BTC DECRIES URCA DECISION ON CABLE BAHAMAS AS ‘OUTRAGEOUS’

Nassau, The Bahamas, February 7, 2010. The Bahamas Telecommunications Company Ltd. (BTC) today called on URCA to reverse its ‘outrageous’ concession provided to Cable Bahamas Ltd (CBL) that allows CBL until 2013 to fully comply with the regulatory requirement to fully separate its cable TV offering from its internet offering.

“We find it impossible to find even a remotely digestible justification for this ruling on the part of URCA.  It is wholly inconsistent with URCA’s stated mandate in respect of customer choice and its precedents in respect of the treatment of companies with significant market power (SMP) within the Bahamas”, stated Marlon Johnson, BTC Vice President of Marketing, Sales & Business Development.

“Simply put, it is outrageous!  What is happening is that Cable Bahamas has been granted an additional two years to ensure that any one of its customers can buy internet services from that company without also having to buy cable television services .” 

“At the same time, the regulator some two years ago insisted that BTC separate its internet service from basic phone service, a requirement that BTC complied with.  Why the double treatment? Why must those consumers who ONLY want internet service be forced to buy cable television service from Cable Bahamas, while at the same time BTC is forced to provide its internet and telephone services separate and apart.  It is an egregious decision.”

“While URCA accepts that Cable Bahamas maintains SMP in the provision of basic internet service, the regulator has willingly been complicit in permitting Cable Bahamas to use this position to force its customers to buy a television service that the customer may not want.  This is not fair to those consumers who only want to buy a single service, nor does it help develop the market place for broadcast television.  Hard as we try, we cannot find a single solitary angle that would give justification to this action,” continued Johnson.

Johnson went on to note that it is BTC’s opinion that CBL has been allowed to get off very lightly while URCA continues to impose a heavy handed approach in the regulation of BTC.

CBL and URCA have agreed on an arrangement where the company is deemed to be compliant with its Obligations despite providing a target where only 20% of its customers in New Providence and 10% in Grand Bahama will have their broadband services untied from pay television thereby not allowing these customers to choose an alternative broadband or pay television service provider. 

According to BTC, this ”puzzling arrangement” between URCA and CBL which provides Cable Bahamas until December 2013  to complete the untying of its broadband services from its pay television simply does not encourage competition in the provision of pay television and broadband services in the short to medium term, which BTC considers to be URCA’s prime mandate. 

Further, BTC notes that it is troubled by the lack of transparency with respect to the targets and timelines negotiated between CBL and URCA relative to the untying of broadband from pay television. “It is our view that the provisions in the regulatory regime suggest that BTC and the Other Licensed Operators should have been given the opportunity to assess the impact of the generous concession granted to CBL with respect to the untying of its broadband service from pay television while it was still in the draft stage.   Why is it that BTC and other operators in the market did not have an opportunity to respond to these incredibly generous allowances to the dominant player in the broadband and broadcast television market?”

“BTC is simply fed up with this double standard being exhibited by URCA in its dealing with BTC vis-à-vis Cable Bahamas.  We both have reasonably been deemed dominant players in the various segments of our market, and with that has come the Significant Market Player [SMP] designations and obligations.  And while BTC has expended significant resources to date in its efforts to comply with its SMP Obligations, it seems pretty clear to us that CBL has been given a free ride, despite the fact that they had and have fewer obligations to satisfy the regulatory when compared to BTC.”,  Johnson stated.

The company considers that the rules are being applied disproportionately and that CBL is being allowed to enter new markets despite not satisfying its SMP Obligations.  As far as BTC is concerned, CBL has not satisfied its SMP Obligations and should not be allowed to advance into other markets until they do.

- Source: BTC