|
Telkom's insistence on continuing its legal
battle against cellular least-cost routing (LCR) providers
despite an out-of-court settlement with Vodacom clearly demonstrates
the monopoly's double-standards and dark aged inclination
to adopt predatory profiteering practices, according to the
Communications Users Association's Ray Webber.
"How
can Telkom possibly expect anyone to take their legal bid
against LCR providers seriously if they have settled on the
same matter with Vodacom, of which they own 50%," he
said this week.
LCR
providers currently bypass Telkom's network by essentially
plugging a cellphone directly into a company PABX. The PABX
then utilises this cellphone line when users wish to phone
other cellphones - a practice that currently saves business
consumers millions each year.
Telkom
initially instituted legal proceedings against MTN, Vodacom
and other LCR players in 2000, arguing that least-cost routing
is an illegal circumvention of its network. "Since that
time, Telkom has conveniently settled with affiliated Vodacom,
but still wishes to continue legal proceedings against other
players," says Webber. ITWeb's Phillip de Wet recently
reported that the terms of the agreement between Telkom and
Vodacom had been kept secret, but that it seemed to allow
Vodacom to continue providing least-cost routing while Telkom
drives for the same solution offered by other cellular suppliers
to be declared illegal.
"It
should be clear to anyone that Telkom simply wants to return
to a protective legal framework where they are entitled to
extort profits in any way they deem fit. This attitude flies
in the face of any sector 'liberalisation' and comes, once
again, at the expense of the consumer," says Webber.
According
to Webber, Telkom utilises flat rate charges when users call
from a standard telephone line to cellular phones. "It
costs consumers the same to make a 15 second call from a Telkom
line to a cellphone as it does to make a 59 second call from
the same phone. However, LCR providers bill by the second
- saving their users money on almost every call," he
says.
"Telkom is clearly displeased that users are bypassing
their network and wishes to protect themselves. From the outside,
it looks like this is a battle between the monopoly and LCR
suppliers, however, in reality this is a battle against Telkom's
own business clients. There is simply a better way for business
to make calls to cellular phones and this impacts on Telkom's
profits."
Webber
further argued that there is very little difference between
using a stand-alone cellphone to make calls to other cellular
phones or to plug the same solution into a PABX. "It's
something the courts will need to decide on, but I can't see
how there is a difference. Anyone can legally use their cellphone
to make a call. Telkom are arguing that when this same call
is routed via an internal PABX, it now somehow becomes illegal."
The case was heard in the Pretoria High Court at the end of February, but has been postponed until October 6 this year. Webber says that lawyers representing Vodacom were "conspicuous by their absence".
|
