• Tweet

Image: http://www.aiu.edu/images/telecommunication.jpg

RELATED ARTICLES

• Megaupload boss says N. Zealand police beat him
• Telecommunications company wins court battle against Telkom
• Telkom cuts 1,650 jobs
• Telkom's 8ta 'to break even in 2014'
• Telkom increases 8.ta subscribers to 1.14m

Telkom did so between 1999 and 2004, when it was a monopoly provider of telecommunications services.

The tribunal concluded that Telkom had used its upstream (closer to the point of production, than the point of sale) monopoly in the facilities market to advantage its own subsidiary in the competitive, value-added network market.

Telkom’s conduct had caused harm to both competitors and consumers, and had impeded competition and innovation.

Half the penalty was to be paid within six months of the Tribunal’s decision, and the balance within 18 months.

The Competition Commission received a complaint from the SA Vans Association and 20 other internet service providers in 2004. It then referred the matter to the Competition Tribunal.

Telkom challenged the referral in the high court.

After five years of litigation, the Supreme Court of Appeal found against Telkom in 2009 and referred the matter back to the tribunal.

The tribunal’s hearing was concluded in February, with 12 factual and expert witnesses presenting evidence.

The commission alleged Telkom refused to supply essential access facilities to independent, value-added network services (Vans) providers.

Telkom allegedly induced its customers not to deal with Vans, charged their customers excessive prices to access services and favoured its own customers by giving them a discount on distance-related charges.

Through this conduct, Telkom had sought to expand its exclusivity to services over which, in law, it did not enjoy a monopoly.

Telkom had also sought to bypass the regulator entrusted with enforcing the Telecommunications Act, in order to obtain for itself the additional protection of private law remedies.

Telkom did not deny it had acted in this way, but argued it was justified in doing so.

By providing certain value-added services, the Vans providers were engaged in illegal conduct, according to Telkom. It alleged the Vans operators had adopted a business model that effectively trespassed on Telkom’s exclusivity rights.

During the hearing, Telkom conceded that its illegality defence would fail if the tribunal were to find that Telkom’s interpretation of the regulatory framework was incorrect.

It also conceded that the facilities bought by Vans from Telkom amounted to “essential services”, as contemplated in the Competition Act.

The tribunal found Telkom refused to supply essential facilities to independent Vans providers, and had induced its customers not to deal with them.

This conduct resulted in a substantial lessening of competition in the Vans market.

Comments

• Sign in or sign up to comment

Fri May 24 16:38:26 SAST 2013 ::

Aug 7, 2012

Mtononozi

Jealous competitors
Report Abuse

Aug 7, 2012

Mbeki_2

It's NOT nearly enough for the way the scxrewed us over for phones in the past! The exco managers showed be personally fined as well AND I hope solar generators will do the same to Eskom one day !
Report Abuse

Aug 7, 2012

Lord-Have-Mercy

its should be R2billion fine, i worked for Telkom long time ago, cables were stolen and replaces in a month or two but still charge clients without service being restored
Report Abuse

Aug 7, 2012

MorenaWaPolelo

It serves them right!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Abuse

Aug 7, 2012

stokoloko

telkom deserves it bt am afraid we the customers will pay dt 449 million
Report Abuse

Aug 7, 2012

Papage

Is Telkom noy a Government company? if it is, this tells you how ignorant the Directors are and dont care what is going on, just enjoy drwing salaries, who is incharge of Telkom? Who appointed him/her?
R449milion who is going to pay that? and who is profiting here? or is State paying back to State? what a circus.
Report Abuse

Aug 7, 2012

Flemza

I don`t care how much are you fining TELKOM what I want to know is how much are we the cheated going to get back you have been finining these companies left right and centre and yet us the cheated we are getting nothing whats the use then it happened with bread nothing happened to the prize of bread , to us the marginilised this Competition Tribunal is a toothless dog , doing nothing for the robbed poor
Report Abuse

Aug 7, 2012

ABZ

wher does ths money go, to the competition commission or to government in order to build Zumaville, somebody tel me ngoku.
Report Abuse

Aug 7, 2012

Deepstick-C

tjo! Just when ANC was about to take ownership and delist this thing?
Report Abuse

Aug 7, 2012

crash

that is cool, they deserve it because the company wants everything to its self, and has more than 4000 temp employees, what a shame.
Report Abuse

Read all 11 comments