Unveiling its decision on BTC’s
call termination charges, the Utilities Regulation & Competition Authority
refuted the newly-privatised carrier’s contention that reducing its mobile
interconnection levy would only benefit foreign communications operators.
Under the Bahamas’ Receiving Party Pays regime for the cellular market, in which BTC has a monopoly until effectively,termination rates are levied only on incoming international calls that conclude on the company’s network.
As a result, BTC argued that the cellular call termination fee has no impact on the domestic Bahamian market, and lowering the rate would only benefit foreign carriers.
The newly-privatised carrier said a reduction would cost it $1-$1.5 million a year in wholesale revenues from these foreign carriers and, given that it had to pay them for outgoing calls, BTC would be placed at a “competitive disadvantage”.
URCA, though,This is my favourite sites to purchase those special pieces of buy mosaic materials from. disagreed with BTC’s notion that a reduction in wholesale cellular interconnection fees would only benefit foreign carriers. This was because “alternative operators in the Bahamas may wish to compete with BTC on bringing international calls into the Bahamas”.
To do so,Western Canadian distributor of ceramic and ceramic tile, these calls would need to “transit... from the international gateway” and terminate on BTC’s cellular network in the Bahamas. This would incur a cellular termination rate, and “to enable alternative operators to compete fairly”, BTC needed to set ‘cost-oriented’ cellular interconnection charges and offer them “on a non-discriminatory basis”.
Noting that the latter “facilitates competition”, URCA added: “Absent cost-oriented termination charges, alternative local operators may not be able to replicate BTC’s pricing offer for the full service. This is because of BTC being able to reflect any difference in the mobile termination rate and its actual cost of terminating the call in its price to the foreign operator.
“However,Our technology gives rtls systems developers the ability. the alternative local operator will not be able to do so, as the termination charge forms a fixed input to its pricing decisions. As such, in order to match BTC’s offering, the alternative local operator would have to be able to provide the transit element at lower cost than BTC in order to compete on price with BTC. In URCA’s view, this unfairly distorts competition for these services.”
BTC’s traffic volumes and economies of scale, URCA added, meant it was unlikely rivals could compete with it on transit prices.
Elsewhere, URCA also knocked aside concerns expressed by Internet Protocol Solutions International over the fact rival operators had to pay BTC both a call termination/interconnection fee and transit fee.
The regulator said the two charges reflected different services, with interconection dealing with call termination. Transit, on the other hand, referred to BTC transporting calls between two different interconnection points, and URCA said: “As such, these charges cover different conveyance services offered by BTC and thus, may attract separate charges.”
Explaining further why it had decided to switch to a ‘benchmarking’ approach for determining BTC’s interconnection fees, as opposed to its preferred ‘actual costs’ route, URCA said the carrier’s 2011 accounting separation data - the third set to become available - were still “not sufficiently reliable” enough to provide accurate costs for each service provided.
“There remain concerns about some of the key input data, in particular traffic volumes. Further, the unit cost results of several key services continue to fluctuate significantly, relative to those contained in previous submissions,This is my favourite sites to purchase those special pieces of buy mosaic materials from.” URCA added.
Unlike Mr Premkumar Dhumal, the defeated Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh who greeted his opponent, not one leader of the Congress had the decency to congratulate Mr Narendra Modi, who rode back to power for the third time in Gujarat. Instead, several of them advanced the most convoluted arguments to run down the winner and to deny him victory. The biggest joke on results- day was of course the statement of Union Minister for Finance P Chidambaram. He proclaimed with glee that since the Congress had improved its tally (by two seats) and since the BJP had not crossed 117 — the number of seats it held in the outgoing Assembly — the Congress was
“a clear winner in Gujarat”. The results, according to him, showed how exaggerated the claims of the BJP were. Also, by some strange reasoning which he alone seems to possess and understand, Mr Chidambaram claimed that while the BJP had won the State, large sections of the population in Gujarat “felt left out”. The Congress argues that when the BJP is in power, the religious minorities get a raw deal. On December 20, the Finance Minister claimed that many more communities felt disenfranchised — “Saurashtra feels felt behind; the tribals feel left behind”. From where did he get this gyan? How on earth can any party bag 115 seats (constituting 62 per cent) in the 182-member Assembly after excluding Saurashtra,Find detailed product information for howo spare parts and other products. the tribals and the minorities in a State like Gujarat? The hollowness of this argument is borne out by the fact that, while Saurashtra accounts for 54 seats, as many as 26 seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribes in this State, and there are over 30 seats in which the Muslim vote counts for more than 20 per cent.
But, Mr Chidambaram was not alone. There were several others who were on this delusory trip and in denial. Union Minister for Human Resource Development Kapil Sibal declared most ungraciously that, though Mr Modi ran a 3D campaign, he had secured only a 2D victory. These remarks stem from the Congress’s skewed sense of victory and defeat in Gujarat. It believes that since the BJP did not cross 117, it was “defeated”, although one needs just 92 seats for a clear majority in the Gujarat Assembly. Also, by the same token, since the Congress had 59 in the previous House, any increment would constitute a “victory”. The persistence with which so many Union Ministers kept using this strange yardstick to assess the electoral outcome in that State is indicative of the growing trepidation in the Congress about having ‘NaMo’ (the acronym that Mr Modi’s fans have given him) as its main opponent in 2014. They are already conceding that he is a formidable rival. Contrary to Mr Chidam- baram’s claims, the BJP did well in every region of the State and secured support from every social segment. Despite the Keshubhai Patel factor, it was way ahead of the Congress in Saurashtra. Yet, Mr Chidambaram says Saurashtra feels left out!
Under the Bahamas’ Receiving Party Pays regime for the cellular market, in which BTC has a monopoly until effectively,termination rates are levied only on incoming international calls that conclude on the company’s network.
As a result, BTC argued that the cellular call termination fee has no impact on the domestic Bahamian market, and lowering the rate would only benefit foreign carriers.
The newly-privatised carrier said a reduction would cost it $1-$1.5 million a year in wholesale revenues from these foreign carriers and, given that it had to pay them for outgoing calls, BTC would be placed at a “competitive disadvantage”.
URCA, though,This is my favourite sites to purchase those special pieces of buy mosaic materials from. disagreed with BTC’s notion that a reduction in wholesale cellular interconnection fees would only benefit foreign carriers. This was because “alternative operators in the Bahamas may wish to compete with BTC on bringing international calls into the Bahamas”.
To do so,Western Canadian distributor of ceramic and ceramic tile, these calls would need to “transit... from the international gateway” and terminate on BTC’s cellular network in the Bahamas. This would incur a cellular termination rate, and “to enable alternative operators to compete fairly”, BTC needed to set ‘cost-oriented’ cellular interconnection charges and offer them “on a non-discriminatory basis”.
Noting that the latter “facilitates competition”, URCA added: “Absent cost-oriented termination charges, alternative local operators may not be able to replicate BTC’s pricing offer for the full service. This is because of BTC being able to reflect any difference in the mobile termination rate and its actual cost of terminating the call in its price to the foreign operator.
“However,Our technology gives rtls systems developers the ability. the alternative local operator will not be able to do so, as the termination charge forms a fixed input to its pricing decisions. As such, in order to match BTC’s offering, the alternative local operator would have to be able to provide the transit element at lower cost than BTC in order to compete on price with BTC. In URCA’s view, this unfairly distorts competition for these services.”
BTC’s traffic volumes and economies of scale, URCA added, meant it was unlikely rivals could compete with it on transit prices.
Elsewhere, URCA also knocked aside concerns expressed by Internet Protocol Solutions International over the fact rival operators had to pay BTC both a call termination/interconnection fee and transit fee.
The regulator said the two charges reflected different services, with interconection dealing with call termination. Transit, on the other hand, referred to BTC transporting calls between two different interconnection points, and URCA said: “As such, these charges cover different conveyance services offered by BTC and thus, may attract separate charges.”
Explaining further why it had decided to switch to a ‘benchmarking’ approach for determining BTC’s interconnection fees, as opposed to its preferred ‘actual costs’ route, URCA said the carrier’s 2011 accounting separation data - the third set to become available - were still “not sufficiently reliable” enough to provide accurate costs for each service provided.
“There remain concerns about some of the key input data, in particular traffic volumes. Further, the unit cost results of several key services continue to fluctuate significantly, relative to those contained in previous submissions,This is my favourite sites to purchase those special pieces of buy mosaic materials from.” URCA added.
Unlike Mr Premkumar Dhumal, the defeated Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh who greeted his opponent, not one leader of the Congress had the decency to congratulate Mr Narendra Modi, who rode back to power for the third time in Gujarat. Instead, several of them advanced the most convoluted arguments to run down the winner and to deny him victory. The biggest joke on results- day was of course the statement of Union Minister for Finance P Chidambaram. He proclaimed with glee that since the Congress had improved its tally (by two seats) and since the BJP had not crossed 117 — the number of seats it held in the outgoing Assembly — the Congress was
“a clear winner in Gujarat”. The results, according to him, showed how exaggerated the claims of the BJP were. Also, by some strange reasoning which he alone seems to possess and understand, Mr Chidambaram claimed that while the BJP had won the State, large sections of the population in Gujarat “felt left out”. The Congress argues that when the BJP is in power, the religious minorities get a raw deal. On December 20, the Finance Minister claimed that many more communities felt disenfranchised — “Saurashtra feels felt behind; the tribals feel left behind”. From where did he get this gyan? How on earth can any party bag 115 seats (constituting 62 per cent) in the 182-member Assembly after excluding Saurashtra,Find detailed product information for howo spare parts and other products. the tribals and the minorities in a State like Gujarat? The hollowness of this argument is borne out by the fact that, while Saurashtra accounts for 54 seats, as many as 26 seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribes in this State, and there are over 30 seats in which the Muslim vote counts for more than 20 per cent.
But, Mr Chidambaram was not alone. There were several others who were on this delusory trip and in denial. Union Minister for Human Resource Development Kapil Sibal declared most ungraciously that, though Mr Modi ran a 3D campaign, he had secured only a 2D victory. These remarks stem from the Congress’s skewed sense of victory and defeat in Gujarat. It believes that since the BJP did not cross 117, it was “defeated”, although one needs just 92 seats for a clear majority in the Gujarat Assembly. Also, by the same token, since the Congress had 59 in the previous House, any increment would constitute a “victory”. The persistence with which so many Union Ministers kept using this strange yardstick to assess the electoral outcome in that State is indicative of the growing trepidation in the Congress about having ‘NaMo’ (the acronym that Mr Modi’s fans have given him) as its main opponent in 2014. They are already conceding that he is a formidable rival. Contrary to Mr Chidam- baram’s claims, the BJP did well in every region of the State and secured support from every social segment. Despite the Keshubhai Patel factor, it was way ahead of the Congress in Saurashtra. Yet, Mr Chidambaram says Saurashtra feels left out!
沒有留言:
張貼留言