
David // May 31, 2009 at 11:39 PM
What are you saying Chris?
Do we detect some misdirected hostility?
Christopher Halsall // May 31, 2009 at 11:43 PM
@David: “Do we detect some misdirected hostility?
None at all. I’m sorry if it came across that way.
What I’m saying is I’m privy to some correspondence which even the current Ministers (plural intentional) responsible, or the FTC itself, might not be aware of.
But they all should (and will) be soon….
David // May 31, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Whew1
We can now rest comfortably even though the obvious question gnaws at our innards. What impact will this info have NOW when we have had hearings (telco) in the PAST?
Christopher Halsall // May 31, 2009 at 11:55 PM
@David: “What impact will this info have NOW when we have had hearings (telco) in the PAST?
LOL…
Like I said… May we live in interesting times….
JC // June 1, 2009 at 11:17 AM
CH what are you hiding? Are we going to be shocked and (my saying) vex is shite!
Interesting times indeed!
Christopher Halsall // June 1, 2009 at 11:19 AM
@JC…
The information I have is confidential. I cannot share it with anyone except the Government (who already have it, but probably don’t know).
David // June 1, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Chris
So we take it you are on the Team?
JC // June 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM
@ CH
When can we (the people) get or be allowed to see this information?
Christopher Halsall // June 1, 2009 at 7:07 PM
@David…
I’m advising *a* team. Not the one you probably assume…
@JC…
Probably never, I’m afraid. At least, not until a FOI Act actually exists and is functional.
Because of my lines of work, confidentiality is *critically* important to myself and my clients.
Even if I don’t agree that something should be confidential, if it is judged to be so I will never release the information without permission.
General Lee // June 2, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Did anyone hear or read about this “above ground” i.e. mainstream media?
Should we then not assume that this is just another pappy show for the interested and nothing significant would have been accomplish when it is finally adjourned?
mash up & buy back // June 3, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Chris Halsall
What do you think about Lime/cable & wireless policy of calling via automated service to tell you that your due date has gone after 3 weeks e.g. the 21st of the month?
Although I know they are trying to get receivables in early but we are supposed to be charged on a monthly basis,so technically your due date should be after 4 weeks and not the 3 weeks period Lime uses,not true?
In effect what I am asking is do you have any concerns about their billing process?